Obama’s Treasury Secretary threatened Rating Agency about U.S. credit downgrade

I wrote about this last year, well after the Department Of Justice initially filed suit against S&P in February. And as you might recall, the DOJ’s lawsuit was chockablock with staggering hypocrisy all on its own (h/t HotAir).

But if that move smelled like political retribution back then, it absolutely reeks of it now.

(via Reuters) – Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner angrily warned the chairman of Standard & Poor’s parent that the rating agency would be held accountable for its 2011 decision to strip the United States of its coveted “triple-A” rating, a new court filing shows.

Harold McGraw, the chairman of McGraw-Hill Financial Inc , made the statement in a declaration filed by S&P on Monday, as it defends against the government’s $5 billion fraud lawsuit over its rating practices prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

McGraw said he returned a call from Geithner on Aug. 8, 2011, three days after S&P cut the U.S. credit rating to “AA-plus,” and that Geithner told him “you are accountable” for an alleged “huge error” in S&P’s work.

Worst lawsuit ever? “Woman kills her 3 kids, then seeks $$$ from Wrongful Death Settlement”

We’ve mentioned ludicrous lawsuits before, but this one just might top the list.

From last month, courtesy of the Times Union:

A mentally disturbed suburban New York woman who drowned her three young children in a bathtub in 2008 wants a cut of $350,000 in wrongful death settlements obtained by the children’s fathers, attorneys said…

Is it just me, or does this smack of the old joke about chutzpah, where the kid kills his mother and father, and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan?

Tragically, this isn’t a joke:

Crime is Crime

A terrible crime took place in our home today. Part of a beloved animal’s face was violently torn away, including one eye. His guts were left all over the floor at the foot of the stairs. Was it a vicious act of hate? An accident? A misunderstanding?

Does it matter?  Our granddaughter’s feline BFF is permanently disfigured, whatever the motive behind the attack.

Tigger after cosmetic surgery. Pre-surgery photos have been omitted as too upsetting for most audiences.

I’m not sure which of our two furry family members is responsible for this brutal assault, although I have my suspicions. My mind reels with questions:

• If the canine perpetrator is brought to justice, shall we charge him or her with a hate crime, since the victim was a member of the cat family, historic enemies of dogs?
• And could it be proven?
• If so, should the penalty be more severe?

Mr. Virtual President: “Get the Government out of the Marriage business, completely…”

A very short, and very wise, opinion on the entire DOMA decision from the one-and-only Bill Whittle, speaking as his alter-ego, Mr. Virtual President.

I’m completely in agreement with Bill here: this isn’t an argument for or against traditional marriage, or any other kind. It’s that Government has once again intruded into an area where it should have no opinion whatsoever. By allowing the Federal Government to redefine marriage to reflect what a certain segment of society WANTS it to be, we’ve taken another step down the path towards an all-powerful State, with that State able to re-define society according to its whims.

There’s only one winner when that happens: the State.

Obama and the W.A.R.N. Act – “Crime Pays”

There has been almost NO coverage on the following topic. I’d say that I could explain it, short (well, short by MY standards) and sweet…but, there’s simply too much to it, and we all deserve to know the FULL story.

—–

Usually, when you commit a crime and get caught, …there are consequences. This is straight out of ‘Social Contract 101’: YOU break the law; YOU pay the fine; YOU serve the time.

Except….if you’re the current Administration.

President Obama’s team has given the defense industry permission to not only break the law, but is telling them that even if they get fined for doing so, YOU, the American Taxpayer, will pick up the tab.

Only, in addition to this king-sized “freebie” for employers, there’s a much more sinister side to the issue.

—–

Have you ever heard of the WARN Act?  Probably not, based on the absolute dearth of news reports on it. It is the “Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act“, which requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notification to affected employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings, or mass layoffs if they are reasonably foreseeable.  Makes sense, right?

Eyes, but cannot See

“The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision.”  -Helen Keller

—–

I just heard about this article last night and ….I’m waaaay confused.

Here’s the scoop from the Sacramento Bee:

The U.S. Justice Department announced Wednesday that it and the National Federation of the Blind have reached a settlement with the Sacramento Public Library Authority to supply e-book readers for blind people.

The settlement resolves allegations that the library violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by using “inaccessible” Barnes & Noble Nook electronic readers in the library lending program.

The settlement agreement calls for the library not to acquire any more e-readers that exclude blind people, who need features such as text-to-speech functions or the ability to access menus through audio or touch options.

—–

Before I comment on this, my lawyers have asked me to state for the record: “No one here has anything against anybody who is blind, deaf, mute, tall, short, red-haired, skinny, squinty, furry, or smells funny” (…ok, I may be fibbing about that last one).

All set? On we go.

This is an actual case (which was just settled), brought by the Department of freakin’ Justice about Kindles, Nooks and assorted E-Readers? Seriously? THIS is what they’re doing instead of “investigating” Fast And Furious? This is why they dropped the charges against the New Black Panther Party from the 2008 election? To allow them the time necessary to sue….the LIBRARY?

Two words: Ri. Diculous.

Adding to the dichotomy between what the DOJ should be doing and what they evidently are doing is: isn’t the Public Library, ..well, …Public? Meaning: aren’t they largely funded by our tax dollars? So isn’t this basically one arm of the government suing another one? And we’re on the hook to pay for ALL of it? You could almost say it’s inconceivable.

And another question: what if I’m blind AND deaf? A talking Kindle wouldn’t do ME any good then. In order to not discriminate against me at that point, the libraries (all of them, remember, not just some) would have to go purchase BRAILLE E-Books. Sure, they only exist conceptually right now, but why would that stop Big Daddy? It’s not as if the government has never set standards which are physically impossible before this.

I get that everyone should have reasonable access to everything. But the key word is “reasonable”. Everyone already has access to the libraries, for free, and every book within. Also, in most libraries they already have a plethora of services for the visually impaired. I will further posit that every single book in the library is likely not available on E-Readers. So what then? Should those books be taken off the shelves until they eventually make it into Nook, version 9.0?

The library was merely trying to add a new technology for their patrons, and they’re vilified for it. Next time someone questions how too much government stagnates innovation, you might want to bring up this example.

The EPA, DOJ, and virtually every other government agency seem to have a conspiratorial approach when dealing with the general population (and now even each other). I realize that “conspiratorial” may be too loaded a term for some folks, so you may substitute “totally-hive-minded” if you’d prefer.

I’ll ask you: do you think this was the biggest hot-button issue facing us today? Does every facet of our life need the government’s “wise intervention”? I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic when I say: Every time another government ‘edict’ is announced, it always seems to cost money. A LOT of money.

Our money.

That’s probably just a coincidence, though.

What they SAY vs. what they DO

Was listening to Mark Belling sub for Rush yesterday, and he mentioned an American Thinker piece which I found amazing. Let’s see if you agree.

By Jean-Claude Groulx at the American Thinker:

For all the bluster of Obama, pre- and post-2008, as well as that of Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the alleged criminal activities on Wall Street, there have been zero Wall Street prosecutions under Obama/Holder.  Compare that with his predecessors Bush and Clinton:

GAI [Government Accountability Institute] details how the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations both actually took down financial criminals – unlike the Obama administration.  Between 2002 and 2008, for instance, GAI points out how a Bush administration task force “obtained over 1,300 corporate fraud convictions, including those of over 130 corporate vice presidents and over 200 CEOs and corporate presidents.”

“Clinton’s DOJ prosecuted over 1,800 S&L (savings and loans) executives, senior officials, and directors, and over 1,000 of them were sent to jail,” GAI adds.

But, despite having “promised more of the same,” especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, the Obama administration’s DOJ has not brought criminal charges against a single major Wall Street executive.

The Bush and Clinton administrations’ track records on prosecuting white-collar crime, and the Obama administration’s failure to do so, Schweizer said, is “evidence that this has less to do with some sort of partisan or philosophical issue.”

Bush – 1,300 convictions; 

Clinton – 1,000 convictions; 

Obama – Zero attempts

Think about that: none. Not so much as a single TRY at convicting anyone. What does THAT tell you about who is guarding the hen-house?

And after you have reached the fairly obvious conclusion, please allow Mr.  Groulx to confirm your suspicions:

And why the difference in prosecuting the law?  The GAI report reveals that the Department of Justice upper echelon is stacked with attorneys, including Eric Holder,  from law firms representing the very same companies involved in the financial meltdown of 2008, as well as financial corporations with questionable actions during the Obama administration…AIG, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, CitiBank, Deutsche Bank, ING, Morgan Stanley, UBS, Wilmington Trust, and John Corzine’s MF Global.

These very same DoJ attorneys also happen to be some of Obama’s biggest bundlers for Obama’s 2008 bid for president.  

“When we think of cronyism and the problems of cronyism and crony capitalism, we think in terms of economic loss and gain,” Schweizer said in a phone interview. “What we’re showing here is that cronyism is now permeating our justice system. So, it’s not just a question of dollars and cents, it’s a question of whether you’re going to face legal jeopardy or not on what you’re doing.”

This is classic misdirection. Accuse the other guy of doing what you yourself are doing. Obama constantly harps on Romney being the Wall Street guy who wants to steal your lunch money, and all the while he fills his administration with Wall Street guys and then shields them from any legal repercussions. With a complicit media and a totally gullible Occupy Movement at their disposal, it’s worked pretty darn well so far.

—–

The Left is incredibly adept at this tactic, which is helped along by their Media boot-lickers. Their repeated cries of “racism” are another example of this ploy, and can literally be seen almost every day. Last night on MSNBC was just the most recent example: 

See what I mean? Absolutely disgusting. 

Since many on the Left view everything through the prism of race (and this Tourè guy is one of the worst), they merely have to point and say, “(X) is a Racist!” and the media dutifully scurries to (X) and asks, “(X), why are you racist??!”  Actually, I remember when (prior to his death) Breitbart took to Twitter and made up sarcastic headlines for a new “pretend” show starring Tourè which he called “That Broccoli Is Racist!”   Funny, funny stuff. Andrew loved to point out the ridiculous and make it a hundred times MORE ridiculous, in order for it to be seen more easily. And Tourè is, at the very least, ridiculous.

—–

Whether we’re discussing race or Wall Street, the basic point can be summed up in the old phrase “Don’t listen to what someone SAYS; Look at what they DO“. And right now, what we see Obama and his flunkies “DOing” as far as Wall Street is concerned should have them either thrown in jail or, at least, thrown out of office.

As much as I’d enjoy the former, I’m willing to settle for the latter.

The New American Dream: Lawsuits

I am no fan of lawsuits. That’s not to say that there aren’t real abuses warranting legal action in the country; there are. Rather, it is the stupid, punitive and illogical lawsuits (which exist to simply target the deepest pockets) that drive me batty.

Working in the insurance industry for close to 20 years probably has something to do with my view, but you don’t need to have had my vantage point to see that lawsuit abuse is having a deleterious effect on our economy and freedom.

We’ve talked about some truly stupid cases before (look HERE and HERE for examples), but this one is as mind-blowing as any of those.

From NewsOK.com:

MIAMI, OK — Frivolous litigation ignited a series of lawsuits that is causing an Ottawa County gas can maker to close, said Rocky Flick, CEO of Blitz U.S.A. 

Blitz U.S.A./F3 Brands in Miami filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy Nov. 9. On Monday, the company announced it would close July 31 and lay off 117 workers.

“This is quite a blow,” said Chuck Evans, plant manager. “We hope another plant comes in and takes over.”

In 1992, U.S. Metal Container became Blitz U.S.A., partly due to a switch to plastic containers. For years, U.S. Metal Container sold gas cans to government agencies for military use. In 1966, it was the only gas can manufacturer in the U.S., and a year later the gas can was painted bright red and sold to thousands of customers nationwide, the company’s website says.

Company officials said product liability lawsuits prompted the company to file bankruptcy.The lawsuits mostly involved people pouring gasoline out of a gas can onto an open fire, and the vapors igniting and causing injuries.

“We got 100 percent of the lawsuits even though we don’t have 100 percent of the gas cans out there,” Evans said.

Flick said the company was unable to put together a reorganization plan.

The 50-year-old company will have its assets sold Sept. 6, he said.

Flick said once the first lawsuit was settled, the floodgates of litigation were opened.

“The insurance company thought it was best to settle,” Flick said. “The first lawsuit settled for around $1 million, the last lawsuit for around $10 million, but most of the lawsuits were between $5 (million) to $10 million.”

The company went to trial on two cases, winning one and losing the other, a $4 million verdict involving the death of a child.

The jury found Blitz 70 percent liable, Flick said.

The girl, 4, was living in an unheated camper in Utah when her father poured gasoline into a woodstove, which ignited, Flick said. The child and her father caught on fire, the father ran out of the camper and left the child inside while he tried to put flames out that were on him, Flick said.

The case is on appeal.

Now come on: this mental midget poured gas onto a woodstove, it ignited, and the makers of the GAS CAN are liable? Really? Is no one responsible for their own idiocy anymore?

If I back my car into a tree, can I sue the car manufacturer? If I drop my ballpoint pen into the washing machine and ruin my shirts, am I now allowed to sue PaperMate®??

If that’s the case, we’ll never have a small business open in this country again.

Why would you take the inherent risk of trying to eke out a living working for yourself if you think that your life’s work could be confiscated by someone (with a lower IQ than your inanimate product) suing you, making you pay for your defense and, even worse…they might actually win?

Where does this end?

It ends when we stop appointing justices to courts who view everyone as a victim (except Conservatives and Christians, of course). It ends when the working folks stop trying to get out of jury duty, which too often leaves juries populated by the very people who are prone to bring a stupid case like this to trial.

It ends when we, as citizens, demand it to end.

Some on the Left bristle when they hear Conservatives say we need to take our country back. They whine something along the lines of “take it back from WHOM, exactly”? The answer should be that we need to take it back from those who would see it fall into ruin, and even from those who would merely turn a blind eye to the societal wreckage which surrounds them.

As I commented on another blog recently, if the United States was a train, we’d be running out of track. Either we each stand up, hit the brakes and turn this thing around…or we’re all going over the edge. Together.