A Great article from Red-Liberals
Judge Holds Clinton EPA in Contempt of Court - featuring Carol Browner
Posted by bills under Red-Liberals
What kind of people does Alfred E. Boman put in his administration? People like Carol Browner. While at the EPA in January 2001, Browner and the EPA were ordered by a Judge to retain records pursuant to a discovery filed by the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF was concerned that the EPA would be violating the freedom of information act by destroying emails and data relating to what Mark Levin, counsel for the LLF, contended was to be an unprecedented set of executive decisions by the lame duck president Bill Clinton. You might remember when the left accused George Bush of reversing regulations prohibiting high levels of zinc in drinking water. The fact was, the cowardly Clinton enacted the unrealistically stringent drinking water standards in the last days of his office, in an overtly partisan political act. The EPA admitted that they, as well as several other Clinton administration officials had reformatted their hard drives shortly after President George W. Bush's inauguration, in defiance of the court order and contrary to government policy. They were found in contempt of court, and ordered to repay tens of thousands of dollars of legal costs to the LLF. Said Landmark President Mark Levin. "The EPA destroyed vast databases that would have revealed the extent to which Carol Browner and other top officials worked with environmental groups to issue last-minute regulations prior to the end of the Clinton administration. "Now Carol Browner, a partisan, sneaky, underhanded lefty has been given the ubiquitous title of 'Coordinator of Energy and Climate Policy'. Lefties are hoping she can destroy the coal industry, and burden every gallon of gasoline with massive new taxes. She will hamper the economy while undoubtedly incurring more and more legal fees, paid for by Uncle Sam out of our taxes with her sloppy yet vicious zeal. And just like zinc levels in groundwater, (measured in parts per billion) all to save the children.
"Chuck on the Right Side"
Friday, December 19, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Bias exhibited by Professor Robert Watson
November 30, 2008
Dear Editor: The bias exhibited by Professor Robert Watson is quite evident to everyone except the Sun-Sentinel.His tirade against President George W. Bush in the Sun-Sentinel ( Nov. 30) was a continuation of his vendetta against President Bush that he has conducted over the past 8 years, many times in the pages of the Sun-Sentinel.Most historians can and should praise or criticize a sitting president - but a really non-partisan historian would withhold his scholarly evaluation of his presidency after a reasonable amount of time has passed after he has left office. Using his method of exclaiming George W. Bush the " worst" president in history, I wonder what he would've wrote when Harry Truman was leaving office? He has consistently blamed Bush for anything that went wrong in the country or the world, but never once gave him any credit for the positive happenings during his administration such as his prescient "war on terror" and his liberating of over 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.Professor Watson is the poster boy for why academia is often accused of being in the pocket of the liberal establishment. It is he that should be labeled " irrelevant" - not President Bush.
Sincerely,
Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"
Dear Editor: The bias exhibited by Professor Robert Watson is quite evident to everyone except the Sun-Sentinel.His tirade against President George W. Bush in the Sun-Sentinel ( Nov. 30) was a continuation of his vendetta against President Bush that he has conducted over the past 8 years, many times in the pages of the Sun-Sentinel.Most historians can and should praise or criticize a sitting president - but a really non-partisan historian would withhold his scholarly evaluation of his presidency after a reasonable amount of time has passed after he has left office. Using his method of exclaiming George W. Bush the " worst" president in history, I wonder what he would've wrote when Harry Truman was leaving office? He has consistently blamed Bush for anything that went wrong in the country or the world, but never once gave him any credit for the positive happenings during his administration such as his prescient "war on terror" and his liberating of over 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.Professor Watson is the poster boy for why academia is often accused of being in the pocket of the liberal establishment. It is he that should be labeled " irrelevant" - not President Bush.
Sincerely,
Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"
Sunday, November 9, 2008
“Audacity of Hype”
Dear Friends and Fellow Republicans:
The “ Audacity of Hype” has won the day with an empty message of “ change”. The Republicans, instead of putting forth a political agenda of conservative values and principles, tried to cater their message to the masses by becoming “ Democrat-Lite”, thinking that would woo some Democrats and Independents. It looks like it did just the opposite, and, in addition, lost many conservatives in the process, as well it should have. The Republican party has lost it’s way and only an infusion of rock-solid conservative principles and strong conservative candidates can alter the decline.
The disgraceful performance of the heads of the Republican party of Florida, including our “ wimp” of a Governor ( a personal friend of Robert “ Weasel” Wexler), who ignored the Congressional race of Allen West ( and also Edward Lynch), who, being an unknown 10 months ago, came within a few points of toppling an obscenely well financed first-term incumbent. Republicans don’t win elections by becoming pseudo-Democrats and by abandoning the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan.
We need another Newt Gingrich and his “ Contract With America” to come to the assistance of us lonely conservatives. Our hero, Allen West, is the go-to guy we need to lead the party back to its conservative roots and away from the destructive influence of the RINO’s ( Republicans in Name Only).
Let’s start as soon as possible to right the ship before it sinks totally out of sight. If the Congress continues to do what it did the past two years, which was nothing, a candidate like Allen West could step in to fill the void, without any albatross around his neck like a polarizing President and a weak presidential candidate, he would have a better than even chance to bring that seat back to the G.O.P. and to give us frustrated Republicans a chance to regain our sanity.
Now, let’s go do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"
The “ Audacity of Hype” has won the day with an empty message of “ change”. The Republicans, instead of putting forth a political agenda of conservative values and principles, tried to cater their message to the masses by becoming “ Democrat-Lite”, thinking that would woo some Democrats and Independents. It looks like it did just the opposite, and, in addition, lost many conservatives in the process, as well it should have. The Republican party has lost it’s way and only an infusion of rock-solid conservative principles and strong conservative candidates can alter the decline.
The disgraceful performance of the heads of the Republican party of Florida, including our “ wimp” of a Governor ( a personal friend of Robert “ Weasel” Wexler), who ignored the Congressional race of Allen West ( and also Edward Lynch), who, being an unknown 10 months ago, came within a few points of toppling an obscenely well financed first-term incumbent. Republicans don’t win elections by becoming pseudo-Democrats and by abandoning the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan.
We need another Newt Gingrich and his “ Contract With America” to come to the assistance of us lonely conservatives. Our hero, Allen West, is the go-to guy we need to lead the party back to its conservative roots and away from the destructive influence of the RINO’s ( Republicans in Name Only).
Let’s start as soon as possible to right the ship before it sinks totally out of sight. If the Congress continues to do what it did the past two years, which was nothing, a candidate like Allen West could step in to fill the void, without any albatross around his neck like a polarizing President and a weak presidential candidate, he would have a better than even chance to bring that seat back to the G.O.P. and to give us frustrated Republicans a chance to regain our sanity.
Now, let’s go do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Chuck Lehmann
"Chuck on the Right Side"
Friday, October 31, 2008
Dem leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition of WMD
Quotes reproduce statements made by Democratic leaders about Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction .
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. LYING LIBERAL
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. INSANE LIBERAL
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. BIG Hypocrite LIBERAL
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. HORSEHEAD Traitor LIBERAL
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, Filthy RICH LIBERAL
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 UGLY LIBERAL
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
Kirk at "Chuck on the Right Side"
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. LYING LIBERAL
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. INSANE LIBERAL
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. BIG Hypocrite LIBERAL
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. HORSEHEAD Traitor LIBERAL
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002, Filthy RICH LIBERAL
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 UGLY LIBERAL
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES??? Right!!!
Kirk at "Chuck on the Right Side"
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Aah, The Rigors of Getting Older
Life is predictable, everyone gets older, whether we like it or not. Some of us age gracefully, some of us try to postpone the ravages of aging by getting a nip and a tuck, here and there or everywhere.
So, what are some of the general signs of getting older. One obvious one is the simple act of getting up and out of a chair or a couch. During our younger years we jumped up and out in an instant, but now we have to get help by maneuvering back and forth or by getting a helping hand and a helpful pull up. It’s embarrassing how “unagile” we’ve become.
Many of us, when we reached forty, had difficulty reading the newspaper or a restaurant menu, but had no problem seeing a good looking guy or gal some 50 yards away and could see what they were or were not wearing, and whether it matched or not. From that time on, we invested in reading glasses, not just one pair, but several, to be available at an instant’s notice, in time of need, which now seems to be all the time.
Another vexation of getting older is those sneaky aches and pains that pop up at unexpected times without any reasonable expectation of figuring out why, where, or what you did to deserve this ache and pain. The term “ pain in the neck” can be taken more literally as we get older rather than the other definition of being an obnoxious person.
Since we older folk are encouraged to exercise by our doctors, our family, and our friends, little mention is made about the exercise gained by walking to the bathroom, to empty our bladders, sometimes 3 times or more per night, much to our dismay, chagrin and annoyance, and about our disrupted sleep, right in the middle of a dream about Clark Gable or Marilyn Monroe, as luck would have it. Talk about walking zombies? Boris Karloff had nothing on us.
Our friends, as we age, get fewer and fewer and they eventually disappear all together, depending on how long we live. When reading a newspaper when we were younger, we either turned to the fashion section or the sports section, but now, as we age, we go right to the obituary section. By the way, did you notice that everybody who died, died alphabetically according to the newspaper? If our name isn’t there, we move on to another section, with a big sigh of relief.
Talking about health, or lack of it, did you notice that when we meet a friend or someone new, the talk inevitably centers on the status of your health or their health. It’s something like giving or getting an “ organ recital”, my heart, my liver, my kidney’s etc., etc. Instead of names, we could refer to each other by our blood pressure figures, “ Hi, 135 over 70 or “Hi, 125 over 75”. This would save us a lot of small, meaningless talk and get right down to the nitty-gritty.
In conclusion, another one of the rigors of getting older is the slow progression of finding out that the foods we once gulped down with no problem, and with gusto when we were younger, which now cause us all kinds of trouble, especially in the area of creating that social pollutant called - methane gas. One positive result is that it does cause us to smile more often in order to camouflage our indiscretion to others who unfortunately happened to be near us at the time. What kind of an “eating” grin do they call that?
So, keep on smiling and grow old gracefully, and never look back, something might be gaining on you.
Written By Chuck Lehmann
Chuck on the Right Side
So, what are some of the general signs of getting older. One obvious one is the simple act of getting up and out of a chair or a couch. During our younger years we jumped up and out in an instant, but now we have to get help by maneuvering back and forth or by getting a helping hand and a helpful pull up. It’s embarrassing how “unagile” we’ve become.
Many of us, when we reached forty, had difficulty reading the newspaper or a restaurant menu, but had no problem seeing a good looking guy or gal some 50 yards away and could see what they were or were not wearing, and whether it matched or not. From that time on, we invested in reading glasses, not just one pair, but several, to be available at an instant’s notice, in time of need, which now seems to be all the time.
Another vexation of getting older is those sneaky aches and pains that pop up at unexpected times without any reasonable expectation of figuring out why, where, or what you did to deserve this ache and pain. The term “ pain in the neck” can be taken more literally as we get older rather than the other definition of being an obnoxious person.
Since we older folk are encouraged to exercise by our doctors, our family, and our friends, little mention is made about the exercise gained by walking to the bathroom, to empty our bladders, sometimes 3 times or more per night, much to our dismay, chagrin and annoyance, and about our disrupted sleep, right in the middle of a dream about Clark Gable or Marilyn Monroe, as luck would have it. Talk about walking zombies? Boris Karloff had nothing on us.
Our friends, as we age, get fewer and fewer and they eventually disappear all together, depending on how long we live. When reading a newspaper when we were younger, we either turned to the fashion section or the sports section, but now, as we age, we go right to the obituary section. By the way, did you notice that everybody who died, died alphabetically according to the newspaper? If our name isn’t there, we move on to another section, with a big sigh of relief.
Talking about health, or lack of it, did you notice that when we meet a friend or someone new, the talk inevitably centers on the status of your health or their health. It’s something like giving or getting an “ organ recital”, my heart, my liver, my kidney’s etc., etc. Instead of names, we could refer to each other by our blood pressure figures, “ Hi, 135 over 70 or “Hi, 125 over 75”. This would save us a lot of small, meaningless talk and get right down to the nitty-gritty.
In conclusion, another one of the rigors of getting older is the slow progression of finding out that the foods we once gulped down with no problem, and with gusto when we were younger, which now cause us all kinds of trouble, especially in the area of creating that social pollutant called - methane gas. One positive result is that it does cause us to smile more often in order to camouflage our indiscretion to others who unfortunately happened to be near us at the time. What kind of an “eating” grin do they call that?
So, keep on smiling and grow old gracefully, and never look back, something might be gaining on you.
Written By Chuck Lehmann
Chuck on the Right Side
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of Housing crisis
Timeline shows President Bush and McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis meltdown.
Please click arrow above for the Brit Hume report.
"Chuck on the Right Side"
Submitted by Kirk
Please click arrow above for the Brit Hume report.
"Chuck on the Right Side"
Submitted by Kirk
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
White House warned about Fannie and Freddie
For many years President Bush and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. It was easier for the Democrats in Congress to chastise President Bush calling his warning Racist?
Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems. The Democrat Congress has made a sever blow to the American economy. One must wonder if the warnings by President Bush were not responded to because of Democrats and the Cloward & Piven strategy.
2001 April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
2002 May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003 January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years. February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations," "the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them." As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations. September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk." To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004 February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system. Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005 April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding home-ownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
2007 July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse. August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before. September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
2008 January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide. January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value. February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase. March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY, 3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further. "Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes.
Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08) "[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08) Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing. (White House Press Release)
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
ARE WE VICTIMS OF “LEGAL” EXTORTION” ?
When are some people going to take responsibility for their actions instead of blaming someone else when something bad happens from their own actions?
Probably never, when you have greedy, “ambulance chasing” lawyers, prowling the airwaves and other media outlets, encouraging “supposed victims” to get compensated for their own wrong or stupid actions.
Now, we know that some people are injured by the negligent actions of others and those people should be compensated for the injuries suffered by that negligence, but what about others who do something stupid and cause injury to themselves and still want to be compensated by others? That’s where the extortion sets in. Bringing a lawsuit to court is an expensive action and most people couldn’t afford the costs and legal fees to initiate a lawsuit. When a person has a legitimate claim for redress, a lawyer, on a contingency basis, might take the case under an agreement with the client that gives that lawyer 1/3 of the eventual settlement as his agreed upon fee. That’s the good part, but what if some people, who don’t have a legitimate cause of action can get the services of a lawyer on a contingency basis to pursue a “junk” lawsuit in order to get compensated just like the legitimate victim?
Most lawsuits very rarely get tried in a court, mainly because it’s too expensive to actually try a case through a full court trial. So if a lawyer can take a case, even a bogus case, and get a settlement before trial, he can get his fee with a non-chance of losing the case in a trial and with a minimal amount of effort.
Listen to ads on T.V. encouraging people who lost money in the stock market, people who worked in a certain industry, people who were injured in an accident etc., and you see how the “barracuda” lawyers use extortion to exact money from a company or an individual with “deep pockets” by threatening them a with a multi-million dollar lawsuit and the resulting bad publicity that inevitably follows. Many companies and rich people settle the lawsuit, before trial, rather than fight it in court because it is cheaper to do so, whether it is a legitimate claim or not.
This abuse of the legal system, directed by lawyers and willing clients, is what is driving up the cost of healthcare, auto and property insurance, and is causing many doctors to curtail their practices or abandon it all together, and many activities for children and adults will be eliminated or curtailed out of fear of lawsuits. In addition, our freedom of speech , in many cases, is being infringed upon out of fear of being sued by greedy, unscrupulous lawyers and their lackeys, like the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
One of the biggest scams today is the “class action” lawsuit whereby many plaintiffs receive a pittance in remuneration and the plaintiff lawyers receiving millions, in some cases, of legal fees. This abuse of the legal system costs all of us in the form of higher insurance premiums and increases in the cost of food and products we buy to help these companies pay for these outrageous damage claims and awards.
What can be done - here are some things that can be done: 1) initiate “loser pays” (like in most other countries) to cut down on frivolous lawsuits, 2) put a cap on “pain and suffering”, 3) curtail the awarding of punitive damages. This will even up the playing field between plaintiffs and defendants and will benefit society as a whole.
So, let’s try to make “illegal” the practice of “legal” extortion, as practiced by the legal profession, so that we can bring back the semblance of order , decency, and fairness in our system of law.
Written By Chuck Lehmann
Chuck on the Right Side
Probably never, when you have greedy, “ambulance chasing” lawyers, prowling the airwaves and other media outlets, encouraging “supposed victims” to get compensated for their own wrong or stupid actions.
Now, we know that some people are injured by the negligent actions of others and those people should be compensated for the injuries suffered by that negligence, but what about others who do something stupid and cause injury to themselves and still want to be compensated by others? That’s where the extortion sets in. Bringing a lawsuit to court is an expensive action and most people couldn’t afford the costs and legal fees to initiate a lawsuit. When a person has a legitimate claim for redress, a lawyer, on a contingency basis, might take the case under an agreement with the client that gives that lawyer 1/3 of the eventual settlement as his agreed upon fee. That’s the good part, but what if some people, who don’t have a legitimate cause of action can get the services of a lawyer on a contingency basis to pursue a “junk” lawsuit in order to get compensated just like the legitimate victim?
Most lawsuits very rarely get tried in a court, mainly because it’s too expensive to actually try a case through a full court trial. So if a lawyer can take a case, even a bogus case, and get a settlement before trial, he can get his fee with a non-chance of losing the case in a trial and with a minimal amount of effort.
Listen to ads on T.V. encouraging people who lost money in the stock market, people who worked in a certain industry, people who were injured in an accident etc., and you see how the “barracuda” lawyers use extortion to exact money from a company or an individual with “deep pockets” by threatening them a with a multi-million dollar lawsuit and the resulting bad publicity that inevitably follows. Many companies and rich people settle the lawsuit, before trial, rather than fight it in court because it is cheaper to do so, whether it is a legitimate claim or not.
This abuse of the legal system, directed by lawyers and willing clients, is what is driving up the cost of healthcare, auto and property insurance, and is causing many doctors to curtail their practices or abandon it all together, and many activities for children and adults will be eliminated or curtailed out of fear of lawsuits. In addition, our freedom of speech , in many cases, is being infringed upon out of fear of being sued by greedy, unscrupulous lawyers and their lackeys, like the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
One of the biggest scams today is the “class action” lawsuit whereby many plaintiffs receive a pittance in remuneration and the plaintiff lawyers receiving millions, in some cases, of legal fees. This abuse of the legal system costs all of us in the form of higher insurance premiums and increases in the cost of food and products we buy to help these companies pay for these outrageous damage claims and awards.
What can be done - here are some things that can be done: 1) initiate “loser pays” (like in most other countries) to cut down on frivolous lawsuits, 2) put a cap on “pain and suffering”, 3) curtail the awarding of punitive damages. This will even up the playing field between plaintiffs and defendants and will benefit society as a whole.
So, let’s try to make “illegal” the practice of “legal” extortion, as practiced by the legal profession, so that we can bring back the semblance of order , decency, and fairness in our system of law.
Written By Chuck Lehmann
Chuck on the Right Side
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
