Larry F McCrary

President Obama Selective Service Sign-up Questionable.

2011-04-15T07:39:00.000-07:00

Most people do not realize you can verify a person’s Selective Service Registration online at www.sss.gov. All you need is the birth date and social security number. I did it for various relatives with no problem. All you find out is the person’s Selective Service Number and date of registration. Then I decided to try it for President Obama. His birth date and Social Security number are readily available on the internet. However, when I entered the data I got this message on the Selective Service Website:

"Error. Sorry, your request cannot be processed at this time because you have exceeded the daily limit for the verification of these credentials. (4/15/2011 10:41:35 AM) "

Unusual message as the one you get when the person cannot be found or data is inaccurate is as follow:

" Sorry. Based on the information you submitted (information listed below), a registration record cannot be found for this individual."

Also, the error based on exceeding the daily limit is not accurate as I can verify another person immediately. This is just another item that cast suspicion on President Obama’s birth records, social security number and other identity accuracy. It is possible he did not sign up for the Selective Service.

“WHO MUST REGISTER? Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male aliens living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. It's important to know that even though he is registered, a man will not automatically be inducted into the military. In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.” Selective Service Website

There are very few exceptions to not registering. You can be a lawful alien, incarcerated or institutionalized for medical reasons, or handicapped. As a certified forensic examiner, my suspicions increase when every time you try to verify information you run into roadblocks. In most cases something is being hidden for a reason, and that reason is generally related to a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

“Registration is the law. A man who fails to register may, if prosecuted and convicted, face a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years. Even if not tried, a man who fails to register with Selective Service before turning age 26 may find that some doors are permanently closed. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Selective Service will accept late registrations but not after a man has reached age 26. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. Selective Service will accept late registrations but not after a man has reached age 26.” Selective Service Website

Read the Heathcare Reform Bill?

2010-03-12T14:45:00.000-08:00

Read the Healthcare Reform Bill? This is a question we should be asking everyone we know. The Senate Bill is actually “S.1796 To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes”.
I know not many people read an actual bill before any legislation is passed, but this health care bill being considered by the 111th Congress has been debated in the press and by politicians for a year now. What most of us do is to rely on the legislature to get it right and complain after the fact. In the case of the health care reform bill, I recommend we start paying close attention because, if you do not think it will affect you, consider the occurrence something is mentioned within the bill.
The approximate occurrence of the word(s) within the bill is in parenthesis.
I believe it is safe to say that the majority of American lives are or will be impacted by the Internal Revenue Code (84), Social Security (435) or Medicare (437). This alone should scare you to think that our legislature is going to approve a bill without partisan support that mentions and possibly changes the authority of these governmental regulations.
When you think of the Internal Revenue Code, you think about tax (411), credits (214) or penalties (79). With Social Security you worry about whether it is amended (410) or payments (724). Medicare brings to mind prescriptions (3), Part B (57) and fees (43).
How about the purpose of the bill to provide affordable (30), quality health care (7) for all Americans and reduce the growth (3) in health care spending (3), and for other purposes (4). Please keep in mind that the purpose of the bill is included three times, two at the opening and one at closing.
Then there are those items that are continually mentioned in the media such as abortion (20), lower costs (3), budgets (51) and spending (56). In my opinion, the ones that really need to worry are the employers (306) that will be required to take on additional responsibilities for the employees’ (295) health insurance (181).
I am not implying that each occurrence of a word(s) within the bill represents a change; however, it is hard to argue that it does not represent what parts of our daily lives that are being impacted.

Goldman Sachs Bailout

2010-01-13T09:06:00.000-08:00

As I posted in March 2009, I saw the AIG payments as a bailout to Goldman Sachs as follows:

"If our politicians had not bailed AIG out and instead required a restructured bankruptcy, these contracts as well as any others would have been negated. The problems that a failed AIG created would have found their way to the entity, business or country that could then be considered for assistance. No, we just give a lump-sum to one business and let them pay it out hoping that it was enough. This obviously did not work in AIG’s case.It is apparent now that the AIG payments to others actually helped firms such a Goldman Sachs that has not accepted TARP funds and can pay bonuses as they wish. I do not believe that the former Treasury Secretary Mr. Paulson who is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs was not aware of the consequences of these actions."

Now 10 months later, Congress is questioning Geithner's actions in allowing 100 cents on the dollar payouts from AIG to Goldman Sachs. He or his staff were trying to keep it quite as well. It's clear to me that Goldman Sachs was calling the shots. By the way, where is Mr. Paulson these days. Retirement is propbably very good and I wonder if he has some type of Goldman Sachs retirement/investment plan.

Democrats Sanction Bribery

2009-12-23T08:46:00.001-08:00

Democrats Sanction Bribery
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky gave Senator Ben Nelson, D-NE something serving to influence or persuade, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct (“definition of bribery”) in order to obtain his vote for the health care bill.
I presume this rewrites the Sarbanes-Oxley and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The message is clear; the U.S. Senate does not uphold the ethical requirements of these Acts, and are not subject to the fines and jail time that business leaders are subject to under such Acts.
As in the case of most criminal minds they rationalize there unethical acts as follows:
Sen. Reid responded Saturday to questions about the new provision for Nebraska. "If you read the bill, you will find a number of states treated differently from other states," Reid said. "That's what legislation is all about. It's called compromise."
Sen. Nelson posted on his website “I know this is hard for some of my colleagues to accept. And I appreciate their right to disagree. But I would not have voted for this bill without these provisions. I would like to acknowledge the administration. Perhaps most remarkable of all has been the leadership of our Majority Leader, Senator Reid. To craft this landmark legislation, shepherd it through the legislative process, deal with the many competing interests associated with this legislation, and acquire the necessary votes to end the filibuster is an accomplishment of historic proportions.”
Such rationalization and cover-up statements only provide more evidence of their unethical behavior.
It is hard to believe that the Democrats are so hard pressed to achieve their agenda that they would resort to bribery.

AIG Anger Misdirected

2009-03-23T16:17:00.000-07:00

AIG Anger Misdirected

Larry F. McCrary
USA Citizen

I was angry when I first heard the news about the $165 million bonuses to be paid to AIG executives. I could not comprehend how we as taxpayers had to pay this after bailing out AIG in order to keep them in business. Of course most of my information was coming from the TV media sound-bites. Then, over the next couple of days, I got more detailed information from the newspapers and had time to evaluate the actual events leading up to this fiasco.
How quickly we forget that in September 2008 it was reported that the U.S. Regulators drove a hard bargain and agreed to terms to lend AIG $85 billion. As security, the U.S. Government effectively got a 79.9% equity stake in the form of equity participation notes with a carrying interest rate of Libor plus 8.5% (Libor, the London interbank offered rate, is a common short-term lending benchmark.) "This loan will facilitate a process under which AIG will sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy," the Fed said in a statement. The Wall Street Journal reported on September 16, 2008, that “the final decision to help AIG came as the federal government concluded it would be "catastrophic" to allow the insurer to fail, according to a person familiar with the matter. Federal officials had tried to get the private sector to pony up some funds. But when that effort failed, Fed Chairman Bernanke, New York Fed President Timothy Geithner and Treasury Secretary Paulson concluded that federal assistance was needed to avert an AIG bankruptcy, which they feared could have disastrous repercussions.” Keep in mind that Mr. Geithner has now taken Mr. Paulson’s place as Treasury Secretary and Mr. Bernanke is still the Federal Reserve Chairman.
Then a mere two months later in November 2008, the package was revised to $150 billion with easier terms. Reuters reported on November 10, 2008 that “Under the new plan, the government will get a $40 billion equity stake in AIG, spend as much as $30 billion on securities underlying the insurer's credit default swaps, and spend up to $22.5 billion to buy residential mortgage securities. It will also reduce a previously announced credit line to $60 billion from $85 billion, and lower interest rates on borrowings. AIG will also accept curbs on executive pay, including a freeze of bonuses for its top 70 executives.” Someone ought to check this reporter’s notes and sources.
Most recently at the first of March 2009, AIG got an additional $30 billion in federal assistance. All this seems to add up to $180 billion not $170 Billion, but I’m dealing with limited information and what’s $10 billion give or take in the overall scheme of bailout mania.
So let’s recap. Both administration’s of former President Bush and President Obama were involved in the AIG bailout, as was current Treasury Secretary Geithner and Fed Chairman Bernanke, and I assume other governmental regulators, and we are angry at the AIG employees.
I’m not all that sympathetic with these AIG employees receiving these bonuses, but let’s put ourselves in their shoes before we cast too many stones. From the best I can tell, they contracted for these bonuses before the bailout money was received, performed as requested, and I assume the bonus was computed under a formula based on some results. I also bet they were educated, trained and followed others working on Wall Street to make the best deal for themselves when signing on for a position. No one renegotiated their contract when the U.S. Government agreed to a bailout under hard terms. Now, we the taxpayers are angry with these employees, and want them to give back the money.
If our politicians had not bailed AIG out and instead required a restructured bankruptcy, these contracts as well as any others would have been negated. The problems that a failed AIG created would have found their way to the entity, business or country that could then be considered for assistance. No, we just give a lump-sum to one business and let them pay it out hoping that it was enough. This obviously did not work in AIG’s case.
It is apparent now that the AIG payments to others actually helped firms such a Goldman Sachs that has not accepted TARP funds and can pay bonuses as they wish. I do not believe that the former Treasury Secretary Mr. Paulson who is the former CEO of Goldman Sachs was not aware of the consequences of these actions.
So, yes I’m angry. But now my anger is directed to U.S. Government officials and politicians, Republican and Democrat. Stop the bail-outs. Let the problems fall to the ultimate entity that took the risk, and then deal with it if appropriate or let it take the loss as Goldman Sachs should have. I rather have the $13 billion back from Goldman Sachs verses the 1.3% of that amount or $165 million from the AIG employees.