The case addressing this question, Standard Chartered v FINRA, has been appealed to the highest court in our land. As such, one might think that most Americans would care to learn if our nation’s top financial regulator did, in fact, engage in a fraud which had a monetary value of between $175-$350 MILLION plus. Not exactly chicken feed.

Why hasn’t this case received more attention? 

For the very simple reason that our major financial media have spent little to no time focused on it. If you don’t think our media is controlled in this country, then you may want to ask why this case has not received more meaningful coverage.

I first addressed this case in the fall of 2009. I personally believe it belongs on the front page of every business section in our country. Why? This case addresses the core of what I have long defined as the Wall Street-Washington incest. The $175-350 million which FINRA retained — rather than having appropriately distributed to its member firms — allowed the major firms on Wall Street and selected FINRA executives to benefit at the expense of smaller broker-dealers. Sound a little incestuous perhaps? You think?

More importantly, this case addresses the fact that Ms. Schapiro and her fellow FINRA colleagues signed a proxy statement used for the merger of the NASD with the regulatory arm of the NYSE to form FINRA that included misinformation. If utilizing a proxy statement which includes misinformation is not an abuse of capitalism and a fraud, I do not know what is.

My link above references several angles in this case and other FINRA and assorted partners’ ‘incestuous’ follies. I strongly recommend you review this wealth of material. You will be busy, but you certainly will not be bored.

Are you sufficiently intrigued to learn a little more about this situation? Let’s navigate and review a recent commentary written by Dan Jamieson of Investment News. Dan writes, B-D Wants Supreme Court to Rule on FINRA Suit:

The high court this month is expected to decide whether to take up a lawsuit brought against NASD by Standard Investment Chartered Inc. over the self-regulator’s 2007 merger with the regulatory unit of the New York Stock Exchange.

Standard, an investment banking boutique, insists that the proxy used by the NASD in soliciting member approval for the merger was fraudulent.

NASD since has been renamed the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc.

Government entities, including private organizations with government-delegated authority, generally enjoy absolute legal immunity in performing official duties. Court cases have granted protection specifically to securities self-regulatory organizations.

Absolute immunity covering a financial transaction? Sniff, sniff. Do you smell something? Me, too.

Standard argues that the merger was not a legally protected regulatory function of Finra.

The brokerage firm wants the Supreme Court justices to hear that case because it claims that lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on immunity for SROs and other state actors.

The Standard suit has already been thrown out twice by courts — in 2010 by a New York U.S. District Court judge and then again last year by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

But the Supreme Court could take a different view. In June 2010, it ruled that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a private oversight body set up under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, was unconstitutional because its members were not sufficiently overseen by the executive branch.

The Standard appeal has attracted an unlikely assortment of allies among business and consumer groups.

“The case presents a situation where a quasi-governmental entity is abusing its power,” said Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional lawyer at the libertarian Cato Institute, which joined with the Competitive Enterprise Institute in filing an amicus brief on behalf of Standard.

“Our legal interest is really to make government accountable,” he said.

There’s a larger principle at stake: to what extent state actors can be held accountable, said William Anderson, one of Standard’s lawyers at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. “That’s why the various groups have weighed in” with amicus briefs, he said.

“We’re concerned about the court’s overextension of immunity” to private organizations, said Scott Michelman, a staff attorney at the Public Citizen Litigation Group, which, together with Consumer Action, The Project On Government Oversight and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, also is urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

“In this case, immunity has been extended to private corporate actors … in a way that could prevent corporate accountability,” he said.

Standard and its supporters dispute the earlier court findings that NASD’s proxy and merger were “incident to” its regulatory activities and thus protected.

The Cato Institute argues that such a standard “would be the equivalent of shielding a judge who ran down a pedestrian on his way to the courthouse simply because his travel there eventually will lead to his exercising judicial power.”

Courts first gave SROs legal protection in 1985, and the breadth of that immunity has expanded ever since, according to Standard’s supporters.

“It seems to me that what [Finra was] doing was acting as a business entity rather than as a regulator,” Mr. Shapiro said.

Jack Norberg, chairman of Standard, did not return a call seeking comment.

For its part, Finra insists that there is no issue with immunity for SROs.

“Every court of appeals to consider the issue has agreed that SROs are absolutely immune from private lawsuits for money damages attacking conduct that falls within the scope of their regulatory functions,” Finra said in a filing with the Supreme Court.

While FINRA’s lawyers have continually embraced their position on immunity, NOT ONCE have I ever heard or seen these lawyers or Ms. Schapiro address and categorically deny the premise of a fraudulent proxy. What say you, Mary? Did you and your colleagues willingly and intentionally misrepresent, that is LIE, in regard to the facts presented in that proxy?

Finra spokeswoman Michelle Ong declined to comment.

No surprise there. No transparency there, either.

The 2007 merger required NASD members to approve bylaw changes that significantly reduced their voting power in the new organization.

NASD was able to get the changes approved with the help of a one-time $35,000 payment. Standard claims that NASD lied in its proxy and other communications when it claimed that $35,000 was the most it could pay under IRS rules.

An IRS opinion letter laying out permissible amounts that could be paid to broker-dealers to approve the merger has been subject to a court-ordered seal, but in a 2009 hearing, one of Standard’s attorneys said the letter indicated that member firms could have received an additional $35,000 to $76,000.

An additional $35-76k multiplied by 5100 member firms equates to a cool additional $175-350 MILLION plus!!

If the Supreme Court takes the case and rules for Standard, the dispute could go back to lower courts for rehearing, and member firms could possibly get a larger payout, Mr. Anderson said.

One would think a ruling for Standard would also expose Ms. Schapiro and the other defendants in this case for having perpetrated a fraud. What are the ramifications of that? Or is that potential too explosive and unseemly for our nation in its current state? Are we that weak and pathetic?

Where are America’s collective balls? Come on. How about we create some public pressure? Share this commentary as wide and far as possible. Our founding fathers would thank you.

But some doubt that the Supreme Court will let that happen.

“SROs are immune — that’s the law,” said Jonathan Kord Lagemann, a veteran industry defense attorney and founder of the Lagemann Law Offices.

“Whether it should be that way is another story.”

Of course it SHOULD NOT be that way. Providing the cover of absolute immunity for misrepresentations within proxy statements by senior financial regulators is no way to run a country.

Remember, absolute immunity without total transparency is a license to steal . . . perhaps even as much as $175 million.

Larry Doyle

Steve Rattner, founder of Quadrangle Group and former U.S. Treasury Auto Industry Advisor. Rattner, who manages NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's personal fortune, is a regular guest on MSNBC's Morning Joe and Bloomberg Radio.

What caused my knee jerk reaction? Let me set the table as to what I heard, prompted my thinking, “You have got to be kidding me,” and why I feel compelled to write this commentary today.  

I believe it is a foregone conclusion that the Republican Party will critique the Obama administration for little meaningful “change” in how Washington operates.

In a similar fashion, we already see political interests from both ends of the spectrum attacking Mitt Romney — whom I believe is the presumptive Republican nominee — and the tenets of free market capitalism embedded within private equity and venture capital.

In an attempt to parry the critique of his administration and his ability to bring real change to Washington, President Obama was on the stump recently in his hometown of Chicago.

As Newsmax reports, Obama Gathers Cash at Chicago Events as Republicans Campaign:

Obama sought to fire up his supporters by reciting a list of accomplishments, including bailing out the auto industry, revamping the U.S. health-care system, withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq and launching the mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

“Because of what you did in 2008, we’ve begun to see what change looks like,” Obama said at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

President Obama and moreso those on the ground involved in the elimination of bin Laden deserve huge credit. However, let’s refocus on the change brought to the auto industry.

While the administration would define “change” as a reinvigorated auto industry, what about the means used to achieve those ends? Did the administration trample the rule of law and basic free market principles and standard bankruptcy proceedings to achieve those ends?

Given that this topic will be a main point of debate in the Presidential election, I would ask if the means utilized to save the auto industry is what “change” looks like for President Obama, his administration, and our nation as a whole?

Let’s go back to those fateful days in early May 2009 when I wrote:

“One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House.”

That’s a quote, folks, from a lawyer representing firms which lent Chrysler money on behalf of their clients, including pension funds, teachers, labor unions, college endowments, et al.

Threatening creditors may be common practice in the underworld. In the world of business and politics, commonly accepted rules of law, business practices and ethics are widely accepted and adjudicated by the courts to prevent abuse. Did the White House just abuse the Constitution in the process of engaging Chrysler’s non-TARP creditors? Tom Lauria, an attorney with White & Case representing a few non-TARP Chrysler creditors, believes the White House did exactly that.

Lauria offers, “I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday. One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation.”

Wow!!! Is the press corps so in bed with the White House that it will do its dirty work? Will other creditors fall in line under the pressure of this threat? Is Lauria’s analysis credible?

I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes!!

In my April 2009 Market Review: Brave New World I wrote:

Companies, consumers, and investors will be forced to adapt to a regular presence of Uncle Sam. He is not a good business partner.

I am not making this stuff up.

Is threatening creditors and having the press do one’s dirty work as the means to an end what “change” has come to look like for this administration and our nation as a whole?

As a registered Independent and one who embraces free market principles in the promotion of investor education and investor protection, I look forward to debating how we all may define change in America going into the 2012 election and beyond.

Oh, by the way, that photo at the beginning of today’s commentary? That is none other than Steven Rattner, the car czar for the Obama administration. He has also displayed himself as being ethically challenged. How so? Last we checked in with him in April 2010, he was settling charges brought by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and the SEC for his involvement in a ‘pay to play’ scandal.

For those interested, you can read more about this at Steven Rattner’s “Conduct Was Inappropriate, Wrong, and Unethical”.

Hmmm . . . “change”? It would seem Mr. Rattner’s involvement as the car czar could be placed under the heading of “the more things ‘change’, the more they stay the same.”

You can’t make this stuff up!!

– From Larry Doyle’s blog, Sense on Cents.

For some time, we have been hearing about the housing market, and how things were going in that department, critical to our overall health. Well, as it turns out, the National Realtors Association can’t count. They were off, way off, on where the numbers actually are, and their mistake was not a good one as this Chicago Tribune article highlights:

[snip] Far fewer homes have been sold over the past five years than previously estimated, the National Association of Realtors said Tuesday.

NAR said it plans to downwardly revise sales of previously-owned homes going back to 2007 during the release of its next existing home sales report on Dec. 21.

NAR’s existing home sales numbers, released monthly, are a closely followed gauge of the health of the housing market.

While NAR hasn’t revealed exactly how big the revision to home sales will be, the agency’s chief economist Lawrence Yun said the decrease will be “meaningful.“

“For the real estate business, this means the housing market’s downturn was deeper than what was initially thought,“ Yun said.

Yun said the database NAR uses to track existing home sales, the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), has led the real estate agency to over-count existing home sales for several reasons. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, crap. That is some pretty sucky news, isn’t it? This had been one of the upward trends lauded of late, and turns out, that was a big bunch of hooey.

And I have to share one more story of Obama helping out his buddies with our money (H/t FlBreeze), as this editorial from Investor.com highlights:

[snip] Now we find the Navy partnering with the Agriculture Department to purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of alternative biofuel in place of standard JP-5 fuel for Navy aircraft — the biggest federal purchase of biofuel ever.

It’s part of the White House’s “we can’t wait for Congress” strategy as the 2012 election year looms. But JP-5 typically costs less than $4 a gallon. If a family on a budget started filling up with $16-a-gallon gas, it might want to adopt the motto, “we can’t wait to go broke.”

[...]

As J.E. Dyer noted over the weekend on the Hot Air Green Room, “a member of Obama’s presidential transition team, T. J. Glauthier, is a ‘strategic advisor’ at Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy. Glauthier worked — shock, shock — on the energy-sector portion of the 2009 stimulus bill.”

Solazyme had already gotten a nearly $22 million chunk of change out of the taxpayers thanks to the 2009 stimulus. We heard the ludicrous excuse last week from Obama Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, as quoted in the National Journal, that “we are doing this for one simple reason: It makes us better fighters” because “our use of fossil fuels is a very real threat to our national security and to the U.S. Navy ability to protect America and project power overseas.”(Click here to read the rest.)

What the hell are these people drinking? Whatever it is, they need to put it down, and walk away. This is just ridiculous, and absurd. I swear, Obama is finding all kinds of ways to funnel our money to his buddies, and I am sick of it.

Again, I have to ask – where the hell is the MSM on this?? How many scandals can Obama possibly have before they start reporting them? Unbelievable.

Click here to view the embedded video.

[snip] Holder and one of his other deputies, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, have both admitted that statement was false in recent Senate hearings.

“The letter was withdrawn because there was information in there that was inaccurate,” Holder replied to Sensenbrenner’s question.

Still unsatisfied, Sensenbrenner followed up again. “Tell me what the difference is between lying and misleading Congress in this context?,” he asked Holder.

Holder responded that whether a statement is a lie or misleading comment depends on what the person making it is thinking at the time. (Click here to read the rest.)

Wow. Honestly, how does Holder come out with this BS and keep a straight face? When he’s not slumping back into his chair in disgust at being questioned, that is? What a crock.

Get this, though – Holder never, not ONCE, acknowledged just who signed off on this absurd program. Apparently, no one did, since in the 10 months he has been questioned about “Fast and Furious,” he has not come up with ONE name. And no one has been fired for their part in this, either. Just unbelievable.

And then there was the second hearing of Jon Corine appearing before Congress to try and explain where in the hell $1.2 BILLION dollars went. His answer? “I dunno.” Okay, okay, he said, “I do not know,” but really, he may as well have just shrugged his shoulders and given the first response. Oh, he feels bad about this, he really does. Not enough to use any of his multi-millions to DO anything about it for all of those folks who lost their money, or the employees who are out of jobs as a result. Nope. Screw them. He doesn’t know what happened to the money under his watch, but really, it’s just tough for those people. I am sure his “devastation” over what happened while he sits on his pile of money is a real comfort to those people who lost everything. Right.

This is not over yet, though. The investigation will continue, and he may well be brought up on charges. He sure SHOULD be, but we know how that can go, especially for close, personal friends/bundlers of Obama…

Sigh. Really? These is the guy responsible for our Justice Department? And the other one Obama and Biden’s “go-to” guy for all things financial? Holy cow.

Okay, it’s Friday, and time for a bit of a break. You can discuss the stories above, or anything else that hits you, but feel free to also share a musical interlude that appeals for a TGIF.

Here are my offerings for this Friday, with winter coming on:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And this one from the incomparable Sarah McLachlan:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Okay, friends – it’s all you now!

How in the hell is Holder, and every single one of the administrators who went along with this, not indicted and facing trial? I’m no attorney, but I am fairly certain that money laundering is ILLEGAL, especially for the head of the US Justice Department.

As you might suspect, this is all part and parcel of the horrendously stupid “Fast and Furious” gun-walking program. Rep. Darrell Issa is doing his best to uncover the extent of this program under Holder:

[snip] The New York Times reported on Sunday that “in operations supervised by the Justice Department and orchestrated to get around sovereignty restrictions” drug enforcement agents “laundered or smuggled millions of dollars in drug proceeds as part of Washington’s expanding role in Mexico’s fight against drug cartels.”

In a Monday letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Issa announced he’s investigating the allegations made against the DEA in the New York Times article.

“As you are fully aware, since March of this year, I have been investigating the reckless tactics — in particular gunwalking — used in ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious,” Issa wrote. “That operation, which you personally acknowledged was ‘fundamentally flawed,’ failed spectacularly to meet its objective of bring down Mexican drug cartels. Precisely because the ends do not justify the means, the law limits the conduct alleged in this story.”

“Apparently, this same goal of dismantling Mexican drug cartels motivated the Drug Enforcement Administration in aiding and abetting these same cartels in laundering millions of dollars in cash,” Issa continued. “In fact, The New York Times reports that agents needed to seek Department approval to launder amounts greater than $10 million in any single operation.”

Issa wrote that, according to the report, many agents said the $10 million requirement was frequently “waived” because it was treated more like a guideline. He said that means “hundreds of millions of dollars” could’ve been “laundered” into the hands of drug cartels by the Obama administration and Holder’s Justice Department. (Click here to read the rest.)

This just gets worse and worse with every passing day. The NY Times article stated that the DEA did this in order to see how the drug cartels move their money. Because I am sure the DEA/DOJ just couldn’t figure it out any other way than laundering potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. This isn’t just folly, this is sheer insanity, and it starts at the top – all the way to the top with Obama, who is still standing behind Holder. Hell, he picked him in the FIRST place, so that tells you something right there.

And speaking of following the money, former NJ Governor and US Senator, Jon Corzine, is about to be on the hot seat this Thursday regarding the disappearance of $1.2 BILLION of investors’ money at MF Global. That is all bad enough, but like the “Fast and Furious” program, with every day, more information leaks out. Now it seems that Corzine threatened to quit his post if he was not allowed to throw money into European bonds.

And you may recall, Jon Corzine played an integral part in helping this Administration as evidenced by both President Obama and VP Biden heaping praise on Corzine in this video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Well, I think that explains a LOT, doesn’t it? But there is oh, so much more on this issue. Guess who sits on the advisory board of the PR Firm that worked for MF Global, and which provided financial advice to MF Global? That would be President Clinton. Former PM Tony Blair, too, but that’s the U.K.’s problem. The company, Teneo Holdings, was paid $625,000 for it’s work with MF Global:

[snip] Clinton’s office insists the former president did not profit from the relationship between MF Global and Teneo Holdings, where he is chairman of the advisory board. But Teneo, on whose advisory board former British Prime Minister Tony Blair also sits, was paid $125,000 a month for at least five months in one of MF’s biggest consulting arrangements, according to sources at the brokerage house.

The relationship was controversial within MF Global even before the company’s financial problems hit the news as executives questioned why an outside firm was needed for work that had long been done in-house.

“I don’t know what they did,” one MF source said. “It was always unclear.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Yes, Obama and Biden’s financial guru will be spending some quality time in front of Congress trying to explain why he was so gung-ho about investing in European bonds, and how $1.2 Billion of investors’ money disappeared.

The workers at MF Global want to know, too, and are suing the executives who ran MF Global into the ground. Serves them right. I hope the workers get a ton of money from them.

I hope Rep. Issa and Congress continues to follow these money trails to the very end. And I hope some of these folks, like Holder and Corzine, end up in a room cell of their own. They deserve nothing less, don’t you think?

Oh, wait. No, not really. None of those things have really happened. I was shocked to see The Hill, a site I read regularly for its impartiality, and whose Associate Editor, A.B. Stoddard, I have admired for her intellect. The premise of the article by Peter Schroeder is this:

President Obama, with his electoral fate tied to the economy, must be pleased with the momentum he’s getting.

Just months ago, the U.S. credit rating was downgraded and Democrats worried Obama was following in the footsteps of one-term President Jimmy Carter. Maybe he will, but reports in the last week suggest manufacturing and construction are humming, and Thanksgiving saw record-setting shopping by consumers.

The icing on the cake? A jobs report Friday shaved nearly half a point off the unemployment rate. The 8.6 percent rate was down from 9 percent in October and is the lowest unemployment has stood in two and a half years. (Emphasis mine.)

“Democrats have a very good chance in 2012 and if the economy gets better that’ll help us,” said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.). “Things are looking a lot better. A lot better.”

“The icing on the cake?” Really? He is promoting this false meme that the artificially reduced Unemployment numbers put forth by the Obama Administration (and which Larry Johnson thoroughly debunks in this post, “Delusional America“)? Is it really good news for Obama that over 300,000 people have given up hope of ever finding a job again? That’s a GOOD thing? In what universe? ObamaMedia World? Evidently. I was just appalled to see a site like The Hill pushing this crock of BS for Obama and the Democrats. This wasn’t an opinion piece, after all, it was allegedly “reporting.” Reporting Democratic talking points, maybe, but not the facts, or reality. At the very BEST, the number is now at 8.9%, and even that is pushing it (according to Eric Bolling on “The Five”).

These kinds of machinations by the Democrats are really mind boggling. It wasn’t so long ago that I would have bought this crap they are selling, being a dyed in the wool Dem and all. But no longer. I simply cannot understand how the Party that claims to be SO compassionate is CELEBRATING people giving up out of despair. How is that good in ANYONE’S world?

This does seem to be the Democrats’ MO, though. This kind of hoodwinking, that is. This instance has to do with the economy, riding a wave of glee on the backs of those who have given up. My good friend, CindyIndie, sent me an article about an issue in Texas that highlights more of this double-speaking machination that seems to be SOP. This one deals with their “concern” for minority presence and leadership in politics. The title gives a hint, “Opportunity Lost To End The White-Guy Streak.” Yes, and that opportunity was lost due to an appeal by the Democrats:

For a while there, before a three-judge federal panel did some three-judge federal paneling, the good and progressive people of Travis County (long self-congratulatory about their goodness and progressivity) seemed en route to ballot-box ethnic history.

[...]

This, of course, was all about Republican self-interest and had nothing to do with wanting to break the white-man streak in Travis County. But facts are facts, and regardless of why it happened (largely to stick it to longtime U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, a longtime white man), the map offered a solid possibility of electing an African American and two Hispanics to a five-person (up from the current three) Travis County U.S. House delegation.

To jack with Doggett, the GOP drew a Hispanic-heavy San Antonio-Austin district in which state Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, had a solid shot at beating Doggett in the Democratic primary. The map also brought into Travis County a multicounty, northward meandering district now represented by Republican Bill Flores of Waco.

The Travis County map also included a greatly rejiggered multicounty district in which former Railroad Commissioner Michael Williams, a black Republican, had a solid chance of winning. The other districts in the county (also multicounty districts) most likely would have continued to have been represented by Republicans Michael McCaul of Austin and Lamar Smith of San Antonio, who self-identify as white men.

So Travis County could have wound up with two white guys, two Hispanic guys and a black guy. Sure, only one of them (McCaul) now lives in the county, but hey, ethnic history is ethnic history — even if the black guy (Williams) and one of the Hispanics (Flores) are Republicans (a concept that irks some of the local good and progressive.) (Click here to read the rest.)

Well, of course it is obvious why the Democrats claimed this would affect minority representation – because we all know that Black Republicans aren’t really black, and I assume that extends to Hispanic Republicans, too. Much better to have a paternalist White Guy represent your interests – they do so well with that. Just look at Women’s Issues and how well our Congress has handled that (e.g., equal pay is still a dream).

Honestly, I don’t know how in the world the Democrats could have even made this argument to the Panel with straight faces. Maybe they didn’t. Maybe there were lots of winks, guffaws, and “dontcha knows” thrown in there. Beats me. But apparently, it is a mindset that allows them to say these things, much like this pronouncement from The Hill’s “Signs” article:

[snip] Democrats have felt the swing in momentum.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said the president’s chances for reelection have “improved” with the economy, while Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) says voters will see the president has things moving in the right direction.

“The economy is not where we want it to be, but it’s at least stable and slowly but surely going in the right direction,” Cummings told The Hill. (Click here to read the rest.)

Uh, yeah, just keep telling yourselves that. I suppose these folks also still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, which they are presumably counting on to help ease our massive debt, which is now 100% of our GDP. Yeah, sure, the economy is doing GREAT! Just peachy! Just tell all of those folks who are first time filers for Unemployment, those who dropped out, and those who have lost their homes. I am so certain they will all agree with Levin and Cummings, aren’t you? Cough, cough. Uh huh. Maybe it is time for them to take off their rose colored glasses, and try looking at reality for a change. Just a thought. What do you think?

Cough. I could barely type that out.

I guess he will just have to drag himself off the golf course (he has already played 88 games in his short time in office). Who could forget this iconic picture of the adults in the room when Seal Team Six was going after Osama bin Laden, and Obama sitting there in his golf clothes (photo courtesy of geneveith.com):

So, while Obama is off vacationing in the sun and surf, he admonishes Congress to stay in town and get things worked out for the extended tax cuts, according to The Hill, while blaming the Republicans for everything (forgetting -again – that the Senate is controlled by Dems):

[snip] “We’re going to keep pushing Congress to make this happen,” Obama said. “They shouldn’t go home for the holidays until they get this done.”

The president called out congressional Republicans for stalling legislation aimed at helping create jobs and spur the economy.

“Unfortunately, too many Republicans in Congress don’t seem to share that same sense of urgency,” he said. “Over the last few months, they’ve said ‘no’ to most of these jobs bills. ‘No’ to putting teachers and firefighters back to work. ‘No’ to putting construction workers back on the job. And this week, they actually said ‘no’ to cutting taxes for middle-class families.” (Click here to read the rest.)

I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that it is a bit hard to take someone’s admonition to work harder when Obama has consistently been absent from the big decisions. He has been so busy campaigning on our dime, or hiding upstairs in his room, watching sports, that he is HARDLY in any position to criticize the working habits of anyone else. IMHO, that is.

I reckon while the rest of the nation is worrying about paying its bills, or where their next meal is coming from, or how they will be able to get toys for their kids, much less heat their houses, Obama will be kicking back drinking a Mai Tai with a cute little umbrella on the sunny sandy shores of Hawaii with this exhortation:

Click here to view the embedded video.

And if you can’t be happy with all that is going on in the nation, just do what Obama does – blame the Republicans!

Open Thread, have at it!

And that would be Obamacare. Specifically, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a major part of the unread-before-passed-bill. You might know it better as the “Death Panels.” From The Daily Caller:

[snip]Frank, who announced Monday that he would retire at the end of his current term in office, became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor Tennessee Republican Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the IPAB.

[...]

IPAB is a 15-member board, appointed by the president, scheduled to convene in 2014. In order to reduce per capita Medicare spending, the board will recommend levels at which Medicare recipients, including seniors, can be reimbursed for health care expenses.

In March, Roe told The Daily Caller the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared to “end-of-life counseling” Obamacare provisions which former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.”

“This one is the real baby right here — and most people missed this,” Roe told TheDC then. “What everybody was talking about, when you saw Sarah Palin and so forth, what they were talking about these advanced directives where you sit down and there’s sort of mandatory counseling — and Medicare paid for it. This IPAB got missed — and it’s the real death panel.”

Isn’t that pretty much what we had been saying? But wait, there is more:

“Basically, there’s a certain amount of money that’s allocated for Medicare spending each year,” Roe said in March. “Once you hit that amount that’s been appropriated, this board, this bureaucratically appointed board, can then decide, not based on quality or need, but based on strictly cost.”

According to Diane Cohen, the conservative Goldwater Institute’s lead attorney covering Obamacare, IPAB is the “most notorious” of all the bureaucracies the health care law created because it hands Medicare payment decisions over to an unelected board. (Click here to read the rest.)

Isn’t this incredible? I guess it should be no surprise given the numerous czars Obama has put in place making major decisions for us. They aren’t elected, either. Hell, they aren’t even vetted by anyone! But that the Democrats, and it was SOLELY the Democrats, voted to make this the law of the land is telling indeed.

Too bad Rep. Frank didn’t make this decision two years, and maybe states wouldn’t be saddled with fighting the Constitutionality of Obamacare. They wouldn’t have to be spending so much time and treasure trying to protect their citizens from the unilateral move of one party against all of the objections of its citizenry. Party Before Country rules the day far too often, as I have said, and this was no exemption. But maybe, just MAYBE, these people will finally start caring more about the country than whatever perks they might get for selling their souls for the benefit of the Party leaders.

And speaking of money, given all of the brouhaha paid to mere whispers of allegations over Herman Cain 24/7, you may be surprised to learn that former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton backstabbing opportunist, is under investigation for a regarding allegations of paying off his mistress. Oh, yes, and it was not a small sum of money, either, as the Wall Street Journal reports:

A federal grand jury is investigating former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson over possible campaign-finance violations stemming from his 2008 presidential run, including allegations that he arranged for supporters to pay off a woman who planned to say they had engaged in an extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

Several of Mr. Richardson’s close associates have been granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony before the panel in Albuquerque, the people said. The panel is one of several grand juries in recent years to examine aspects of Mr. Richardson’s administration and campaigns.

[...]

The investigation comes at a difficult time for New Mexico Democrats, who are struggling to regroup after losing the governor’s mansion—Mr. Richardson couldn’t run again because of term limits—and a number of state legislative seats in 2010. The state is considered a key battleground in the 2012 presidential election and also may be crucial to control of the U.S. Senate, as both parties fight for a vacant seat now held by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman.

New Mexico Republicans benefited in the last election from grand-jury investigations related to the departing Richardson administration, said Brian Sanderoff, president of an independent polling firm in Albuquerque. If an indictment rekindles memories of alleged Democratic corruption, “it sure won’t help” Democrats in 2012, he said.

Uh, yeah – I imagine that won’t be too helpful to the Democrats in New Mexico. And now for that number:

[snip]The most explosive matter under investigation involves allegations by a former member of Mr. Richardson’s inner circle. That individual said Mr. Richardson’s political allies gave $250,000 to placate a woman who was considering suing the governor in 2007, exposing their alleged extramarital affair, according to people familiar with the federal probe. They said the woman was a state employee at the time that she allegedly became romantically involved with Mr. Richardson around 2004. The woman’s identity has not been disclosed, and the type of suit considered has not been confirmed. (Click here to read the rest.)

The article goes on, and I recommend you read the rest. You may recall, as I mentioned above, that Richardson threw Hillary Clinton under the bus so fast when he thought he was going to get some plumb assignment in Obama’s Circle that the bus didn’t even have a chance to leave skid marks (Commerce Secretary was the post for which he was being considered). So, if you wondered why he never showed up with all of Obama’s Chicago Thugs Cronies, it was a question related to contributions for his presidential run, and the possibility of links to some contracts he made. You know, just like Obama has done with our money to places like Solyndra, and a whole HOST of jobs in his Administration.

Doesn’t that kind of beg the question of if it kept Richardson OUT of Obama’s Administration to have even the question of a possible link between donors and contracts, why is it okay for Obama to have filled his White House with donors, or give our money to companies owned by his donors? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Maybe someone out there can fill me in.

Well, I will sure be interested to see how things shake out now that Barney has joined in to fight against the IPAB. Perhaps this is just the push we need to get this horrible law off the books, and do it RIGHT the next time, with thoughtful consideration, no handouts to Big Pharma, and the support of the majority of the people.

As for Richardson, couldn’t happen to a more deserving person, if you ask me. Sure would be nice if the media bothered to report on this the way they couldn’t WAIT to throw out mere rumors around Herman Cain, but I guess that is just too much to ask these days. Kinda like how they are gleeful over the new Unemployment numbers, until you read further down and find out WHY the numbers are lower. Even The Hill is guilty of that (and Eric Bolling said this morning that the new number is TOO low considering jobs created and files for unemployment, which I thought, too. It should be closer to 8.9%, not 8.6%.). Oh,and in case you missed why, it is because a big bunch of people just dropped out. They gave up. They just gave up trying to find work. THAT should be the headline, IMHO.

Wouldn’t it be nice if our politicians stopped playing politics with people’s lives? Yeah, though I am not going to hold my breath for that day. Anyway, consider this an Open Thread. What’s on your minds?

Steve Kroft’s explosive 60 Minutes report on rampant ‘legal’ congressional insider trading last Sunday provoked fury and heartache at an elitist political class spiraling out of control. I cannot claim to have romantic notions about any politician, but this latest disclosure is the final nail in the coffin. For politicians to use access to insider information to line their own pockets while sitting on or even trashing legislation that might adversely affect their personal profits is despicable. All the while, Wall Street continues to function like a giant Ponzi scheme. Representatives who claim to have our backs instead put us on the hook for irresponsible business practices and then profit from the same mistakes that cost average Americans their pensions.

We know that the regular rules do not apply to the “1 percenters.” Make no mistake; the 1 percenters refer to politicians as much as any “evil” banker since Congress counts at least 267 millionaires in their ranks. The message to those of us out here on the ground is clear: Take what crumbs we give you. Your voices will not be heard.

CBS’ 60 Minutes reported insider trading activity by four Republicans, including House Speaker Boehner, and only one Democrat, namely former Speaker and current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Yet Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer’s book on which Kroft’s report is based, implicates plenty of Democrats, including Senator John Kerry who made a killing on pharmaceutical stocks in 2003 while on a committee influencing the same. But given the current nature of the fourth estate, with many reporters trading objectivity for access and a seven figure book deal, I am shocked such a story saw the light of day, balanced or not.

In Ms. Pelosi’s case, while House Speaker, she and her husband were offered very favorable terms in a credit card IPO. She likewise made a killing while sitting on legislation for two years that would have reduced her profit margin. For shame. Schweizer was condemned by Ms. Pelosi’s team as a “conservative writer” with an “agenda” even though Kroft stated that Schweizer’s research had been independently confirmed. Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Georgia, chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, basically bet against his own county in the financial crisis of 2008 and likewise made a killing in the market. There are now calls for his resignation.

As a result of Schweizer’s book, legislation is being proposed to stop the outrageous practice of legal insider trading by Congress. Let’s see how far it gets. It has been tried before only to die a quick death.

While Tea Partyers and the Occupy Wall Street crowds have gained some traction calling attention to perils of government overspending and greedy bankers, respectively, it is the Tea Party that has a more accurate perspective. Only through an irresponsible legislative body on both sides does other crooked activity flourish. It all rolls downhill.

Unfortunately, the truth of that message is obscured. The bulk of mainstream media helps to muddy the waters with biased coverage.

Most media outlets downplay reports of rapes, assaults, health hazards and filthy conditions at some of the OWS encampments around the country in what I assume is an attempt to glorify the movement. That same media has made a herculean effort to paint the Tea Party as right wing “extremists and racists.” Given the media’s predisposition for running interference for this President, as it did for his predecessor, it is not hard to glean their reasons for unfavorable characterizations of a group that targets government misbehavior rather than just the crooks on Wall Street.

In 2010, the Washington Post featured a story by a young woman who spent a year attending every Tea Party rally imaginable. She found scant evidence of racism, despite what the mainstream media, self-serving political operatives and frankly, anyone with a platform seems to imply. Likewise, there are OWS protesters with honest concerns and good motives who are not violent and do not defecate on cars.

Any grassroots movement is only as good – or bad – as those co-opting it. And it will only be deemed as good or bad as those who purchase ink by the barrel decide it can be.

Sarah Palin offered an op-ed in the Wall St. Journal in which she pointed out the need for “sudden and relentless reform” and bipartisan grassroots efforts to get it:

This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party’s mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been “Occupying Wall Street” long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.

Her suggested solutions:

We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren’t really blind because they’re managed by family members or friends.)

No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

Not bad ideas. Then it is possible that politics may revert to being a public service rather than a path to millionaires’ row. I won’t hold my breath.

Grassroots – and bipartisan – fury is the only thing that may have an effect on our damaged political system, yet we cannot even seem to accomplish that, as demagoguery works to keep left and right busy tearing each other down, rather than seeing the true culprits here.

Self-serving political operatives and their cronies gin up all sorts of distractions to keep us focused on making enemies of one another, which keeps the attention off the more insidious crimes taking place behind closed doors.

As the late George Carlin once said, “You think you have choice in this country? Here is your choice: Leaded or unleaded. Decaf or Regular. Window or Aisle.” We are not encouraged to think critically to affect change, but rather to engage in what writer Robert A. Johnson called shadow projections – ‘I don’t have something because you have it. My life stinks because of you.’ It is a malaise that keeps us looking for bad guys, and gals, in all the wrong places. This generally leads to boxing with shadows, nothing more.

The halls of power offer a seductive siren song promising personal enrichment and influence. The protected political class, along with the irresponsible blokes in our financial sector had best beware the day that both sides let the smoke clear to see past the bread and circus distractions offered by those in charge. If America’s left and right ever figure out who the real criminals are, 60% of Congress will be out of a job. And the cronies they have long protected will likewise get a pink slip.

The chief executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac faced bipartisan outrage Wednesday over multimillion-dollar salaries and large bonuses at the seized housing finance giants, which still owe the government a combined $150 billion in the largest financial crisis bailout.

“Should you profit while the taxpayer is paying the bill?” asked Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

He summoned Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams and Freddie Mac CEO Charles “Ed” Haldeman Jr. to testify before his committee. The hearing came a day after another House panel voted overwhelmingly to suspend large executive compensation packages at the two companies and align their salaries with that of government employees.

The total compensation for the top six executives at Fannie and Freddie for 2009 and 2010 was $35.4 million, with Williams and Haldeman receiving about half of that. Each of them could take home as much as $6 million apiece in salary and bonuses in 2011.

[...]

The salary and compensation were defended by Williams, Haldeman and Edward DeMarco, the latter of whom is the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which has overseen Fannie and Freddie since they were put in a government conservatorship in 2008 because they were on the brink of failure. (Click here to read the rest.)

Below is an audio of some of the questioning by Rep. Darrell Issa, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, of these executives. They asked some pretty pointed questions, which, frankly, I think the executives did a poor job of answering:

Click here to view the embedded video.

I have to say, I loved when Rep. Elijah Cummings from Georgia mentioned that he sure would remember when he made a million dollars a year. Yeah, no kidding, especially when one is being paid with taxpayer money. I also loved when Rep. Cummings said these two entities had to be dragged along by Congress to do their work. You tell ‘em, Rep. Cummings!

It is just amazing the sheer lack of remorse these executives demonstrate, despite their utter failures thus far at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And they think they deserve bonuses for running the two further into the ground? Unbelievable.

And while I type, Energy Director Chu is also facing the music. He is testifying before Congress about the loan made to Solyndra (and presumably related loans). While this is ongoing, one statement Director Chu did make was this:

[snip] But he acknowledged that chances are dim for taxpayers to see their money returned as Solyndra goes through bankruptcy proceedings.

Asked how much money taxpayers might get back, Chu said: “Well, that remains to be seen. I’m anticipating that not very much.”

Well, that’s just great. Thanks, Director Chu. What a great director you have been for the DOE (snark). Like Holder, Chu cannot muster an apology for this debacle:

While declining to offer a personal apology over the situation, Chu expressed disappointment in the fate of Solyndra and said the buck stopped with him when it came to decisions made by the Energy Department about the company.

Chu claimed he was looking out for the taxpayer all along when reviewing the Solyndra finances.

“As the Secretary of Energy, the final decisions on Solyndra were mine, and I made them with the best interest of the taxpayer in mind,” Chu said in testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. “And I want to be clear: over the course of Solyndra’s loan guarantee, I did not make any decision based on political considerations.” (Click here to read the rest.)

And like Holder, all evidence to the contrary as information continues to trickle out about Solyndra and the White House.

What a bunch of liars these Administration people are, and these executives from Fannie and Freddie would be laughable, if it wasn’t OUR money on the line.

Thank heavens the Congress is exercising its oversight. I hope they root out every little pertinent detail on both of these issues. I look forward to seeing the end result of all of this, don’t you? And it cannot come soon enough to suit me. How about you?

But the numbers don’t stop there. Here’s another number for you: 11/3/10. That would be the date the Obama Administration’s DOE apparently wanted Solyndra to wait for its announcement of layoffs. Yep, they wanted to hold that little piece of information until after the elections to help skew them. Nice. Another date to bear in mind is: 11/17/11. That is when Secretary Chu will be facing the music in front of the Senate about all of the Solyndra machinations.

Speaking of Solyndra, fully 80% of the Stimulus money for Green Energy went to Obama donors. That’s EIGHTY percent of our dollars. Here are just a few examples from “Throw Them All Out,” Schweizer’s new book: Bright Source Venture Partner raked in a $1.6 Billion loan, and its Senior Adviser is Robert Kennedy, Jr. Obama’s current Deputy Assistant, Michael Froman, bundled $200,000 – 500,000, and for his efforts, not only did he get a job in the White House, but the company for which he had been COO received a tidy loan in the amount of $737 million dollars. Then there is Nancy-Ann DeParle, White House Deputy Chief of Staff. Before her WH job, she was the Managing Director of CCMP Capital, and the company for which she was a majority owner, Granite Reliable Wind Generation, received $168.9 million in our tax dollars. Yep, Obama’s bundlers have made out like bandits with our money.

Of course, these little paybacks with our money fly in the face of yet another promise broken by Obama, also highlighted in the book, “Throw Them All Out”:

When President-elect Obama came to Washington in late 2008, he was outspoken about the need for an economic stimulus to revive a struggling economy… After he was sworn in as president, he proclaimed that taxpayer money would assuredly not be doled out to political friends…

…But an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies…

…In the 1705 government-backed-loan program [alone], for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

Uh huh. That seems to be all Obama has done – reward his donors with our money, and with cushy White House jobs to boot. It’s a Numbers Game, alright, but with Obama at the helm, the numbers just ain’t adding up.

Check that – the numbers have added up, but way too much. In just three short years, $4 trillion in debt has been accrued under Obama’s “leadership.” Those are numbers, and leadership, we can do without…

“Free Market Capitalism vs Corporate Cronyism”

Free market capitalism is the basis for a healthy economy. Businesses – large or small – are free to enter a line of business and sell their products at whatever price they can charge. Consumers are free to buy whatever products they want at whatever price they are willing to accept. Corporations – large or small – provide jobs to people. If you are anti-corporation, where do you think jobs will come from? If you are anti-corporation, perhaps you’ll want to divest yourself of items purchased from corporations such as your computer, ipod, ipad, smartphone, camera; stop using Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn; no longer spend your money at Starbucks; and make your own clothing. And if you work for a corporation, leave your job. Yeah…..not really feasible, is it? Perhaps it isn’t corporations you’re against, but corporate cronyism?

Corporate cronyism (or crony capitalism) exists when the success of a business depends on its close relationship with government officials and favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, government bail outs, etc. These benefits are offered in return for the support, usually financial, of the politician by the businessperson. Think Solyndra, GE, Exxon, Bank of America, Chevron, Boeing, Valero, Goldman Sachs, and CitiGroup, to name just a few. Keep in mind the GOVERNMENT makes it possible for these, and other corporations, to do what they do. No, it doesn’t absolve the decision makers at these corporations of responsibility. But follow the trail to the top – our Executive and Legislative branches of the government. Changes must happen at the source.

Rioting in the streets, shutting down businesses, instigating altercations with law enforcement, setting up tent cities, vandalism, anti-semitism….these are not ways to bring an end to corporate cronyism. The government must be held responsible. Who are you voting for? Who are you supporting? Are you so focused on party loyalty, on “them” vs “us”, that you aren’t paying attention to what each politician actually stands for? Are you so intent on doing away with all corporations that you’ll then expect the government to take care of everybody? Are you against everyone who has made millions? Or just jealous that they have more than you?

It’s time to hold the government accountable for giving benefits in return for money; for allowing tax loopholes that enable major corporations to get away with paying no taxes; for rewarding businesses that outsource to other countries. It’s time to stop blaming the wealthy and put the blame where it belongs – on our politicians. It’s time to stop expecting the government to take care of you and start accepting responsibility for your own success. Guess what? You don’t have a right to have the same things everyone else has by taking from them. You have a right to pursue a path that will give you the opportunity to earn for yourself the things you want.

I hate to break it to you, but we’re not all equal. Steve Jobs was much smarter than me. Barbara Streisand has a better voice than I do. Meryl Streep can act better than I. I don’t begrudge them their wealth just because I don’t have the same. We all have our own paths, we all make our own choices, we all are responsible for our lives. It’s time to stop blaming everything and everyone outside of us and start looking within.

And if Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Ron Howard, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, et al think they should pay more taxes, why don’t they? Why don’t they take their checkbooks out and write a check to the IRS? Do you suppose they’ll tell their accountants that when they file taxes for 2011, NOT to take any deductions or write offs? What’s the chance they’ll have their financial manager divest their portfolio of all tax shelter properties and send the profits to the IRS? Nah, didn’t think so.

It’s time to elect officials who believe in personal responsibility, not handouts; who will revise the tax codes, not pile on more taxes; who will stop corporate cronyism rather than do the bidding of lobbyists and financial backers; who will create jobs in the private sector rather than keep people dependent upon the government; who will create an environment of growth not limitation; who will not engage in class warfare and paint those with wealth as evil. I don’t care if the have an R, D, or I after their name. I do care what they’ve done in the past as that will be a reflection of what they will do in the future.

I don’t hate those who have wealth and I freely admit that yep, I’m a bit jealous. That’s my issue, not theirs. And I don’t hate corporations, I just make sure (as much as possible) not to spend my money at places that don’t reflect my values. And I will continue to accept responsibility for where my life is in this moment, and where I’d like it to go.

Rant over.

RRRA here: Amen, sister. As OWS continue to take over in cities, violence is on the rise with elderly women being knocked down and seriously injured; demands for free food in restaurants; surrounding a building where a conservative event was going on, trying to break in (911 hung up on them four times when they called for help);and now, plans to build a shanty town in the park where this all started (do not know how in the world they can get away with that, except the NY leadership being so weak on this); and so much more. Until these groups are forced to adhere to the same laws and rules as other groups and citizens, I fear this will continue, as will the escalation of violence. It is way past time for these people to have to live by the same laws as others. And if I lived in that neighborhood where these people want to put up a shanty town, I would start a recall for the neighborhood commission who allowed them to stay, as well as Mayor Bloomberg who has abdicated his responsibility in this regard.

Enough is enough already.

Good grief.

While the message of these protesters is still a bit muddled, they are clear on their contempt for corporations, bankers, and the 1% who make more than $700,000 a year – you know, like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, people like that. What? Not them? Huh. Did they get a waiver or something? Ahem.

Anyway, their message is all too clear: they hate those damn corporations, dontcha know. Below is a “Day in the Life of an OWS Participant” to drive home that point (h/t to Gina):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uh, yeah. Let’s just go grab a table at Starbucks and reflect on that there thing (as Andy Taylor would say to Opie).

Speaking of another classic TV icon, I think Jim Rockford sums up beautifully many of our feelings about people demanding what is not theirs in the clip below (h/t Helenk):

Click here to view the embedded video.

You tell ‘em, Jim!

It’s Friday – time to take a deep breath, and relax a little. Here’s a little something from one of my favorite Broadway (and “Glee”) stars, Kristin Chenoweth (hey Cuzy’n Cindy, she’s an Okie, too!). Love her (and Dolly, too):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hope you enjoyed it, too. Have a good Friday, everyone!

That are going to make my head explode. First, news that the ten executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are still operating in the red, and which are largely to blame for the housing crisis, got BONUSES. And I am not talking little bonuses, either. Those ten mo-fos got = and you better sit the hell down and swallow whatever you are drinking – $12.79 MILLION DOLLARS. Yes, you read that number correctly.

Gosh, I hate this Administration:

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government regulator for Fannie and Freddie, approved $12.79 million in bonus pay after 10 executives from the two government-sponsored corporations last year met modest performance targets tied to modifying mortgages in jeopardy of foreclosure.

The executives got the bonuses about two years after the federally backed mortgage giants received nearly $170 billion in taxpayer bailouts — and despite pledges by FHFA, the office tasked with keeping them solvent, that it would adjust the level of CEO-level pay after critics slammed huge compensation packages paid out to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and others.

Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that Ed Haldeman, who announced last week that he is stepping down as Freddie Mac’s CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last year yet took home an additional $2.3 million in bonus pay. Records show other Fannie and Freddie executives got similar Wall Street-style compensation packages; Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams, for example, got $2.37 million in performance bonuses. (Click here to read the rest.)

So they got these massive bonuses for mild improvements after getting $170 BILLION of our taxpaying dollars. Are you freakin’ KIDDING me with this? Outrageous, just outrageous.

Just in case you need a reminder, check out this hearing from 2004:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Good grief, this makes my blood boil.

Next up is the Federal Government’s continued attacks on South Carolina, this time about our new Immigration law set to go into force in January. (You may recall that the NLRB went after SC for Boeing opening up a manufacturing plant here rather than in a union state, despite Boeing having plants in other states with unions, and which cost zero union jobs.)

Yes, the DOJ, that bastion of fairness and justice – cough, choke, cough – is attacking the state’s immigration law, which is similar to Arizona’s. If someone commits a crime, and the police have reason to suspect they are illegal, they can ask for proof of citizenship. If the person is illegal, the police officers will call in the appropriate immigration personnel to handle the offender. Additionally, businesses have to ensure their employees are here legally. (I thought everyone had to do that ANYWAY. I have had to prove my citizenship numerous times for positions I have taken.) But this DOJ takes umbrage with all of that, so it has filed a lawsuit against SC, naming Governor Haley as the defendant.

Now, let’s be clear – in no other country can you expect to go on your merry way if you are discovered to be there illegally. If you think you can live and work easily in another country without a visa, passport, or green card, go check it out. I’ll wait. Oh, no, I won’t because your ass will either be in jail, or on a plane home. No other country, including the two with whom we share borders, will allow you to live and work inside their country ILLEGALLY. Their laws are strict, and THEY ENFORCE THEM, unlike the United States.

The Federal government claims that this is their bastion – that’s their beef. Our governor, a daughter of LEGAL immigrants herself, Nikki Haley, said the government is not doing its job, it is not protecting our borders, it is not keeping out illegal aliens, and they are taking our jobs. Considering SC has higher unemployment than the national average, that is no small thing.

Here is more about both the law, and the complaint against it:

[snip] he government wants a judge to stop enforcement of the legislation, which requires that officers call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally following a stop for something else, U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles told The Associated Press.

“The Department of Justice has many important tasks,” Nettles said. “Two of those important tasks are the defense of the constitution and ensuring equality is afforded to all.”

The law says all law enforcement officers are required to call federal immigration officials if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. The question must follow an arrest or traffic stop for something else. The measure bars officers from holding someone solely on that suspicion. Opponents railed against the measure as encouraging racial profiling.

[...]

The law also makes it a felony for someone to make fake photo IDs for illegal residents and creates a new law enforcement unit within the Department of Public Safety to enforce state immigration laws. It also makes it a felony for illegal immigrants to allow themselves to be transported.

Nettles said the law is unconstitutional and violates people’s right to due process.

I’m sorry, but none of those things sound all that egregious to me. The state wants to ensure people are living and working in the state legally, and it wants to punish those who try and get around that by making fake IDs, which I would think is illegal anyway. And this violates” due process”??

You know, if the DOJ wasn’t already such a laughing stock for the crap it has been pulling with not going after actual offenders, like the New Black Panther Party, or lying its freaking ass off over “Fast and Furious,” I might give them a tad more leeway. But they don’t deserve it. Not by a long shot.

Oh, but wait, there’s more. This is from none other than Janet Napolitano:

In a news release, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said South Carolina’s law “diverts critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermines the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve, while failing to address the underlying problem: the need for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level.” (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, freakin’ spare me already. DO YOUR JOBS!!! This is just another wordy excuse for not doing what the US Constitution declares is the role of the Federal Government – to protect the country and its citizens from “invasion.” Do your damn job, and stop attacking states when they have to resort to taking care of their own borders for lack of federal action.

And speaking of the DOJ and lying its ass off over programs like “Fast and Furious,” the DOJ dumped a TON of emails on Congress the night before another hearing on this program. Yep. They have had months to do this, but waited until the very last minute to release 650 pages. Why? Well, because there was a hearing scheduled for the next day, that’s why.

But get this – not only are there more Congresspeople demanding Holder step down, but the data dump revealed the following:

[snip] The new documents, according to Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, “indicate that contrary to previous denials by the Justice Department, the criminal division has a great deal of culpability in sweeping the previous Wide Receiver strategy under the rug and then allowing the subsequent Operation Fast and Furious to continue without asking key questions.”

“Most importantly, officials raised very appropriate questions related to Operation Wide Receiver at the same time that many of these same officials were receiving briefings on Operation Fast and Furious,” Grassley said in a statement. “It begs the question why they didn’t ask the same important policy questions about an ongoing case being run out of the same field division.” [snip](Click here to read the rest.)

Have I mentioned how much I hate this Administration?

So, sorry if this makes your head explode, too. I just had to share. I am sure there are things going on in your neck of the woods or with this government that are getting on your last nerve, too. Feel free to share that with us, too. I need an aspirin…

Seriously, Mr. President – put down the crack pipe. We are better off now than we were four years ago? For real? I’m with Speaker Boehner on this when I ask, “are you kidding me?” Boehner continued:

“Why don’t you go ask the 14 million Americans who are out of work whether they’re better off today than they were four years ago?”

Excellent idea, Speaker Boehner. I think we all know what they might say.

But again, don’t take my word for it. Here are just a few of the ways in which we are NOT better off under Obama’s policies than four years ago (H/t to Republican Security Council):

I think that pretty much sums it up, don’t you? I don’t know what President Obama has been smoking, but he needs to stop if he truly believes our nation is better off now than we were four years ago. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So, what’s on your mind today? The House voting to subpoena the White House in relation to Solyndra? The Inspector General investigating over 100 loans made by the Energy Department? The media’s obsession with anonymous allegations against Cain, along with his actually getting snippy with reporters? The convoluted way the media presents “support” for the OWS, like this headline from CNN, “More Americans Supporting Occupy Wall Street**“? (Hint – they put the higher number of people who have HEARD of it at the top, and the much lower number of those who support it further down. How could people NOT have heard of it with the incessant coverage of it??) Up to you – let’s hear it!

**Update: Oops, the new Quinnipiac Poll shows more people have an unfavorable opinion of the OWS folks, so maybe not such a great idea for the Democrats to support it, according to this National Journal piece.