Visit Counter

Monday, February 11, 2013

Jesse Jackson Jr. signs plea deal, reportedly faces 'significant' jail time




 Also included in the plea deal.


And the keys to Blago's jail cell.




Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. has signed a plea deal regarding the inappropriate use of official funds, Fox News has learned. 

Details of the deal are unclear, but Fox News has learned that it also pertains to a "social acquaintance" of the former Illinois Democratic congressman. 

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the deal -- at least one being considered earlier in the week -- includes "significant jail time." 

Jackson resigned last November shortly after being reelected to the House. The son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson Sr. had been treated for bipolar disorder, but also has been the subject of an ongoing federal investigation over campaign funds. 

The Sun-Times reported that the probe has split into two separate investigations, with one into Jackson's wife Sandi. Sandi recently resigned as a Chicago city alderman. 

The confirmation of a plea deal marks another blow for a public figure who was once considered a rising star. 

Jesse Jackson Jr. first took office in 1995 after winning a special election and began his career in Washington with a star power and pedigree that set him apart from his hundreds of other House colleagues. 

But despite high expectations, he largely went unnoticed as a policymaker.

 Instead, he gained a reputation for quixotic pursuits such as trying to impeach President George W. Bush and push through constitutional amendments that had no chance. 

Another one of his "pursuits"...Giovanna




Jackson, 47, disappeared in June, and it was later revealed that he was being treated at the Mayo Clinic for bipolar disorder and gastrointestinal issues.


Root cause of Junior's bipolar disorder was an FBI investigation


 He returned to his Washington home in September but went back to the clinic the next month, with his father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, saying his son had not yet "regained his balance." 


 He's referring to the balance in his checking account.





They both like a little side action now and then

They're both liars 

One was in jail 

One is going 










Share/Bookmark

Friday, February 8, 2013

Mexico...Mr Democrat..tear down that wall!



And they're only too happy to oblige.


(If video won't load click post title)



Video 13

 "Citizens"...a Freudian slip...? This asshole is sending out an open invitation! 
Are these the kind of people you want representing your values in Washington? 





 Illegals don't exist according to this fool. I wonder if he's related to Hank  (Guam is going to tip over) Johnson.


This is what I been saying all along. A Democrat would pimp out his own mother for a vote. Why do you supposed they're against securing the border? Pure and simple. Illegals are future votes. They're all for taking away your Second Amendment rights yet a rudimentary common sense approach to prevent voter fraud by requiring photo ID is considered racist. Surprisingly 66% of Americans in a recent poll support the above moron's viewpoint. I thought US Department of Labor Hilda Solis running an ad, using taxpayer dollars, advocating illegals get a fair wage in conjunction with ketchup being replaced by salsa as the number one condiment in America would wake up the preverbal sleeping giant. 
I was wrong. 

(If video won't load click post title)



Video 14

Your tax dollars at work.

Wow what a deterrent for illegals!


 BTW... When Barry grants illegals amnesty
which will be upwards of more then 12 million under the guise of "Immigration Reform" he just created millions of Democrats, who should have been deported, out of thin air.  

Remember when illegal aliens were just that. Then they became undocumented workers. Now they are called immigrants or as the idiot above refers to them as "out of status" and "new Americans".


Reid 2007:

"This week we are going to complete this legislation and we will hopefully complete the final passage that will strengthen our border security and bring 12 million Undocumented Americans out of the shadows."


Isn't this an oxymoron? How in the hell can one be "undocumented" and a "American" at the same time!







25 years from now our country will be unrecognizable, and most Americans sat on their ass and watched it happen!











Share/Bookmark

Thursday, February 7, 2013

When you need more then the audacity of hope





(If video won't load click post title)



Video 12









Share/Bookmark

What if it was Bush's drone policy?





After the hullabaloo over Abu Ghraib, they (MSM) would have nailed Bush to the cross yet looked the other way ( protecting their boy) when it came to  Benghazi. 

IMAGINE IF BUSH HAD A "KILL LIST"!!!


Liberal dogs like Kucinch wanted Bush impeached over waterboarding and the Patriot Act . They would have gone bonkers (supported by the press I might add) if W used drones to kill Americans. However, I would have supported him in this endeavor knowing any American who perpetrates crimes against the United States, in my mind, is no longer an American. Barry and I agree on nothing. But this case is the exception. If Barry has irrefutable, undeniable, information leading to a terrorist on foreign soil, particularly if that someone is an American, for they are the most vile and despicable of all, blow them to hell.


What I don't like... crying about Gitmo promising to close it down calling waterboarding torture (no one died and the reason he got Bin Laden) then to turn around and kill terrorist's with drones is nothing more then sanctimonious bullshit.


The leak of a document on the Obama administration's drone strike policy has some people in Washington playing the "what-if" game.

What if President George W. Bush's administration had written a such a document on the legality of drone attacks, even on U.S. citizens working with alleged terrorists overseas?






Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted: "Good thing (Department of Justice) drone memo didn't come out in 2008. Candidate Obama would never have put up with stuff like that going on."

Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman who hosts MSNBC's Morning Joe, said that if this was the Bush administration, there would be "congressional hearings" and "articles of impeachment."

Candidate Obama and Democrats did indeed criticize Bush-era counter-terrorism policies, such as warrant-less wiretaps and enhanced interrogation techniques (water boarding).

Aides to President Obama said he is continuing the war on terrorism, authorized by Congress shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Obama "takes the absolute necessity to conduct our war against al Qaeda and its affiliates in a way that's consistent with the Constitution and our laws very seriously," said White House press secretary Jay Carney.

The spokesman added that "it is a matter of fact that al Qaeda is in a state of war against us and that senior leaders, operational leaders of al Qaeda are continually plotting to attack the United States, plotting to kill American citizens as they did most horrifically on September 11, 2001."

The debate over Obama's drone strike policy may not end soon, as noted by the Associated Press:

"Uncomfortable with the Obama administration's use of deadly drones, a growing number in Congress is looking to limit America's authority to kill suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens. The Democratic-led outcry was emboldened by the revelation in a newly surfaced Justice Department memo that shows drones can strike against a wider range of threats, with less evidence, than previously believed.

"The drone program, which has been used from Pakistan across the Middle East and into North Africa to find and kill an unknown number of suspected terrorists, is expected to be a top topic of debate when the Senate Intelligence Committee grills John Brennan, the White House's pick for CIA chief, at a hearing Thursday."







Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

It’s Official: Feds Sue Famed Ratings Agency S&P










This is nothing more then payback over the S&P downgrade and a warning shot over the bow of Moody's or whomever else should get in Barry's way. It also serves as a distraction along the lines of gun control and immigration reform (aka amnesty) to divert attention away from the real issues of near 8% unemployment and over $16.5 trillion in debt.



(And from all places... Time Magazine)










WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — The U.S. government is accusing the debt rating agency Standard &aPoor's of fraud for giving high ratings to risky mortgage bonds that helped bring about the financial crisis.

The government filed a civil complaint late Monday against S&P, the first enforcement action the government has taken against a major rating agency related to the financial crisis.

S&P, a unit of New York-based McGraw-Hill Cos., has denied wrongdoing. It says the government also failed to predict the subprime mortgage crisis.

Indeed, you may recall that certain members of Congress repeatedly assured the American people that there was no "housing bubble":

Nevertheless, the government's lawsuit paints a picture of a company that misled investors knowingly, more concerned about making money than about accurate ratings. It says S&P delayed updating its ratings models, rushed through the ratings process and was fully aware that the subprime market was flailing even as it gave high marks to investments made of subprime mortgages.

The government's lawsuit says that "S&P's desire for increased revenue and market share … led S&P to downplay and disregard the true extent of the credit risks" posed by the investments it was rating.

For example, S&P typically charged $150,000 for rating a subprime mortgage-backed security, and $750,000 for certain types of other securities. If S&P lost the business – for example, if the firm that planned to sell the security decided it could get a better rating from Fitch or Moody's – then an S&P analyst would have to submit a "lost deal" memo explaining why he or she lost the business.

That created sloppy ratings, the government said.

"Most rating committees took less than 15 minutes to complete," the government said in its lawsuit, describing the process where an S&P analyst would present a rating for review. "Numerous rating committees were conducted simultaneously in the same conference room."

According to the lawsuit, S&P was constantly trying to keep the financial firms — its clients — happy.

Here's a point-by-point breakdown of the fed's arguments against S&P's business practices:
A 2007 PowerPoint presentation on its ratings model said that being "business friendly" was a central component, according to the government. 

In a 2004 document, executives said they would poll investors as part of the process for choosing a rating.
A 2004 memo said that "concerns with the objectivity, integrity, or validity" of ratings criteria should be communicated in person rather than through email. 

Also that year, an analyst complained that S&P had lost a deal because its criteria for a rating was stricter than Moody's. "We need to address this now in preparation for the future deals," the analyst wrote. 

By 2006, S&P was well aware that the subprime mortgage market was collapsing, the government said, even though S&P didn't issue a mass downgrade of subprime-backed securities until 2007. One document describing the performance of the subprime loans backing some investments "was so bad that analysts initially thought the data contained typographical errors," the government lawsuit said. 

Another analyst wrote in a 2007 email, referring to ratings for mortgage-backed investments: "The fact is, there was a lot of internal pressure in S&P to downgrade lots of deals earlier on before this thing started blowing up. But the leadership was concerned of pissing off too many clients and jumping the gun ahead of Fitch and Moody's." 

The government filed its lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. The government charged S&P under the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a law supposedly aimed at making sure banks invest safely, and said that S&P's alleged fraud made it possible to sell the investments to banks.

Wait, S&P is being charged under Dodd-Frank? As in former Congressman Barney "There is no housing bubble" Frank?




Eggs laid by Democrats didn't hatch until the Bush administration.

(If video wont load click post title)


Video 9


If S&P is eventually found to have committed civil violations, it could face fines and limits on how it does business. The government said in its filing that it's seeking financial penalties.

The action does not involve any criminal allegations. 

Final Thought: Oddly enough, absent from most reports on the feds suing S&P is any mention of the fact that of the top three major credit ratings agencies, S&P was the only one willing to downgrade the U.S.' credit rating.

Indeed, as noted yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, it is a little curious that the feds have brought charges against S&P and S&P only:

Many details of the looming enforcement action couldn't be immediately determined, such as why prosecutors are zeroing in on S&P rather than rivals Moody's Corp. and Fitch Ratings …

All three credit-rating firms have faced intense criticism from lawmakers for giving allegedly overly rosy ratings to thousands of subprime-mortgage bonds before the housing market collapsed.

And although we now have a clearer picture of the fed's case against S&P, it still doesn't explain why other ratings agencies — wh0 made similar deals — have been spared litigation. Do you suspect the firm's decision to downgrade the U.S.' "AAA" credit rating on August 5, 2011, played a role in the charges being brought against them?












Share/Bookmark