Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Obama Commits Serial Fraud... Will he spend decades in the slammer?

If you like your health-care plan,
you will be able to keep your health-care plan.
National Review OnLine
Obama’s Massive Fraud
If he were a CEO in the private sector, he’d be prosecuted for such deception.

Andrew C. McCarthy

If you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan. Period.
How serious was this lie, repeated by Barack Obama with such beguiling regularity? Well, how would the Justice Department be dealing with it if it had been uttered by, say, the president of an insurance company rather than the president of the United States?
Fraud is a serious federal felony, usually punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment — with every repetition of a fraudulent communication chargeable as a separate crime. In computing sentences, federal sentencing guidelines factor in such considerations as the dollar value of the fraud, the number of victims, and the degree to which the offender’s treachery breaches any special fiduciary duties he owes. Cases of multi-million-dollar corporate frauds — to say nothing of multi-billion-dollar, Bernie Madoff–level scams that nevertheless pale beside Obamacare’s 
dimensions — often result in terms amounting to decades in the slammer.
Justice Department guidelines, set forth in the U.S. Attorneys Manual, recommend prosecution for fraud in situations involving “any scheme which in its nature is directed to defrauding a class of persons, or the general public, with a substantial pattern of conduct.” So, for example, if a schemer were intentionally to deceive all Americans, or a class of Americans (e.g., people who had health insurance purchased on the individual market), by repeating numerous times — over the airwaves, in mailings, and in electronic announcements — an assertion the schemer knew to be false and misleading, that would constitute an actionable fraud — particularly if the statements induced the victims to take action to their detriment, or lulled the victims into a false sense of security.
For a fraud prosecution to be valid, the fraudulent scheme need not have been successful. Nor is there any requirement that the schemer enrich himself personally. The prosecution must simply prove that some harm to the victim was contemplated by the schemer. If the victim actually was harmed, that is usually the best evidence that harm was what the schemer intended.
To be more illustrative, let’s say our schemer is the president of a health-insurance company, and that it was clearly foreseeable to him that his company’s clients would lose their current insurance plans if the company adopted his proposal of a complex new health-insurance framework. In fact, let’s assume that the schemer not only had analyses showing that clients would lose their plans but that he also had a history of openly favoring a “single-payer” insurance system — i.e., an unconcealed desire to move everyone from private to government-managed insurance arrangements.
Now, suppose the schemer nevertheless vowed to the company’s clients, to whom he bore fiduciary obligations, that they needn’t fear his proposed new insurance framework; under it, he promised time after time after time, if they liked their current plans, they would be able to keep those plans. And let’s say that, on the basis of that repeated vow, the clients supported the schemer’s reappointment as president and his proposed new framework. On these facts, the clients’ subsequent loss of their current insurance plans helps prove the schemer’s fraudulent intent. The schemer has committed not just a fraud but a carefully thought-out, fully successful fraud, replete with suffering victims.
The concept of fraudulent deception, like the concept of perjury and other forms of actionable false statement, often entails not only affirmative lies — e.g., the general manager who tells a baseball player, “I will not trade you if you sign the contract,” and then proceeds to trade the player after he signs; the concept also commonly involves the omission of material facts (what’s called “material omission”) — e.g., the general manager who tells the player, “I will not trade you if you sign the contract,” under circumstances where, unbeknownst to the player, the general manager has already made arrangements to trade him.
A material omission is the intentional failure to state any fact the communication of which would be necessary to ensure that statements already made are not misleading. The concept of material omission is a staple of fraud prosecutions. A good example is the Obama Justice Department’s ongoing and transparently political effort to portray financial institutions — as opposed to government policies — as the proximate cause of the mortgage-industry collapse that resulted in our national economic meltdown.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s minions have recently sued Bank of America and UBS. The complaints filed in court by prosecutors allege that these financial institutions defrauded investors in the sale of mortgage-backed securities by failing to disclose important facts about the underlying mortgages. Indeed, prosecutors asserted that financial institutions’ statements about these securities were both lies and, even where arguably true, material omissions. That’s because the statements withheld from investors the fact that the institutions well knew, based on internal analyses, that many of the mortgages backing the securities would go into default.
Recall that President Obama knew three years ago, based on internal analyses, that because of his administration’s own regulation-writing, millions of Americans would lose the health plans he nonetheless continued to promise they could keep. The president hid the data . . . just as did those financial institutions that his trusty attorney general has sued. Comparatively speaking, though, the financial institutions defrauded significantly fewer victims. Thus it is noteworthy that Holder is now demanding that the institutions pay hundreds of millions of dollars for their fraudulent misrepresentations.
Even that is not good enough for some prominent Democrats. Senator Carl Levin, for example, blasted the Justice Department for not pursuing a criminal fraud case against Goldman Sachs. Goldman had not made false statements in marketing the securities in dispute; but it did fail to disclose that it had shorted the same securities — i.e., it was quietly betting against the same securities it was selling. (I wrote sympathetically toward Goldman here, and Nicole Gelinas posted a characteristically smart rebuttal here.) Senator Levin railed at Holder’s decision not to file criminal charges, portraying it as an abdication in the face of behavior that was “deceptive and immoral.” Of course, if you want to talk about “deceptive and immoral,” Obama was snowing ordinary Americans, not savvy investors; and he was not just betting against the insurance plans he was promising to preserve; he was personally working to wipe them out.
The Justice Department is notoriously aggressive when it comes to material omissions by public corporations. Any public statement — not just in a required SEC filing but in any public context — may be deemed actionable if its purpose is to deceive the general public about a company’s condition. For example, as I’ve noted before, the Justice Department indicted Martha Stewart for fraud over press statements that did not disclose damaging information about her company.

Flying On Empty... empty cockpit!
F-16 Flies With An Empty Cockpit source
As a pilotless F-16 roared into the sky Sept. 19 at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., members of Boeing’s QF-16 team and the U.S. Air Force celebrated.
The flight represented the first unmanned QF-16 Full Scale Aerial Target flight. Put another way, fighter pilots now have an adversary for which to train against that prepares them like never before.
Two U.S. Air Force test pilots in a ground control station at Tydall remotely flew the QF-16, which is a retired F-16 jet modified to be an aerial target. While in the air, the QF-16 mission included a series of simulated maneuvers, reaching supersonic speeds, returning to base and landing, all without a pilot in the cockpit.
“It was a little different to see it without anyone in it, but it was a great flight all the way around,” said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Ryan Inman, Commander, 82nd Aerial Targets Squadron. “It’s a replication of current, real world situations and aircraft platforms they can shoot as a target. Now we have a 9G capable, highly sustainable aerial target.”
Prior to the QF-16, the military used a QF-4 aircraft, which was a modification of the F-4 Phantom, a Vietnam-era fighter The modified QF-16 provides pilots a target that performs closer to many jets flying today.
The QF-16s were all retired aircraft. Boeing retrieved them from Davis Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona and restored them for flight.
Next up, live fire testing moves to Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. The military will ultimately use QF-16s for weapons testing and other aerial training.
So far, Boeing has modified six F-16s into the QF-16 configuration.
To see the QF-16 make its first flight, watch the video. To see highlights from the cockpit video, click the link (pilotless F-16) in the written story.

Obama and the Race Card


Click on image to enlarge.
by Storm'n Norm'n
The Issue Of Race
 @ The All New Gulf1
We have the most racist, activist culture today than has existed since I was a child and part of the civil rights movement. Every day, mobs of Blacks will gather in most cities and towns and commit mass violence, with the latest story, a matter of mobs of Blacks entering Clothing Stores in Chicago, assembling clothing racks in trains, and running out with half a dozen racks of clothing and more.
For six years, ever since the violence of the New Black Panther Party was confronted by our court system, found to be violating voter’s rights, tried, found guilty, and while awaiting sentencing, were given a free pass because obama was elected. The newly elected president simply let them go.
What obama did told the story of his beliefs from his first day. As president, he could have pardoned the men, but to do so, he would have to provide rationale, good reason for why they were improperly found guilty, and why justice is served only by letting them free. The facts simply showed these men were nothing more than the KKK in Black, and there were no “facts” by which pardon could be appropriate.
Obama could have commuted their sentences, but that rests upon conviction and extenuating circumstances, and while free, they would still be “guilty”. He simply allowed them to walk because short of flat out lying and stating they were criminally convicted, any act he took ratified the fact the evidence proved them to be criminals.
In allowing those men to walk’ the man who would be president told them, those of similar persuasion, and all the rest of us, while he holds office the law won’t be upheld. If you’re Black, you get away free. Making this statement as the first act of his presidency, he laid out the fact his whole tenure would be racially driven, criminal, from beginning to its end.
Simultaeously, obama set up both the White community to be punished on the presumption of racism and guilt, while Blacks are encouraged to push the boundaries of crime, formerly constrained by the expectation of prosecution. Police forces which have been cautiously dealing with the calculated, social media planned Black on White crime, have done everything in their power to enlist the aid of the media. The media is notably missing in all this, they appear at ease with what takes place.
We hear about every slightest bit which could suggest racist intents each and every day, but while these are broadcast, at the exact same time, there is organized Black violence, organized Black Mobs which gather via social media, plan and prepare an attack, and then routinely carry it out, and this happens in every city, every day, with dozens of incidents of Black Mob Violence visited on White individuals at the same time.
Whether it is pre-teen to teen White girls pulled into cars or vans, raped, beaten, sometimes to death, or elderly White ladies, or men walking home, having a gang gather around and pummel them for being White, and not fighting back, this is deliberately ignored, because there is one and only one reason it is taking place: the first Black President told America, Black violence would be tolerated and in fact, it would be defended and supported by the White House, even to the point of the would be president having the gall to suggest a criminal thug “would look like him”, as if that clearly meant he was the innocent victim.
We either call this as it is, demand this be fully and clearly put before the public, and every effort made to put it to an end, and the crimes exposed, acknowledged by the Community which has excused it, even suggested it was right, even though it is the Black Minority attacking the White Majority, or name calling won’t matter.
There was a time when a minority of Whites thought they would regain de facto segregation by violence, however the majority of Whites called them out, put them in chains, and jail. Most Blacks want to live in peace yet it must be they, The Black Community, which stops this, they must demonstrate they don’t support this ideology or we have no choice but to accept what we see.
A Must Read... Obama Preparing For America's Surrender (updated Nov 16, 2013)