From an article titled "2011′s Executive Compensation Highlights (and Lowlights)" by Daniel Gross on Yahoo! Finance
What the MF? Jon Corzine, former Goldman Sachs top dog, former Senator, former New Jersey Governor, was already a very rich man before he joined financial services firm MF Global as CEO. But he aimed to increase his fortune further by having MF Global put on insanely leveraged trades on European sovereign debt. The trades, of course, blew up in his face, plunged MF Global into bankruptcy, and have launched a slew of investigations. As Leder point outs, it's possible that Corzine's attention in the spring of 2011 was somewhat diverted. As a filing detailed, Corzine was spending time. . . . renegotiating his compensation package.
Months before the company blew up, MF Global agreed to pay Corzine a $1.5 million retention bonus on March 31, 2014 (or whenever he left the job), provided he didn't quit without a good reason or get fired for cause. And, Footnoted.com noted, a
broadly written escape clause would have allowed him to receive at least partial payment if he quite without 'good reason.' If only Corzine had paid as much attention to the billions of dollars MF was handling as he was to the paltry million or so he was haggling over.
Watch this video:
Economic Marshall Law” Is Coming in 2012: Interview with Gerald Celente
Cowboys and the Tea Party political movement have a lot on common. Both believe in individual responsibility; judging a man by his actions not words; and, both are disgusted with government intrusions into our lives and particularly our God given rights.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
More Lunancy
More Borrowing Power Requested. Obama just requested $1.2 Trillion in additional borrowing power. He wants to raise the debt ceiling again. This time before Congress reconvenes in session so they can't do anything about it. After running up a HUGE debt in his short three years, Obama has the gall to request even more borrowing. What? the Unions need more money to bring the votes in? Now it is even harder to debate the people who think that Obama is intentionally ruining this country as this new debt ceiling may be taking us over the edge.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Marine Generals Against the NDAA
Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar, both 4 star Marine generals, wrote a op-ed letter, published in the New York Times on December 12, 2011, demanding that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill in order to protect our country from the “false choice between our safety and ideals.” Their problem with the NDAA is that it allows the government use the military to indefinitely detain American citizens without due process.
It then gets into one of the most blatant anti American treasonous provisions in the history of the United States.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.
Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise. The NDAA basically throws Posse Comitatus out the window. This is a power that the military have not even asked for this extreme new power.....however, they can be ordered to use.
OP-ED Piece, 12 Dec, NY Times
Guantánamo Forever?
By CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR
In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week (Cowboy's note: This Op-Ed was written before the vote. The NDAA did pass and was signed into law by President Obama.
This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an
unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.
A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counter-terrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.
Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.
A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut
Guantánamo, not extend it.
Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.
It then gets into one of the most blatant anti American treasonous provisions in the history of the United States.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past.
Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise. The NDAA basically throws Posse Comitatus out the window. This is a power that the military have not even asked for this extreme new power.....however, they can be ordered to use.
OP-ED Piece, 12 Dec, NY Times
Guantánamo Forever?
By CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR
In his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week (Cowboy's note: This Op-Ed was written before the vote. The NDAA did pass and was signed into law by President Obama.
This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an
unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.
A second provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counter-terrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.
Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.
A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut
Guantánamo, not extend it.
Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)