Friday, September 19, 2014

When Will "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" Learn?



Just busting!

(Well... a bit...)

But seriously... it's not that my bud "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned" is oblivious to Democrat corruption... it's just that he's still of the mindset that Wall Street is Republican while Main Street is Democrat.

He can't seem to comprehend that while they're both (Republicrats and Dempublicans) mainly scumbags, what makes the Democrats the greater danger to the middle class is that they utilize governmental power to a far greater degree than do Republicans in order to fix the game.

My answer? Remove government power... interference... wherever and whenever possible. When the regulatory state is "fixed" isn't that worse for the honest person than the risks of caveat emptor? I believe so!

Anyway... this expose of Obama's dirty dealings (with Credit Suisse and other "too big to fail" large international financial institutions) actually comes from the Left... written by David Sirota and published via "In These Times."

*  *  *  *  *  *

A few months ago, in a press conference about the felony conviction of Credit Suisse, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “This case shows that no financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the law.”

Yet earlier this month, the Obama administration announced its proposal to waive some of the possible sanctions against Credit Suisse.

The little-noticed waiver, which was outlined in the Federal Register, comes amid criticism that the Obama administration has gone too easy on major financial institutions that break the law.

* FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DON'T BREAK THE LAW - PEOPLE WITHIN THESE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS BREAK THE LAW! I WANT TO SEE THE PEOPLE PUT IN JAIL - NOT STOCKHOLDERS (AND... FOR THE LEFT... "STAKEHOLDERS") FINED FOR ACTIONS TAKEN IN THEIR NAMES BEHIND THEIR BACKS!

In its announcement outlining the waiver, the Department of Labor notes that Credit Suisse “operated an illegal cross-border banking business that knowingly and willfully aided and assisted thousands of U.S. clients in opening and maintaining undeclared accounts” and in “using sham entities” to hide money.

* IS THAT "MR." CREDIT SUISSE? "MS." CREDIT SUISSE? "MISS?" "MRS.?"

* FOLKS... IF THE LEFTIST "JOURNALISTS" BEHIND THIS PIECE WERE SERIOUS... WOULDN'T THEY BE THROWING OUT (AND ANSWERING) THESE QUESTIONS I'M BRINGING UP?

Under existing Department of Labor rules, the conviction could prevent Credit Suisse from being designated a Qualified Professional Asset Manager. That designation exempts firms from other federal laws, giving them the special status required to do business with many pension funds. The Obama administration...

* O*B*A*M*A...!!! NOT "THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION." O*B*A*M*A...!!!

...is proposing to waive those anti-criminal sanctions against Credit Suisse, thereby allowing Credit Suisse to get the QPAM designation needed to continue its pension business.

(*SNORT*)

The waiver proposal follows a larger pattern.

* NO DOUBT!

(*SNORT*)

In June, Bloomberg News reported that federal prosecutors have successfully pushed U.S. government agencies to allow Credit Suisse to avoid many regulatory sanctions that could have accompanied its criminal conviction.

* O*B*A*M*A...!!! (THE FEDERAL AGENCIES WORK FOR OBAMA! THEIR HEADS REPORT TO OBAMA!)

* BY THE WAY... NAMES...??? WHO ARE THESE (OBAMA APPOINTED?) "FEDERAL PROSECUTORS?"

(*SNORT*)

* SERIOUSLY... HOW STUPID DOES THIS "REPORTER" AND HIS/HER "EDITOR" THINK READERS ARE...?

“The New York Fed said last month that the bank can continue handling government securities as a so-called primary dealer,” reported the news service. “The SEC let the firm continue as an investment adviser while the agency considers a permanent waiver.”

* William C. Dudley took office on January 27, 2009  as PRESIDENT of the New York Fed. Prior to joining the Bank in 2007, Mr. Dudley was a partner and managing director at Goldman, Sachs & Company.

* FOLLOW THE PEOPLE... FOLLOW THE MONEY...

* AS TO THE S.E.C.

*The SEC consists of five Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the US Senate. (STAGGERED FIVE YEAR TERMS - OBAMA HAS APPOINTED ALL OF THEM.)

Pensions and Investments magazine has reported that despite Department of Labor assurances of tough enforcement of its sanctions against convicted financial firms, the agency has “granted waivers for all 23 firms seeking individual waivers since 1997.”

* YEP. THE OLIGARCHY CORRUPTS BOTH PARTIES.

Critics say that by using such maneuvers, the Obama administration is effectively cementing a “too big to punish” doctrine.

* IT IS.

That criticism intensified in 2012 and 2013, when top Justice Department officials defended the administration's reluctance to prosecute banks by publicly declaring that the government considers the potential economic impact of such prosecutions.

(*SNORT*)

Those declarations echoed an earlier memo by Attorney General Eric Holder, which stated that officials could take into account “collateral consequences” when deciding whether to prosecute major corporations.

* HOW DOES SUCH LOGIC APPLY TO THE ACTUAL PEOPLE RUNNING THE CORPORATIONS... THE ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL CRIMINALS? WHY DO THEY GET A PASS? HOW WOULD BRINGING INDIVIDUAL CROOKS TO JUSTICE CREATE WIDESPREAD "COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES?"

Why is the Obama administration reducing sanctions on Credit Suisse?

* BECAUSE WITH THE OLIGARCHY IT'S ONE FOR ALL, ALL FOR ONE!

The administration says it is a decision based on pragmatism, not favoritism.

* THEY LIE...

(*SHRUG*)

What the administration did not mention, of course, is that according to data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, employees of Credit Suisse have given President Obama's campaigns more than $376,000. That's particularly relevant in light of an April study of SEC data from London Business School professor Maria M. Correia. That analysis showed that “politically connected firms are on average less likely to be involved in … enforcement action and face lower penalties if they are prosecuted.”

* IMAGINE THAT...

(*SMIRK*)

Whatever the reason for the proposed waiver, one thing is for sure: The move contradicts the claim that “no financial institution, no matter its size or global reach, is above the law.” Indeed, the Obama administration’s waiver proposal suggests exactly the opposite.

* IT DOESN'T "SUGGEST." IT PROVES!

(*MUTTERING TO MYSELF*)

* FRIGGIN' LEFTY POSERS...

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, September 19, 2014


So... I go to the newest branch of Mavis Tire for my free tire rotation...

(*WHISTLING TO MYSELF*)

...and an hour and a half later I'm outta there - $200 poorer.

(*NO LONGER WHISTLING*)

Inner tie-rod end...

Outer tie-rod end...

Alignment...

Power steering flush...

(*SIGH*)

...but on the bright side - I did get my tires rotated!

Frankly, though... I gotta say... a fair enough price. They started off quoting me $274 plus tax and I got 'em down to $200 cash - tax "folded in."


Thursday, September 18, 2014

Just Shooting the Breeze With Michelle


Hey, Michelle - how's it going?!

(Rhetorical question, actually; we "chat" with each other most days via Facebook...)

That's how Michelle and I met, folks - on Facebook! In fact, since joining Facebook a couple years back in order to be "in the loop" regarding my then-upcoming 30th high school reunion, I've met a few nice people on Facebook (strangers... when we "met" at least) and reconnected with tons of folks from my past.

Me being me... I mainly chat about politics... social issues... educational issues... military and foreign policy issues... yadda, yadda, yadda...

I also throw out a lot of "likes," enjoy most of the photos, and "banter" with Facebook Friends about everything from recipes to the good ol' days... (Hey... ya remember when...)

(*GRIN*)

But politics IS my passion. Economics... history... science and technology... POLICY issues are my passion.

(*SMILE*)

Hey... that's why I maintain this blog.

The "politics" threads on Facebook... most often they're ignored... at best like-minded people exchange soundbites with each other... but at worst... "political" discussions on Facebook can get nasty.

Part of the problem... (and this is gonna offend more than a few of you)... most folks don't know what the hell they're talking about. They're either under-educated or miseducated... likely a combination of both.

When I'm in a "political" debate I'm in a gunfight. Most folks only bring knives; that's all they have. When I shoot 'em... they tend to get REALLY mad.

A lack of knowledge... weakness in terms of sheer reading comprehension... unchecked emotion... stubbornness... we all bring our hang-ups to social media... but since we ARE talking social media these hang-up often lead to blow-ups.

Right now some idiot family member or another is assuming this post concerns a "family" matter; a "family" blow-up. Nope! Don't flatter yourselves! You're just not that important!

(*GUFFAW*)

No... this post is actually a combined "thank you" to my Facebook Friend Michelle (whom I actually consider a REAL friend) and "invitation" to other friends (Facebook and "Real") to emulate Michelle's recent postings to my blog.

I can be nice! (Michelle... you'll attest that this, right?) 

No... seriously... while I'm never gonna take $hit off anyone, I'll always debate "professionally" - civilly - with both friends and strangers up to the point where the person I'm debating with crosses a line... say... deliberately distorts... lies... starts simply "going off." That I won't tolerate.

Am I a wiseass? Sure... (though I prefer "witty.")

(*WINK*)

Can I be condescending? You bet! (Sometimes simply as a tactic, though... to get my opponent annoyed and thus unbalanced and less likely to "score points.")

TOUGHEN UP, LADIES...! (And that includes you lads wearing panties!)

Michelle isn't my only respondent here on the blog, but other voices chime in infrequently. This saddens me. I consider (truly - I do) Usually Right to be an "educational" tool. Like Drudge, I'm a aggregator... but unlike Drudge... I insert myself into the news I present in such a way as to hopefully EDUCATE people who don't have a firm grasp on the minutia of "politics" and especially POLICY.

I try to amuse. I aim to impart.

(*WINK*)

Those of you who "lurk"... com'on... step into the light! (Even if you do it via "Anonymous.")

Michelle. You may yourself wonder WHY my "in real life" friends don't comment. Truthfully... it's a combination of laziness and fear.

YES... FEAR...

My friends are lawyers... doctors... business owners and so on and so forth. I've talked about this with most of them. They really ARE afraid of being "connected" to Usually Right in the sense of such a "connection" perhaps being used against them at some point in time. (Guilt by association.) (Six degrees of separation?)

For what it's worth, most of my "in real life" friends tend to agree with me more often than not... though perhaps in a more "flexible" fashion.

So... THANK YOU, MICHELLE. Thanks for your posts! Please keep 'em coming.

The rest of you... com'on... GROW A PAIR!

(*GUFFAW*)

And don't just hide behind, "oh, I'm just too busy... too busy to get drawn in to long back and forth debates," just remember... Barack Hussein Obama - President (Dictator?) of the United States - can GOLD for 26 hours out of ever 24-hour day (check the deficit clock for those missing two hours a day); surely YOU can fit in a few minutes a day to comment on at least one newsbite or stand-alone post!


Princeton... Sex... Niemoller... Amerika... and "We The Sheeple"



Courtesy of today's Wall Street Journal Review and Outlook Page:

*  *  *  *  *  *

Princeton University looks set to become the latest campus to curtail the due-process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct, including rape and other violent assaults.

On Monday the faculty voted to approve new disciplinary policies under which allegations of sexual offenses — but only sexual offenses — would no longer require "clear and persuasive evidence" to be considered proven.

* THIS... IS... OBAMA'S... AMERIKA...

* THIS... IS... THE... DEMOCRATIC... LEFT...

* AND IT AIN'T GONNA END HERE, FOLKS!

"Preponderance of the evidence," the standard used in civil lawsuits, would suffice.

* BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING CIVIL LAWSUITS. CIVIL LAWSUITS ARE ON THE TABLE IN ANY CASE! WE'RE TALKING THE EQUIVALENT OF A "CRIMINAL" CASE WITHIN THE UNIVERSE OF THE UNIVERSITY QUAD!

The new policy now goes to the Council of the Princeton University Community, which is expected to approve it Sept. 29.

The new policies would also deprive accused students of anything approximating a trial or a jury of their peers.

(*SLOW AND SARCASTIC CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Under existing procedure, all offenses are adjudicated by the Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline. A faculty advisory report asserts the committee "has operated with fairness and discretion" but nonetheless proposes stripping it of jurisdiction over sex offenses.

* WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO CALLING THE POLICE? THE "REAL" POLICE? RELYING UPON THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM? ABIDING BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGAL PROTECTIONS PROVIDED BY BOTH THE U.S. AND RELEVANT STATE CONSTITUTION?

Such allegations would instead be handled by a three-person team acting as both investigators and jury.

* JUDGE... JURY... AND EXECUTIONER...

(*PURSED LIPS*)

That trio would conduct separate interviews with the accuser, defendant and any other witnesses. Defendants would have no right to confront the accuser or other adverse witnesses.

* DEFENDANTS WOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE ACCUSER OR OTHER ADVERSE WITNESSES...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH PASTOR MARTIN NIEMOLLER... (IF NOT... GOOGLE HIM.)

In a nod toward due process, the proposal stipulates that an accused student (as well as the accuser) would have the right to a lawyer, which is not the case under current policy.

(*SNORT*)

But the lawyer would be permitted to speak only to his client, not on his client's behalf.

(*GUFFAW*)

The investigators would decide guilt or innocence, and a pair of deans would impose a sentence. The investigators would "have training in investigating and evaluating conduct prohibited under the policy," although precisely what kind of training is unspecified. We asked a university spokesman, who replied by email: "At this time it would not be appropriate to discuss what will or will not happen until the process is complete."

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* OBAMA'S A*M*E*R*I*K*A... THE LEFT'S A*M*E*R*I*K*A...

* YOUR AMERIKA...???

How the investigators will be trained is a crucial question.

* YA THINK...?!?!

In 2011 the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reported on training materials used at Stanford University that purported to enumerate characteristics of abusers and victims. The former, according to the Stanford materials, "act persuasive and logical," while the latter "feel confused." Combined with the preponderance-of-evidence standard, such vague and prejudicial guidelines are enough to create a nearly irrebuttable presumption of guilt.

* DO TELL...!!!

(*SMIRKING WHILE SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Universities are ill-equipped to investigate and adjudicate allegations of violent crime; that is why we have police, prosecutors, judges and juries.

* AH... BUT THAT WAS AMERICA WITH A "C." THIS IS THE NEW AMERIKA... WITH A "K."

* THIS IS OBAMA'S AMERIKA. THIS IS THE LEFT'S AMERIKA.

The pressure on universities to conduct such investigations, and to jettison due process, emanates from Washington, where the Education Department's Office of Civil Rights has imposed onerous demands on educational institutions in the name of combating sex discrimination.

* SEE...

(*SHRUG*)

Schools that refuse to adopt the preponderance-of-evidence standard, among other requirements, are threatened with the denial of federal funds, including student financial aid.

* YOU'RE READING THIS - RIGHT, FOLKS?

* A*M*E*R*I*K*A... A*M*E*R*I*K*A...

Princeton has been under OCR investigation since 2010 for alleged lenience toward sex-offense defendants.

* AND...??? HAVE ANY COLLEGE OFFICIALS BEEN CHARGED? (LET ALONE CONVICTED...?) IT'S 2014 - ALMOST 2015! IF OCR HAS A CASE TO MAKE... SHOULDN'T THEY MAKE IT... IN A COURT OF LAW?

* OH... SORRY... ALMOST FORGOT...

(*SIGH*)

* A*M*E*R*I*K*A...

Members of the Princeton Council may feel they have no choice but to rubber-stamp this proposal.

* AND MEMBERS OF THE PRINCE COUNCIL CAN BE COUNTED AS PART OF THE "ELITE" OF SOCIETY. IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN EXTORT THEM...

(*PURSED LIPS*)

* AGAIN, FOLKS... NIEMOLLER... PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO SPEAK UP?

On the other hand, the university has an $18 billion endowment, one of the biggest in the country. Perhaps it could afford to risk some federal funding in the interest of preserving the rights of Princeton students.

* MEMBERS OF THE PRINCETON COUNCIL... PUTTING PRINCIPAL ABOVE "PROFIT?"

(*LAUGHING*)

I WOULDN'T BET ON IT...