Sorry for the long title. :) The link: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6907429&page=1
" "There's no surprise at all," said Washington lawyer and IRS consultant Jack Blum. "This man has been on law enforcement's radar screen for the better part of 10 years."
"But the SEC didn't move forward until this week, after two former Stanford Financial whistleblowers filed an alleged lawsuit, which revealed how the bank lied about too-good-to-be-true certificates of deposit. "
You don't say. The article goes on to say that Mr Stanford is now missing and that US Marshals are looking for him. I have nothing against the US Marshals, in fact, I think they do splendid work. I also think that, true to their motto, they'll get their man.
But there are two possibilities here. First, as the article states, Mr Stanford is accused of bilking investors out of as much as $8 BILLION. Therefore, it's possible that somebody took revenge on him, may have done him harm. (NOTE TO SECRET SERVICE - I DO NOT CONDONE THIS.)
The other possibility is that Mr Stanford ran. $8 BILLION is quite a bit of money, and therefore it is possible that he ran rather than face the music.
"The federal investigation, however, did not stop Stanford from using corporate money to become a big man at last year's Democratic convention in Denver.
A video posted on the firm's web-site shows Stanford, now sought by U.S. Marshals, being hugged by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and praised by former President Bill Clinton for helping to finance a convention-related forum and party put on by the National Democratic Institute. "
Oh. That's why it took the SEC the better part of 10 years.
" Over the last decade, Stanford has spent more than $7 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions to Washington politics in both parties, although the vast majority of the money has gone to Democrats. " (emphasis added)
You don't say. Has anybody in the US mainstream media reported on this next? Link: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4853210a13.html
The title? "Madoff, Stanford link in NZ."
" The New Zealand representative of the allegedly fraudulent Stanford Financial Group is an international tax professional with business links to another Kiwi lawyer associated with another accused fraudster, Bernard Madoff."
You remember Bernard Madoff, right? He's accused of the $50 BILLION Ponzi scheme.
"Wellington lawyer Gordon Ralph Stewart is the sole listed director of Stanford Trust Company (NZ), advertised as the Kiwi representative of the Caribbean-based group of companies run by Texan billionaire Allen Stanford."
"Mr Stewart is a local tax lawyer and operates out of his home office in the Wellington suburb of Thorndon. He did not return calls from The Dominion Post.
His $1.4 million Tinakori Rd home is listed as the address for Stanford Trust Company (NZ) as well as almost 100 other firms of which he is a director."
You don't say.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Video: Anti-Obama Sign Taken by OKC Cops
Seriously. Here's a direct link: http://www.newsok.com/okc-officer-pulls-man-over-for-anti-obama-sign-on-vehicle/article/3347038?custom_click=headlines_widget
" The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the U.S. Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning. " (links left intact but are not mine.)
And yes, the Secret Service was called and did a walk-through of the man's house. His Anti-Obamessiah sign was returned later that day, but it makes you wonder.
It makes me wonder how long before somebody complains that my call to Impeach Obama means that I'm a radical and that I need to be "investigated."
But if you think this is going to make me be silent:
Note to Secret Service; in this context it means "I will not be silent." In case you don't understand English, I can also say it in French, German, and Spanish. It says "I will not submit. I will not surrender." Again, in this context, it means "I will not be silent."
What I am, however, is furious. We have a Usurper in the White House who is pushing us towards Socialism, we have the lapdogs in the press cheering the entire thing on, and now ACORN is preaching that people who are about to be foreclosed on should disobey eviction orders. How about you investigate ACORN? How about you force President Barack Hussein Obama produce proof that he is eligible to be the President?
Or does that make too much sense?
How about this one: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135656
"The students in the class were hopeful things will work out, but questioned whether Obama's plan would actually work to dig the country out of its economic woes. They also expected a longer speech." (emphasis added)
QUICK, SECRET SERVICE! INVESTIGATE THESE PEOPLE! THEY'RE QUESTIONING "the one."
" The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the U.S. Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning. " (links left intact but are not mine.)
And yes, the Secret Service was called and did a walk-through of the man's house. His Anti-Obamessiah sign was returned later that day, but it makes you wonder.
It makes me wonder how long before somebody complains that my call to Impeach Obama means that I'm a radical and that I need to be "investigated."
But if you think this is going to make me be silent:
Note to Secret Service; in this context it means "I will not be silent." In case you don't understand English, I can also say it in French, German, and Spanish. It says "I will not submit. I will not surrender." Again, in this context, it means "I will not be silent."
What I am, however, is furious. We have a Usurper in the White House who is pushing us towards Socialism, we have the lapdogs in the press cheering the entire thing on, and now ACORN is preaching that people who are about to be foreclosed on should disobey eviction orders. How about you investigate ACORN? How about you force President Barack Hussein Obama produce proof that he is eligible to be the President?
Or does that make too much sense?
How about this one: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135656
"The students in the class were hopeful things will work out, but questioned whether Obama's plan would actually work to dig the country out of its economic woes. They also expected a longer speech." (emphasis added)
QUICK, SECRET SERVICE! INVESTIGATE THESE PEOPLE! THEY'RE QUESTIONING "the one."
Drudge Report Opening Screen
Screenshot:
The top is rather hard to read because it's so small. So here it is: "VIDEO: 'The government is promoting bad behavior... do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages... This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage? President Obama are you listening? How about we all stop paying our mortgage! It's a moral hazard'... MORE... "
That's the direct link. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Barack Obama's name messed up again.
Before I go there, he's a link to a Photoshopped image: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl/upload/BarackOsama_372px.jpg (WARNING: NOT SAFE FOR WORK.)
The link: http://valleywag.gawker.com/5155229/obama-bin-laden-error-hits-yahoos-homepage
Yes, you read that correctly. And what was the title of the article on Yahoo's site? "Science takes on terror hunt. A geographer uses innovative analysis to narrow Obama bin Laden's location to three sites."
Oops.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
The link: http://valleywag.gawker.com/5155229/obama-bin-laden-error-hits-yahoos-homepage
Yes, you read that correctly. And what was the title of the article on Yahoo's site? "Science takes on terror hunt. A geographer uses innovative analysis to narrow Obama bin Laden's location to three sites."
Oops.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Article: "Catholic politicians must protect life."
The link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E13500&show_article=1
"Pelosi is the first top Democrat to meet with Benedict since the election of Barack Obama, who won a majority of the Catholic vote despite differences with the Vatican on abortion. " (Links left intact but are not mine.)
Which brings us to another matter. How many times have we heard or read "Bushitler?" The lefties used it quite freqently, even Photoshopped a picture of President Bush giving the Nazi salute. The lefties, of course, loved that.
" VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday told U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life "at all stages of its development," the Vatican said.
"Pelosi is the first top Democrat to meet with Benedict since the election of Barack Obama, who won a majority of the Catholic vote despite differences with the Vatican on abortion. " (Links left intact but are not mine.)
No kidding. His Holiness (the Pope) has made it quite clear where the Vatican and the Holy See stand on the issue of abortion. Although, to be fair, the picture on Wikipedia's website of him scares me. Something about that smile...::shudder::
In any event, part of the porkulus that the Usurper [Obama] signed provides monies to provide for abortions. For me, I'm against abortion. But let's take a look at it this way:
Let's say that Obama had signed into law monies forcing people to not have abortions, but to deliver the children and then put them up for adoption. The abortion rights crowd would be up in arms, demanding to know how Obama could spend their money on something that they are opposed to. This is the opposite - in that Obama has demanded that some porkulus monies be used for something I'm opposed to. The liberals, of course, won't touch that. But to look at it from the reverse angle, you know they'd be up in arms.
Which brings us to another matter. How many times have we heard or read "Bushitler?" The lefties used it quite freqently, even Photoshopped a picture of President Bush giving the Nazi salute. The lefties, of course, loved that.
Follow this link: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/17/nutroots-suddenly-hypersensitive-about-nazipresident-comparisons/
But now, somebody has put the facist symbol inside the "O" of Obama. The lefties went nuts. But what's that last picture?
Can we say "hypocrites," lefties? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy
You don't say. "Do as I say, not as I do," right?
Believe it or not, but you're part of the problem.
Article: "Holder: US is a nation of cowards on racial matters."
The link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96E53483&show_article=1
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.
In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives. " (Link not mine and left intact.)
Mr Holder, do the letters "F. O." mean anything to you? Whom I chose to spend my time with is none of your bloody concern. If I want to spend it with my family, my friends, worshipping tree bark (as some environmentalists do) then that is my choice. NOT YOURS.
But you could at least be man enough and have the cojones* to come out here and say it to my face. But that would require something that you don't have in my opinion ... cojones*.
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones A very frequent misspelling (sometimes done deliberately as a euphemism) is cajones, which actually means "drawers" (the piece of furniture) or "wooden box drums" (see cajón) in Spanish. (Links left intact and belong to Wikipedia.) And yes, I've made that mistake too.
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.
In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives. " (Link not mine and left intact.)
Mr Holder, do the letters "F. O." mean anything to you? Whom I chose to spend my time with is none of your bloody concern. If I want to spend it with my family, my friends, worshipping tree bark (as some environmentalists do) then that is my choice. NOT YOURS.
But you could at least be man enough and have the cojones* to come out here and say it to my face. But that would require something that you don't have in my opinion ... cojones*.
* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones A very frequent misspelling (sometimes done deliberately as a euphemism) is cajones, which actually means "drawers" (the piece of furniture) or "wooden box drums" (see cajón) in Spanish. (Links left intact and belong to Wikipedia.) And yes, I've made that mistake too.
Article: "Dem exclusive? Reporters jump ship."
The link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18971.html
You get three guesses as to where those "fair, balanced, unbiased" "reporters" went.
"In three months since Election Day, at least a half-dozen prominent journalists have taken jobs working for the federal government. "
You read that correctly. Some time earlier I wrote that Mr Obamessiah would be beholden to his lapdogs in the American "press" who went into all out cheering mode during the "campaign." And now "...at least a half-dozen prominent journalists..." are working for the Obamessiah. At least six.
To be fair, the article doesn't say that Chris Matthews took one of those jobs. But, also to be fair, he could simply be in the port-a-potty trying to get rid of the thrill going up his leg ... or that other stuff that's on its way down said leg. Remember that? Here's that link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk6XkkU (It's at 30 seconds into the clip.)
But he also did coin the term (I'm NOT making this up!) "projectile victory." And you'll forgive me, I hope, but I can't pass this one up...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE8hcjBFsz4 (It's at 48 seconds into the clip.) "Projectile" victory. I wonder if that was some other stuff "projecting" itself down his leg at the same time the thrill was going up.
But let's return to the first link, shall we? Here it is again: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18971.html
"But conservative critics answer with a question: Would journalists be making the same career choices if John McCain had beaten Barack Obama in November? "
Um....do you really need to ask that question? The answer, of course, is no. You'll remember that the lapdogs savaged Mr McAmnesty and Gov. Palin. There was that SNL skit where they lampooned Gov. Palin and said that she could see Russia from her home (which, for the record, is not what she said.) There was the "Us Weekly" "magazine" article which to many, myself included, was little better than a smear article.
"And while Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, acknowledges that financial troubles may be forcing reporters out of newsrooms, he thinks it’s worth noting where they’re going."
Of course it's worth noting where those "impartial" "reporters" are going! How many studies now have shown the liberal bias in the "media?" And I'm not talking studies by conservative groups, I'm talking Rasmussen studies, Pew studies, there was even a UCLA study that concluded that there was a liberal bias in the media! That shouldn't be a 'duh' moment, but given that those "unbiased" reporters couldn't be bothered to report that, I'm afraid it is such a moment.
Duh. But wait! We're talking about the Obamessiah! Shouldn't that be D'Obama?
"So, would Zuckman have taken — or even been offered — such a job if McCain were president?
" “I have a great deal of respect for [McCain] and have thoroughly enjoyed covering him over the years,” Zuckman said. “But there’s no way I can answer your hypothetical because I wouldn’t know who he would have chosen for secretary of transportation."
Well, I'll partially give her this one. PARTIALLY. While it's true that she couldn't have known to an absolute certainty, she could have made a reasonable guess that it wouldn't have been her. Sorry, this is another 'duh' moment.
And as for the question of would Ms Zuckman been offered such a job in the McAmnesty administration ... sorry.
Duh.
You get three guesses as to where those "fair, balanced, unbiased" "reporters" went.
"In three months since Election Day, at least a half-dozen prominent journalists have taken jobs working for the federal government. "
You read that correctly. Some time earlier I wrote that Mr Obamessiah would be beholden to his lapdogs in the American "press" who went into all out cheering mode during the "campaign." And now "...at least a half-dozen prominent journalists..." are working for the Obamessiah. At least six.
To be fair, the article doesn't say that Chris Matthews took one of those jobs. But, also to be fair, he could simply be in the port-a-potty trying to get rid of the thrill going up his leg ... or that other stuff that's on its way down said leg. Remember that? Here's that link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk6XkkU (It's at 30 seconds into the clip.)
But he also did coin the term (I'm NOT making this up!) "projectile victory." And you'll forgive me, I hope, but I can't pass this one up...: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE8hcjBFsz4 (It's at 48 seconds into the clip.) "Projectile" victory. I wonder if that was some other stuff "projecting" itself down his leg at the same time the thrill was going up.
But let's return to the first link, shall we? Here it is again: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18971.html
"But conservative critics answer with a question: Would journalists be making the same career choices if John McCain had beaten Barack Obama in November? "
Um....do you really need to ask that question? The answer, of course, is no. You'll remember that the lapdogs savaged Mr McAmnesty and Gov. Palin. There was that SNL skit where they lampooned Gov. Palin and said that she could see Russia from her home (which, for the record, is not what she said.) There was the "Us Weekly" "magazine" article which to many, myself included, was little better than a smear article.
"And while Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, acknowledges that financial troubles may be forcing reporters out of newsrooms, he thinks it’s worth noting where they’re going."
Of course it's worth noting where those "impartial" "reporters" are going! How many studies now have shown the liberal bias in the "media?" And I'm not talking studies by conservative groups, I'm talking Rasmussen studies, Pew studies, there was even a UCLA study that concluded that there was a liberal bias in the media! That shouldn't be a 'duh' moment, but given that those "unbiased" reporters couldn't be bothered to report that, I'm afraid it is such a moment.
Duh. But wait! We're talking about the Obamessiah! Shouldn't that be D'Obama?
"So, would Zuckman have taken — or even been offered — such a job if McCain were president?
" “I have a great deal of respect for [McCain] and have thoroughly enjoyed covering him over the years,” Zuckman said. “But there’s no way I can answer your hypothetical because I wouldn’t know who he would have chosen for secretary of transportation."
Well, I'll partially give her this one. PARTIALLY. While it's true that she couldn't have known to an absolute certainty, she could have made a reasonable guess that it wouldn't have been her. Sorry, this is another 'duh' moment.
And as for the question of would Ms Zuckman been offered such a job in the McAmnesty administration ... sorry.
Duh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
