You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘torture’ category.

As background information, here is the link and below is the copy of the SEC report citing David Marvin currently of Delaware’s Cash Management Board, and fining his firm M & P, $976,000 dollars…

Here is Celia’s account of last years inside dealing, targeting Marvin as the prime whiner in the infamous Cash Management Board pushback… It just dawned on me that Marvin probably handles investments for Markell and Blevins. Which would if true, provide clarity to the mechanizations that took place this past year.

Since the 15 year expiration is about or has already hit, (it was difficult to find), I am posting the entire judgment here, so it will last, if the SEC eliminates it off-line…. Without Further Ado….

=======

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 

INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940
Release No. 1841 / September 30, 1999

 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-10072

 

In the Matter of

MARVIN & PALMER ASSOCIATES, INC.,
DAVID F. MARVIN,
MACTHOM ASSOCIATES, INC. and
THOMAS E. DUBIS

ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC PROCEEDDINGS, MAKING FINDINGS, IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS, AND ISSUING CEASE-AND-DESIST ORDER

 

I.

 

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest to institute public administrative proceedings pursuant to Sections 203(e), (f) and (k) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), against Marvin & Palmer Associates, Inc. (“M&P”), David F. Marvin (“Marvin”), MacThom Associates, Inc. (“MacThom”) and Thomas E. Dubis (“Dubis”)(collectively “Respondents”).

 

In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, each of the Respondents has submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”) to the Commission, which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission or in which the Commission is a party, and without admitting or denying the findings contained herein, except for the jurisdiction of the Commission over them and over the subject matter of this proceeding, which is admitted, Respondents consent to the issuance of this Order Instituting Public Proceedings, Making Findings, Imposing Remedial Sanctions, and Issuing Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”) and to the entry of the findings, cease-and-desist order, and remedial sanctions set forth below.

 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that proceedings pursuant to Sections 203(e), (f) and (k) of the Advisers Act be, and hereby are, instituted.

 

II.

 

On the basis of this Order and the Offers submitted by the Respondents, the Commission makes the following findings:

 

RESPONDENTS

 

A.Marvin & Palmer Associates, Inc., incorporated and located in Wilmington, Delaware, has been registered with the Commission as an investment adviser since August 1986. As of March 11, 1999, M&P had approximately 62 clients and $7.6 billion in assets under management. M&P’s clients are primarily large institutional investors.

 

B.David F. Marvin, age 58, resides in Delaware and is Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and 50 percent owner of M&P. Marvin is the largest shareholder of M&P and is responsible for the overall management of the firm.

 

C.MacThom Associates, Inc., located in Kent, Ohio, was formed in 1996 and is wholly owned and operated by Thomas E. Dubis. The firm was ostensibly formed for the purpose of providing research services to M&P. At no time has MacThom been registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer or an investment adviser.

 

D.Thomas E. Dubis, age 58, resides in Kent, Ohio.

 

INTRODUCTION

 

E.This proceeding involves the failure of M&P, a registered investment adviser, to disclose to its clients its use of at least $920,000 in soft dollars derived from a directed brokerage arrangement with a registered broker-dealer (“Broker”) in violation of provisions of the Advisers Act. The term “soft dollars” generally describes an arrangement whereby an investment adviser uses commission credits generated by securities trades executed in advisory client accounts to pay for research, brokerage, or other products, services, or expenses.

 

THE SOFT DOLLAR ARRANGEMENT

 

F.Since 1991, M&P has maintained a soft dollar arrangement with the Broker. Pursuant to the arrangement, M&P receives $.50 in soft dollar credits for each $1.00 in brokerage commissions directed to the Broker.

 

G.In February 1996, at Marvin’s behest, M&P directed the Broker to begin paying invoices submitted by MacThom, ostensibly for research performed by MacThom for M&P. In fact, MacThom conducted only a small amount of research, with a total value of $63,000 during the relevant time period. Most of the soft dollar payments were used by MacThom to compensate Dubis, MacThom’s principal and a close friend of Marvin, as well as the family of a deceased business associate and friend of Marvin, for their efforts in making introductions and referrals to M&P in its early years. From February 1996 through August 1998, the Broker paid $920,000 to MacThom, and MacThom and Dubis paid $635,000 of this amount to this family. With the exception of the research valued at $63,000, the payments to MacThom provided no benefit to the clients of M&P whose commissions generated the soft dollars used to make the payments.

 

M&P’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE SOFT DOLLAR ARRANGEMENT

 

H.Neither the existence nor the terms of the soft dollar arrangement were disclosed to M&P’s clients in their advisory contracts or otherwise. Furthermore, M&P failed to amend its Form ADV after directing the Broker to begin paying invoices from MacThom and the arrangement was never disclosed in M&P’s Form ADV in effect between February 1996 and July 1998, the period during which the arrangement was in effect.

 

I.M&P failed to disclose the types of products and services it received pursuant to its soft dollar arrangement in response to Item 12 of Part II of the Form ADV, which requires registered investment advisers to describe the factors considered in selecting brokers, including the products, research and services obtained, and any procedures used to direct client transactions to a particular broker in return for products or services.

 

J.From February 1996 to July 1998, M&P’s Form ADV reflected a “no” answer in response to Part II Item 13.A., which asked whether the adviser “receives some economic benefit (including commissions, equipment or non-research services) from a non-client in connection with giving advice to clients.” In view of its soft dollar arrangement with the Broker, and the uses to which the payments were put, this response was false.

 

K.During the period in which the arrangement was in effect, M&P amended its Form ADV on at least eight occasions. Marvin reviewed and signed all but one of M&P’s Forms ADV and amendments filed with the Commission.

 

III.

 

LEGAL ANALYSIS

 

A.An investment adviser has a duty to disclose to clients all material information which might incline an investment adviser consciously or unconsciously to render advice which is not disinterested. SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 191-92 (1963). A fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important. Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224, 231-32 (1988).

 

B.Soft dollar arrangements are material because of the potential conflict of interest arising from an adviser’s receipt of some benefit in exchange for directing brokerage on behalf of client accounts. See Kingsley, Jennison, McNulty & Morse, Inc., 55 SEC Docket 2434, 2441 (Dec. 23, 1993);Interpretive Release Concerning the Scope of Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exchange Act Release No. 23170, 35 SEC Docket 905, 909 (Apr. 23, 1986) (“1986 Soft Dollar Release“).

 

C.Moreover, disclosure of soft dollar arrangements is specifically required by Form ADV.1 See Oakwood Counselors, Inc., Advisers Act Release No. 1614, 63 SEC Docket 2485 (Feb. 10, 1997); S Squared Technology Corp., Advisers Act Release No. 1575, 62 SEC Docket 1560 (August 7, 1996). Form ADV embodies mandatory disclosure requirements to ensure that material information regarding brokerage placement practices and policies are disclosed to investors. See Investment Adviser Requirements Concerning Disclosure, Recordkeeping, Applications for Registration and Annual Filings, Advisers Act Release No. 664 (Jan. 30, 1979); Disclosure of Brokerage Placement Practices By Certain Regulated Investment Companies and Certain Other Issuers, Advisers Act Release No. 665 (Jan. 30, 1979) (“1979 Soft Dollar Release“).

 

D.Items 12 and 13, and Schedule F, of Part II of Form ADV require registrants to disclose soft dollar arrangements with broker-dealers. For investment advisers who have discretionary authority to select the broker-dealers to be used to execute trades in client accounts, Item 12.B. requires a description of the factors considered in selecting brokers and determining the reasonableness of their commissions. Further, Item 12.B. requires advisers to describe the “products, research and services” given to the adviser or related persons, if the value of such “products, research and services” is a factor in selecting broker-dealers.2 Item 13 requires an investment adviser to disclose and describe any arrangement whereby it either receives an economic benefit from a non-client in connection with giving advice to clients or directly or indirectly compensates any person for client referrals.3 These disclosure requirements are designed to “assist clients in determining whether to hire an adviser or continue a contract with an adviser, and permit them to evaluate any conflicts of interest inherent in the adviser’s arrangements for allocating brokerage.” Kingsley, 55 SEC Docket at 2441-42; See S Squared, Advisers Act Release No. 1575, 62 SEC Docket 1560.

 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTIONS 206(1) AND 206(2) OF THE ADVISERS ACT

 

E.Sections 206(1) and (2) prohibit an investment adviser from employing any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud clients or from engaging in any transaction, practice or course of business that operates as a fraud on clients. Sections 206(1) and (2) establish a fiduciary duty for investment advisers to act for the benefit of their clients. Transamerica Mortgage Advisers, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 17 (1979). An investment adviser’s failure to disclose its soft dollar practices violates Sections 206(1) and 206(2). Renaissance Capital Advisors, Inc., Advisers Act Release No. 1688, 1997 SEC LEXIS 2643 (Dec. 22, 1997) (Sections 206(1) and 206(2));Oakwood, Advisers Act Release No. 1614, 63 SEC Docket 2485 (Sections 206(1) and 206(2)); S Squared, Advisers Act Release No. 1575, 62 SEC Docket 1560 (Section 206(2)). Scienter is an element of a Section 206(1) violation. Steadman v. SEC, 603 F.2d 1126, 1134 (5th Cir. 1979). Proof of scienter is not required to establish a violation of Section 206(2). SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. at 195.

 

F.M&P willfully violated Sections 206(1) and (2) by making materially false statements and omissions in M&P’s Form ADV and by failing otherwise to disclose to its clients that M&P was using soft dollar credits to pay non-research expenses.

 

G.Marvin willfully aided and abetted and caused M&P’s violations of Sections 206(1) and (2) by knowingly or recklessly making materially false and omissive statements in M&P’s Form ADV and by failing otherwise to disclose to M&P’s clients that M&P was using soft dollar credits to pay non-research expenses.

 

H.MacThom and Dubis caused M&P’s violations of Sections 206(1) and (2) by knowingly participating in a course of conduct which they knew or should have known was a violation of M&P’s fiduciary duty to its clients.

 

I.As a result of the conduct of M&P, Marvin, MacThom and Dubis, M&P and MacThom were unjustly enriched by $857,000.

 

VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 207 OF THE ADVISERS ACT

 

J.Section 207 of the Advisers Act makes it unlawful for any person willfully to make any untrue statement of material fact in any registration application or report filed with the Commission or willfully to omit to state in any such application or report any material fact required to be stated therein.4 A person violates Section 207 by filing false amendments to Form ADV. Stanley Peter Kerry, Advisers Act Release No. 1550, 61 SEC Docket 431 (January 25, 1996).

 

K.M&P’s “no” answer to Item 13.A. in its Form ADV in effect from February 1996 forward was false. M&P was in fact receiving an economic benefit from Broker, a non-client, in the form of soft dollar credits and payments to MacThom for M&P’s benefit. M&P’s response to Item 12.B. in its Form ADV in effect from February 1996 was misleading in that the response failed to disclose that M&P was receiving non-research services from Broker in return for directing client brokerage.

 

L.M&P’s omissions and false and misleading disclosures regarding its soft dollar arrangement were material.

 

M.M&P and Marvin willfully violated Section 207 in that they made untrue statements of material fact in M&P’s Form ADV and failed to disclose in M&P’s Form ADV the existence of the soft dollar arrangement and the non-research services received from the Broker.

 

IV.

 

Based on the foregoing the Commission finds that:

 

A.M&P willfully violated Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act.

 

B.Marvin willfully violated Section 207 of the Advisers Act and willfully aided and abetted and caused M&P’s violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

 

C.MacThom and Dubis caused M&P’s violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

 

V.

 

In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to accept the Respondents’ Offers of Settlement.

 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

 

A.M&P shall be, and hereby is, censured;

 

B.M&P shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violation and any future violation of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act;

 

C.M&P and MacThom shall, jointly and severally, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in the total amount of $976,980 to the United States Treasury. Such payment shall be: (A) made by United States postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check or bank money order; (B) made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission; (C) hand-delivered or mailed to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Stop 0-3, VA 22312; and (D) submitted under cover letter that identifies M&P and MacThom as Respondents in these proceedings, and the file number of these proceedings, a copy of which cover letter and money order or check shall be sent to Ronald C. Long, District Administrator, Philadelphia District Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, 601 Walnut Street, Suite 1120E, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

 

D.M&P shall, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $50,000 to the United States Treasury. Such payment shall be: (A) made by United States postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check or bank money order; (B) made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission; (C) hand-delivered or mailed to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Stop 0-3, VA 22312; and (D) submitted under cover letter that identifies M&P as a Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these proceedings, a copy of which cover letter and money order or check shall be sent to Ronald C. Long, District Administrator, Philadelphia District Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, 601 Walnut Street, Suite 1120E, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

 

E.M&P shall comply with its undertakings as specified in its Offer of Settlement to perform and implement the following:

 

1.Within 60 days of the entry of this Order, M&P will revise its procedures manual to include a section setting forth policies and procedures regarding soft dollar arrangements with broker-dealers. Included in these procedures will be the requirement that all soft dollar arrangements be approved by in-house counsel employed at M&P. M&P will hold a mandatory meeting with its employees to review policies and procedures including those relating to soft dollar arrangements. Attendance at the meeting will be recorded and a copy maintained in the files of M&P.

 

2.Within 30 days of the entry of this Order, M&P will file with the Commission and provide each of its advisory clients an amended Form ADV disclosing all material terms of any soft dollar arrangement it has with any broker-dealer;

 

3.Within 30 days of the entry of this Order, M&P will provide a copy of this Order to all of its current clients;

 

4.Within 60 days of the entry of this Order, M&P will file an affidavit with the Commission’s staff, addressed to the attention of the District Administrator of the Commission’s Philadelphia District Office, 601 Walnut Street. Suite 1120E, Philadelphia, PA 19106, setting forth the details of its compliance with the undertakings set forth in subparagraphs E.1., 2. and 3. above;

 

5.For a period of one year after the entry of this Order, M&P will provide a copy of this Order to all of its prospective clients;

 

6.One year from the entry of this Order, M&P will file an affidavit with the staff of the Commission certifying its compliance with subparagraph E.5. above.

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

 

F. Marvin shall be, and hereby is, censured;

 

G.Marvin shall cease and desist from committing or causing any violation and any future violation of Sections 206(1), 206(2) and 207 of the Advisers Act;

 

H.Marvin shall, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $25,000 to the United States Treasury. Such payment shall be: (A) made by United States postal money order, certified check, bank cashier’s check or bank money order; (B) made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission; (C) hand-delivered or mailed to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Stop 0-3, VA 22312; and (D) submitted under cover letter that identifies Marvin as a Respondent in these proceedings, and the file number of these proceedings, a copy of which cover letter and money order or check shall be sent to Ronald C. Long, District Administrator, Philadelphia District Office, Securities and Exchange Commission, 601 Walnut Street, Suite 1120E, Philadelphia, PA 19106;

 

I.MacThom and Dubis shall cease and desist from causing any violation and any future violation of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

 

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary

 


 

FOOTNOTES

 

1 The “safe harbor” provided by Section 28(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) does not excuse an investment adviser from these disclosure obligations. The safe harbor protects an investment adviser only from charges of breach of fiduciary duty for failing to obtain the lowest available commission rate where the amount of commission is reasonable in relation to the value of brokerage and research services provided. 1986 Soft Dollar Release, 35 SEC Docket at 907.
2 See 1986 Soft Dollar Release, 35 SEC Docket at 909. There is a presumption that receipt of non-research and non-brokerage products or services, except where nominally valued, is a factor in the selection of brokers. 1979 Soft Dollar Release at n.6.
3 The 1986 Soft Dollar Release noted the relevance of Form ADV, Part II, Item 13 to soft dollar disclosure. 35 SEC Docket at 909 n.32.
4 Section 204 of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-1 thereunder require periodic filing and amendment of Forms ADV by investment advisers. Pursuant to Rule 204-1(d), a Form ADV or an amendment thereto is a “report” within the meaning of Section 207.

 

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/ia-1841.htm

 


 

Modified:10/01/1999

 

Advertisements

The President today approved immediate use of exploratory techniques to determine the amount of oil lurking off the Delaware Coast.   The Brazilian spy agency was listening in.  Water Cannon will soon be used to create massive shock waves off Delaware’s coast and in Delaware Bay… These sonic cannons are 100 times more powerful than jet engines….

Whales, turtles, horseshoe crabs, dolphins, will all be hit with unbearable noise shattering their inner ears.  We might as well take down the Watch For Turtle signs on Route 1 between Dewey and Bethany…..

Here is what we do know about airgun blasts from studies done in areas where this process has been going on for some time… Impacts include temporary and permanent hearing loss, abandonment of habitat, disruption of mating and feeding, and even beach strandings and death. For whales and dolphins, which rely on their hearing to find food, communicate, and reproduce, being able to hear is a life or death matter.  Airgun blasts kill fish eggs and larvae and scare away fish from important habitats. Following seismic surveys catch rates of cod and haddock declined by 40 to 80 percent for thousands of miles.

The bureau’s environmental impact study estimates that more than 138,000 sea creatures could be harmed, including nine of the 500 north Atlantic right whales remaining in the world.

Common Core took quite a few arrows into the heart with the release of New York’s Test Scores.   One of the huge questions being asked, is how did the Commissioner John King, know what the drop would be before the tests were given?

We are learning; new reports popping up every hour on how those scores were derived.  To understand the process, you must first be familiar with how regular grading scores are determined.  Most teachers when they score their tests assume that if a student can show that they understand 65% of the material, they can pass the class.  It is reality based.  Here is the material, you know this much, you shall pass because it is above the 65% threshold.  If you have a good class, you can pass all of them.

I hope you are sitting down.  The Pearson tests were taken, then graded.  After that was done,  they were then scored.  They were not scored on whether a person got the answer right or wrong.  They were scored on where the benchmarks should be.  A benchmark is that spot where a score of 1 then becomes a 2, or a score of 2 becomes a 3 and so on.

This is the story of how those bench marks were determined.  Close coordination was done with the College Board SAT’s.   The tests were going to determine which students were… or were not, college and career ready.

So how was the level where one is college-ready determined?.  It was decided to be at that level where there was a 75% chance that a student would receive a B- or above in ELA,  and writing, and a 65% chance that he would receive a C+ in math, in his first college course in those two subjects… Got that?  “That” is college ready.

Once that arbitrary level is set, and it is arbitrary.  Is a B- the same at Harvard as it would be in Michigan State?  is a B- the same if given by Professor X or Professor Y?   Anyone who has ever picked their college classes over the alleged difficulties of certain college professors, certainly knows that this method is very suspect.  But regardless of whether it makes sense, once the threshold is set, one can compare the SAT scores of those students and come up with a correlation.  The correlation  between these grades  and those SAT scores that would determine if one was college ready, happened at the score of 1550.

Now that you know how this score was determined, you can forever dismiss its validity.  That is not being snippy. That is a real assessment of the credibility these scores now have.

From the score of 1550, the next step was to determine how that works downward to the test scores of 8th graders who still have 3 years before they take the SAT. The Breakdown of that score was 560 Reading, 530 Writing, and 540 Math.

To those teachers gathered for the opportunity to cut the scores, the Pearson executives showed them all the data, then told them where the bookmark should be for a 3.  From there the groups determined where to draw the lines for a 1,2,3 and a 4. Then they went and did the 7th grade, then the 6th.  Each grade was determined by the previous one, all of which went back to comparing the 8th Grade to the SAT to be taken 3 years into the future.

They returned to the 8th grade, and re-walked through that process then, that was the cut turned into the commissioner.  Because he had given them the rubric  or guidelines upon which to make their judgment, he already knew ahead of time how the results would turn out.   Does that make sense?

Here is an first person account of what went on inside those cutting rooms…  and here is a humorous account with diagrams, which help a lot in understanding the twists and turns taken to determine this result.

Your test question now. Did you add the three individual scores I posted up above? Had you done so, you would have noticed that they came up to 1630 instead of 1550. It is 1630, significantly higher than the 2011 College Board’s index associated with a B- in college.

The above illustrates how one can manipulate the percentage of college readiness by hopping between the columns and changing the definition of “college ready” to suit oneself. If the State Education Department had increased or decreased the grade and/or the probability, the college readiness indicator would move up or down. In the end, they chose values that are extraordinarily high, producing an index that exceeds the College Board’s index for achieving a B- average.New Yorks score was already higher than the national average. 

From this assessment, comes the criteria that permanently classify a student, that fire a teacher, that close down a school, that wreak havoc in a district.  An assessment that has no basis in reality…

What does have a basis in reality?

Decades of research have shown that the SAT test can be an accurate indicator of IQ. Which is why, test prep classes rarely move the needle on the actual scores themselves.

According to the College Board’s own research, the SAT is not such a great predictor of college grades. The correlation between the SAT and college grades is about .48, which means that its predictive power (r squared) is only 23 percent. High school grades are a better predictor of how students will do in college courses (nearly 30 percent). In addition, other research has found that high school GPA is three to five times more important in predicting college graduation than an SAT or ACT score. Even with all of that known, the State Education Department aligned students 3-8 scores with later performance on the SAT to create cut scores that give the illusion of being on the road to college readiness.

They created this report to justify their methodology.

If you connect the dots and read all of these links you will see that these scores were supposed to be low for a reason, a reason of politics,  They had the data and knew that the results would be scored low, that was their plan.

As they even state here, education did not fall apart; the students are not dumber; the teachers are not derelict; the schools are not failing.  They were just graded on a different curve, that’s all.

It was all done politically to show that large numbers of students did not meet the arbitrarily decided new standard of being college and career ready…

Yes, in even those in Third Grade.,

Tom Carper came out publicly for the end of DOMA and the support of same sex marriage.

Although some may snipe it is politically motivated, it isn’t.  It just is what is right.  Period.

Courtesy of Tom:

“As our society has changed and evolved, so too has the public’s opinion on gay marriage – and so has mine. I pray every day for God to grant me the wisdom to do what is right. Through my prayers and conversations with my family and countless friends and Delawareans, I’ve been reminded of the power of one of my core values: the Golden Rule. It calls on us to treat others as we want to be treated. That means, to me, that all Americans ultimately should be free to marry the people they love and intend to share their lives with, regardless of their sexual orientation, and that’s why today, after a great deal of soul searching, I’m endorsing marriage equality.”

Going against the platitudes one has been brought up under is always hard.  It takes great courage to step out into nothing but air and hope the bridge forms under ones feet……

Thank you Tom for taking that step.

Editors Note:  John C arney came out in support the day before.  The entire Delaware Congressional Delegation is now anti- Conservative on this issue.  Since  fewer Conservatives exist today then there were domestic Marxists in the 1960’s, this should be interpreted as simply the mainstreaming of our current delegation.

This was lost, and then CNN put it back on… I guess as it became known that it was out of the bag……

We don’t know exactly how many Republicans feel this way, I would say two, to be nice… But we do know, no democrat would do a thing like that. Instead they would taunt a billionaire….

(In case someone out there does not already know, the Republican Party Leadership removed the perpetrators, throwing them permanently out of the convention, so this was not a sanctioned event… it was just two drunks, who happened to be two average Republicans who actually thought they were being hilarious, and everybody would put them on a pedestal and worship them until the end of time. Too much “Jack”, I guess, will do that to a person….. )

TVP… When the first partisan clamors erupted deriding Romney for not releasing tax returns, I defended him. The election should be on values, on what affects us the voters, and not be sidetracked on the details of where a person makes their money. To be honest, that question of where we make our money, keeps a lot of us out of the ring.

Personally I wouldn’t want people intent on trying to ruin me, to have access to my tax information…. It’s a battle no one can win. Either one makes too much money and pays too little taxes, or one makes too little money, and look at the fool, he could have done this and paid far less… Personal is private, and should be so…..

But over time, the question of trust inserted itself. And to use marriage as an example, it is kind this question being asked to a future spouse… “You say you want a relationship and you want to marry me for life, but even though it is happening in less than 100 days, you still won’t explain to me, why you disappear every Friday and come back Monday morning…..”

Maybe they are helping the homeless. Maybe they are volunteering at a group home, Maybe they are cleaning up rivers across the country. Maybe they are fighting forest fires… All good reasons not to break off an engagement….

But the silence also begs these questions. Maybe they already have a spouse, a weekend relationship kind of thing. Maybe they have a lover, and are cheating on me the very moment I’m sending a love text to them. Maybe they are bi sexual, and a disease may infect me off one of that person’s partners. Maybe they are robbing banks, crystallizing meth, or doing activities I simply will never know.

So you see my dilemma as a voter. I, like the engaged spouse in the example above, have to decide if I love this person enough to deal with this errant behavior and secrecy that follows it, or if not knowing the answer to his disappearance, I should cut my losses and begin my search of lifelong happiness anew….. .

If you approach this from the realm of relationship counseling, you will see the warning behaviors sticking up rather vividly.

One: he trusted John McCain, but he doesn’t trust the American people. In a relationship, when a partner withholds secrets, it is rarely for that other partners good. It is an attempt to distance oneself, an attempt to minimize the importance of the other, and an attempt to mislead the other partner, while they are being undercut financially. All not good.

Two: insisting you don’t have the right to know. The broader picture is what is at stake here. The attitude of: I’m in charge; you are not; stop bothering me; and let me get on with my business; is a pretty clear sign of where this relationship will end up and who is going to be the one hurt. One partner is in if for himself, and is looking for followers to provide him with certain needs. As soon as the followers are not needed, they are dismissed. Because of this self absorption, every gift comes without a price. Every sacrifice made, is not appreciated, but instead, is deemed the normal pattern that events should follow…. The first time you have a problem, “look I need help with this”, he will look at you like “how dare you come to me with YOUR problems. I’ve got enough of my own….”

Three: Acting shocked that knowing these things is even important to you… Well, the president has a very emotional place in the hearts of his countrymen. Knowing whether or not to trust a partner is a very important piece of the puzzle. It is actually key to our survival. The question of while you are away, have you been helping me or hurting me, is the critical personal issue at stake in this campaign….

And guessing from the reactions of the Romney Camp, there is evidence within these documents that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that over the time they were away, they were occupied with actions that were hurting us, not helping.

If all this time they’d been helping us, don’t you think in a campaign season where Romney was way behind, someone would have pulled those out to say, “look, look, he is such a great guy that he has been helping you all this time”….. of course they would…

Since they haven’t, the answer is pretty obvious what they don’t want us to see.. And that is not good for us. We are being rushed into a marriage with someone who doesn’t like us, doesn’t trust us, and doesn’t work for us.
That person is the wrong man….

There is another suitor, one who is for the Middle Class, one who developed the Middle Class Task Force to move Washington in the direction to make the Middle Class again the economic force that drives our nation. There is another suitor, one who we know what he’s been up to, and it was always to make our lives better, to make us happier, to enable us to live a fuller, more prosperous life…

The evil suitor knows this. And when possible blocks the truth so we never hear how wonderful life could be, if we just taxed Corporations more, so they would pay us more in salaries, so they would expand, so they would again invest in America.

The secrets he is planning for after our marriage, are buried in those tax returns. He won’t let us see them… The relationship between him and us, is doomed from the start… Pull the Plug on Romney… Pull the plug, Honey.

You can’t trust someone who can’t trust you…….

I’m trying to put all your ideas together into one package. So, let me get this right… All you are asking is for, is a country where:

1) There is no universal healthcare.
2) Few entitlement programs.
3) Low Flat Tax System.
4) Faith based Government.
5) A deep reverence for God.
6) Extremely strict rules against abortion.
7) Marriage has already been strictly defined as between man and woman.
8) Homosexuality is a sin, and illegal.
9) Dress Codes are strictly enforced.
10) Tattoos, piercings, baggy pants, are banned.
11) Has the Death Penalty which they aren’t shy about using.
12) Strong private school system with religious focus.
13) Widespread dependency on oil and natural gas drilling.
14) Growing nuclear program
15) Nonexistent environmental nuisances
16) Culture that promotes family and stereotyped roles for men and women.

I’ve endeavored to put all your values on one page. I share your frustration because today, ever since 2008, it seems like America is moving further and further away from these values.

But you don’t have to be frustrated anymore. I have looked far and wide and have discovered a place already in existence that has those values in place, and more. If you sorely long for those values above, it is sincerely a place where you and your family would be very happy.

It is Iran.

You don’t have to pay me. I don’t need any commission. Just glad to help a fellow Delawarean out…. No problem.

They cost you too…

The drop in payroll tax from 6.2% to 4.2% results in a savings of about $1000 a year to every wage earner.

(If truth were widely known, that tax cut is actually a bad idea. It hemorrhages a dying social security fund, requiring the eventual death of the program or an expensive emergency last ditch surgery in the future.)

But it is hard not to give a $1000 present to every voter. Even if it only comes out as $19 dollars and change each week… But, still again, if your electric bill is $198 and you only have $189 in your account, that additional amount is, well, a lifesaver…..

But, Republicans in the House, even after Republicans in the Senate voted passage, overwhelmingly voted….. not to vote on the measure…

They didn’t vote against it… THEY VOTED NOT TO VOTE ON IT……
(speculation is that they lacked the votes to keep it from passing)..

So, how does that relate to you?

House Republicans (read Tea Party) just voted NOT TO VOTE on whether or not you will be losing an extra $20 a month out of your next paycheck.

Imagine what this is doing to payroll clerks around the country?
Imagine what this is doing to family budgets around the country?
Imagine what this is doing to businesses who rely on consumer spending around the country?
Imagine what this is doing to businesses heavily involved in the financial sector, around this country?

So what would normally happen?

Normally a group that can’t find agreement, acknowledges the sad fact, and long before the deadline, announces that they failed to reach agreement and that things would continue as they were on a temporary basis, to unfortunately allow for more time to solve differences.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOO, …. WE ARE STUCK WITH A TEA PARTY THAT FUCKS THINGS UP.

Instead, we have a vote not-to-vote, then get all sorts of very lame excuses from those who are delaying, none of which apply to the real problem that Social Security is doomed unless drastic action gets taken (higher rates, not lower), and we get nothing….

The tax cut will expire…

It is like sequestering a jury in a room, where everyone after much fact-covering argument has agreed to a judgment, except for one person who’s been bought off. And nothing, nothing, logic, emotional appeal, bullying, snuggling up to, befriending, produces any change. And you go years, every working day, to the same court house, the same jury room, they same chair at the same table, hear the same arguments, hoping against all odds, that today, he will see the light and switch. You go the next day.

That is today’s Congress. Held hostage by Tea Party Republicans who live in a dream world untouched by the reality of living under $185,000 a year. Like that bought-out juror, every day, they hold up progress with the unjustified belief that, if they wait long enough, the other 11 jurors will give up and sway over to the sole juror’s way….

Two things can happen… 1) return to the public and announce a hung jury, and do a complete retrial.. or 2) sneak up to that one juror, put a gun to his head, say nothing, pull the trigger, clean up the mess, dispose of the body, then go out to the public and announce what the 11 of you have decided…..

One is the nice way, sanctioned to due process of law. The other is the American Way.

It’s time to initiate the kavipsian policy of expression or what is otherwise known as “Show Us How You Really Feel”… Who knows? It could become the next great movement? The next time someone you know (or don’t), says anything about how millionaires should keep their tax cuts and the poor should pay, nod your head in agreement, smile a little bit, then hit them as hard as you can in their mouth, I mean as hard as you can! Put them flat on the ground holding their jaw… Then loudly say, “Don’t every talk that stupid way to me again!” Who knows, if 99% or all 303,930,000 would respond that way to our fellow congressional delegates, and the other 3.9 million of their like who advocate such madness, we might actually get the very progress we need, not because of intimidation, but because such policy is right….

For those who argue expression of violence is un-American, I’ll remind them that tonight, is John Wayne Night on AMC: view it!… I argue that such action is VERY American and perhaps it has been the lack of such spontaneous expressions of frustration from working American people, that has caused the logjam where nothing gets done because of one holdout, who thinks he can sway the world to his opinion and face no consequences… ….

Practice now, by punching brick walls.

Again, lifted from Der Spiegal

The current favorite? He’s a political dinosaur, dishonored and discredited. Or so we thought. Yet just because he studied history and speaks in more complex sentences than his rivals, the US media now reflexively hails him as a “Man of Ideas” (The Washington Post) — even though most of these ideas are lousy if not downright offensive, such as firing unionized school janitors, so poor children could do their jobs.

Pompous and blustering, Gingrich gets away with this humdinger as well as with selling himself as a Washington outsider — despite having made millions of dollars as a lobbyist in Washington. At least the man’s got chutzpah.

The hypocrisy doesn’t end here. Gingrich claims moral authority on issues such as the “sanctity of marriage,” yet he’s been divorced twice. He sprang the divorce on his first wife while she was sick with cancer. (His supporters’ excuse: It’s been 31 years, and she’s still alive.) He cheated on his second wife just as he was pressing ahead with Bill Clinton’s impeachment during the Monica Lewinsky affair, unaware of the irony. The woman he cheated with, by the way, was one of his House aides and 23 years his junior — and is now his perpetually smiling third wife.

Americans have a short memory. They forget, too, that Gingrich was driven out of Congress in disgrace, the first speaker of the house to be disciplined for ethical wrongdoing. Or that he consistently flirts with racism when he speaks of Barack Obama. Or that he enjoyed a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany’s just as his campaign was financially in the toilet and he ranted about the national debt. Chutzpah, indeed.

Yet the US media rewards him with a daily kowtow. And the Republicans reward him too, by having put him on top in the latest polls. Mr. Hypocrisy, the bearer of his party’s hope.

“I think he’s doing well just because he’s thinking,” former President Clinton told the conservative online magazine NewsMax. “People are hungry for ideas that make some sense.” Sense? Apparently it’s not just the Republicans who have lost their minds here.

This blog is a must read before anyone writes that the students “deserved” it.. My right wing friends, you know who your are… So you don’t look too stupid later, read this before trying to write something witty…..

1. The protest at which UC Davis police officers used pepper spray and batons against unresisting demonstrators was an entirely nonviolent one.

2. The unauthorized tent encampment was dismantled before the pepper spraying began.

3. Students did not restrict the movement of police at any time during the demonstration.

4. Lt. Pike was not in fear for his safety when he sprayed the students. Chief Spicuzza told reporters on Thursday that her officers had been concerned for their safety when they began spraying. But again, multiple videos show this claim to be groundless.

The most widely distributed video of the incident (viewed, as I write this, by nearly 700,000 people on YouTube) begins just moments before Lt. Pike begain spraying, but another video, which starts a few minutes earlier, shows Pike chatting amiably with one activist, even patting him casually on the back.

(The pat on the back occurs just two minutes and nineteen seconds before Pike pepper sprayed the student he had just been chatting with and all of his friends.)

5. University of California Police are not authorized to use pepper spray except in circumstances in which it is necessary to prevent physical injury to themselves or others.

6. UC police are not authorized to use physical force except to control violent offenders or keep suspects from escaping.

7. The UC Davis Police made no effort to remove the student demonstrators from the walkway peacefully before using pepper spray against them.

8. Use of pepper spray and other physical force continued after the students’ minimal obstruction of the area around the police ended.

9. Even after police began using unprovoked and unlawful violence against the students, they remained peaceful.

10. The students’ commitment to nonviolence extended to their use of language.

Now, lets compare their composure with that of the Tea Party….

Teabagger Violence Mars Tax Day Rally With Sen. Marco Rubio

Tea Party Violence: Teabagger Tries To Kill Man With Obama Bumper Sticker

How Teabaggers Would Deal With America’s Tired, Their Poor, Their Huddled Masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teaming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!