Another great rant.
Germany is pulling its gold from France. Surprised? Well, no. After all, the french fried Marxists kind of dictated that result. However, rather disconcerting is the fact that Germany’s central bank has formally decided to take all of its gold and repatriate it home back to Germany. Most of Germany’s gold is currently held in the NY Fed. **Say the following question very sarcastically:** Wouldn’t you want your gold safe and secure in the world’s reserve currency center?
Is this a case of Germany’s central bank not trusting the stability of the U.S. central bank? Hmmmmm. I wonder what this disconcerting revelation really means. Let me not hide the thought–it is shocking in my book. After all, it’s not as though a third world dictator decided to make a statement that we can cast askant as balderdash and poppycock.
I translated the article via Google translation. It’s a bit rough but you will get the gist. Here’s a brief snippet:
Currently, the gold of the Bundesbank outsourced their claims to New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt. In the American Federal Reserve store 45 percent of the total 3,396 tonnes of gold in the Bank of England in London, 13 percent, in the Bank of France in Paris eleven percent and 31 percent at its headquarters in Frankfurt. This distribution is about to change.
Bundesbank board member Carl-Ludwig Thiele had already said last fall that there was no compelling reason for storage in the French capital. Originally, the Federal Republic had during the Cold War and the division of Germany for security its gold to various partner countries, including France distributed. This argument no longer applies. Paris still speaks against another argument: Unlike in London or New York, the Bundesbank would receive in the event of a world crisis, no foreign currency.
You can see the article here but you’ll have to translate it using google translation if you’re not able to speak the Kaiser’s language.
A friend recently asked what was wrong with relying upon a person’s private sector experience as the lodestar for determining who the GOP’s presidential candidate should be. I have only a small response you may find of interest:
If anybody thinks they can take comfort from the ‘optimistic’ forecast that Obama is weak and that we’ll beat him, let them do so. If anybody thinks that it is okay to place electability over track record and specific solutions, let them do so. It is certainly the easier way, but it is the death sentence for our party, our principles, and our children’s future. You will not beat Obama that way. You will merely hold the line in the place where the last Marxist moved it.
That a GOP candidate has successful, private business experience in the private sector is of no great moment. The principle of business is to grow a company and make it more efficient so that it makes more money. Is that what we think we’re getting? Someone who will grow our government and make it more efficient? Do we really think our government needs more money?
And that, is precisely the problem. We need no CEO to streamline government for government is not a business. We need a candidate who will say that her first duty is to divest herself of the power she has been given, who will pledge to cut its size, and promise to chain the government to its constitutional moorings. We need a person who will say “no” a thousand times and can explain why it’s okay to say no. We don’t need a businessman.
The lefts’ ridiculous position on control. How many more words need to be wasted explaining why. Answer: None. A picture or a video is worth 1000 words. When you watch the following video, you will, in the words of the greatest trial lawyer Denny Crane, say to yourself, “It’s that simple.”
Here’s the list:
Ken Cuccinelli, the ultra ultra conservative Attorney General
Bob McDonnell, the mostly conservative Governor
Bill Bolling, the sometimes conservative Lt. Governor
I predicted that Obama was the best thing that happened to us. Why? Because McCain would have destroyed the party. This is how you come back. Now if we can just get rid of Alan Grayson–get his law firm out of Virginia, that is.
Some of my readers (all two of them) have commented that they’ve missed my articles. I have been involved in a rather lengthy and involved court case. That case also involves Alan Grayson. He sued my client claiming the client was merely “collateral damage” to his congressional campaign. Well, we won. And 550+ people still have jobs because we did win. There’ll be more soon. In the meantime, here’s one article in the Am Law Litigation Journal:
By Ben Hallman
October 30, 2009
When U.S. Representative Alan Grayson launched his successful run to represent Orlando in Congress last year, he touted his role as a plaintiffs lawyer in negotiating an $8.9 million settlement agreement in a whistle-blower suit against a government contractor. We’re not political consultants, but we’re going to guess that Rep. Grayson won’t be campaigning again on this one. The settlement fell apart, and last Wednesday, after a six-day trial, a federal jury found the contractor, IIF Data Solutions, not guilty of fraud.
IIF is a Virginia-based defense contractor that provides information technology and other services, primarily to the U.S. National Guard. In 2006, Thomas Ubl, a former IIF employee, sued the company under the False Claims Act in Alexandria, Va., federal district court for allegedly lying to get on a list of approved government contractors. According to two IFF defense lawyers, Christopher Kachouroff of Dominion Law Group in Virginia, and Robert Cynkar of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca in Washington, D.C., IIF had hired an outside consultant to help it with its application to get on the GSA “schedule.” (Once on the schedule, contractors are eligible to bid on government contracts.) Cynkar and Kachouroff told us that Ubl, while an employee at IIF, had helped work on the application, which became the basis for the lawsuit.
Here’s where the story almost ends. The U.S. government declined to join the suit, and in May 2008, on the day before trial, the defense team reached a settlement agreement with plaintiffs’ lawyers Victor Kubli and Alan Grayson. Grayson boasted of the deal on his campaign Web site: “The Bush administration refused to prosecute, and then it refused to allow any government officials to appear as witnesses at trial. Grayson persevered nevertheless, marshalling other witnesses, experts, and documents. The lawsuit reached its exciting conclusion in a settlement agreement that Grayson negotiated in the courthouse, inside the judge’s chambers, on the day that the trial was scheduled to begin.” Click here (third item) for Grayson’s campaign-friendly description of the settlement.
The negotiations may have been exciting, but the lawsuit wasn’t concluded. The agreement provided that it was “void without government approval,” and the government objected to several aspects of the deal, including the percentage of the award Ubl and his attorneys claimed they were entitled to receive, and withheld consent. Kachouroff and Gilbert took over the case. McKenna Long & Aldridge, which had been lead counsel, took a smaller role. Kachouroff said that Charles Patten, founder of the company and a former National Guardsman, told him that he wanted to fight it out in court, that he felt he had done nothing wrong.
At trial, the defense argued that under the FCA, fraud occurs when a party is paid for its services, and that IIF had received nothing but rave reviews from clients. A key witness, the defense lawyers said, was a senior National Guard official who testified on IIF’s behalf. “You know a fraud case is frivolous when the supposed victim of the fraud not only does not cancel any of the company’s contracts, but continues to seek their services,” Kachouroff said.
The plaintiff sought $140 million in damages, which would have been trebled under the False Claims Act. We left a message with his office last Friday morning, and will update this post if it is returned. We also left a message for Kubli at his office in Germantown, Maryland