Hooray For CHANGE!

Archive for April, 2010

Obama has denied aid to individuals affected by March’s massive storms in and Connecticut Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell will file a formal appeal because homeowners, renters and employers need help.  A survey was conducted that identified 1,315 homes in the five counties with damages totaling $5,262,100 in estimated housing assistance needs and “other needs assistance.” The Small Business Administration determined that 116 businesses were affected and estimated the damages at $5,359,250.

Newsweek can run stories like “Katrina: How Bush Blew It,” people can go on Meet the Press and say things like, “The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worse abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history,” Berkley professors can state at Senate Hearings, “Perhaps not just human error was involved… there may have been malfeasance,” and idiots like Kanye West and Spike Lee can say things like Bush was a racist and actually blew up the levees in New Orleans and get away with it.  But now that the shoe is on the other foot, now that it is the poor white people of Mississippi being denied much needed aid by Obama, the press is silent.  The man can drive up our deficit by $10 trillion for entitlement programs, but $10.5 million to poor white people in Mississippi in a disaster is too much?  It is the double-standard that exists in the press in America, hold Republicans to a higher standard than Democrats… and let Democrats get away with their own abandonment, malfeasance and, dare I say, racism?

I’m just trying to remember how much money and relief Bush denied to those American citizens who suffered through Katrina?  I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say… zero.  Obama?  Well, he’s starting off with $10.5 million denied to natural disaster victims.

Here’s to another great decision by the Commander in Chief.  Cheers… and Hooray for CHANGE!

NBC

Obama’s second biggest single source donor in 2007 and 2008 was Goldman Sachs employees and family members.  They sent him a whopping $994,795.00 in campaign contributions.  In fact, three-quarters of the $5.9 million in political donations from Goldman Sachs went to Democrats in 2007 and 2008.  Rahm Emanuel received approximately $80,000.00 from Goldman Sachs between 2002 and 2008 while he was in Congress when he assumed a leading role championing the trillion-dollar TARP banking bailout law which lined Goldman Sachs’ pockets with $10 billion in preferred stock investment from the U.S. Treasury in October 2008.  If you claim there is no Democrat-Obama-Goldman Sachs connection, then you are blind to the facts.

The Obama-Democrat-Goldman Sachs conflicts of interests are staggering.  The stage gets set during the Bush years with former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs.  One of his first acts was to save his alma mater Goldman Sachs and let their two biggest competitors, Bear-Stearns & Lehman Brothers, fail.  Paulson’s next act, under the counsel of Goldman Sachs current CEO Lloyd Bankfein (a staunch Democrat), was to bail out AIG with $85 billion of taxpayer money.  Coincidentally, the single biggest payout from AIG was to Goldman Sachs for a whopping $12.9 billion.  But wait, there’s more.  Paulson appoints Neel Kashkari, a former VP of Goldman Sachs, as the Interim Asst. Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability in the Treasury where he bought troubled assets from U.S. financial firms under TARP.  The first thing he did was change Goldman Sachs to a bank holding company so that they could have access to TARP money, FDIC money, and Fed money from the Discount Window (allows eligible institutions to borrow money from the central bank) AND not be regulated by the SEC.  Kashkari’s term bleeds over into the Obama administration where he is praised by Democrats and Obama, but eventually replaced by Gary Gensler, a former partner at Goldman Sachs and major contributor to the Democrat Party.  Since Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company, they were regulated by the Fed and now being overseen by Stephen Freidman, the former chairman of Goldman Sachs and, at the time, a current major shareholder and member of the board of directors (major conflict of interest where a member of the board of directors is actually overseeing the company… but Geithner approves… and not only that, allows him to buy more shares!).  At this point Goldman Sachs begins to get back on its feet and starts to endorse and invest in carbon assets… a blatant endorsement of Obama’s Cap & Trade agenda. To this end, Goldman Sachs hires a former top aide to Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, as their director of government affairs, Michael Paese (major Democrat campaign donor).  The position he was filling?  Well, the former Goldman Sachs lobbyist was Mark Patterson (and major Democrat donor) who became chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Geithner (didn’t Obama make a campaign PROMISE that he would limit the influence of lobbyists in his administration and run anti-McCain ads stating the McCain would do exactly what Obama has done since?).  If you claim there are no Democrat-Obama-Goldman Sachs conflicts of interest, then you are blind to the facts.

Aside from Obama breaking his promise of no lobbyists working in his administration, he also broke his promise to the American people that there would be no more sweetheart deals.  This sweetheart deals with several more Democrat donors and Goldman Sachs alums.  The FDIC seized IndyMac in 2008 after a run on deposits led to the fourth largest bank failure in U.S. history. The run on deposits was caused by Democrat Congressman Charles Schumer after he released a letter that “expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability.”  In March 2009, most of IndyMac’s operations were sold to a sole bidder, OneWest Bank, made up by a investment group of private- equity backers that include John Paulson (billionaire hedge-fund manager with Goldman Sachs and huge Democrat campaign contributor and Obama supporter – remember this name), George Soros (huge Democrat campaign contributor and Obama supporter), J. Christopher Flowers (formerly with Goldman Sachs), Steven Mnuchin (formerly with Goldman Sachs and a huge Democrat donor) and Michael Dell. OneWest pumped $1.55 billion into IndyMac and struck a loss-sharing agreement covering a majority of the acquired loans with the FDIC. The Feds agreed to share the losses 80/20 for the next 7% of losses and 95/5 thereafter of the original mortgage price regardless of how much was paid down or owed at the time of the loss.  What does that mean?  Simply this, approximately 80-95% of $11 billion in old IndyMac mortgage loans are guaranteed by the taxpayers and are no risk to the investors.  So, if 100% of all loans are paid back to OneWest, the investors stand to make almost $4 billion in pure profit, but if 100% of loans default, the investors stand to make $1 billion in profit (remember, the bank still owns the property and sells at it as a short sale or foreclosure… AND the borrower still owes the remaining amount to the bank).  The issue is that there is no risk and no losses no matter what to this investor group that includes major Democrat contributors and former Goldman Sachs alums… and you and I are footing the bill.  If you claim there is no Democrat-Obama-Goldman Sachs sweetheart deal in a sole bidder no risk investment, then you are blind to facts.

Now what’s the latest problem with Goldman Sachs?  The SEC fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs alleges the firm failed to tell investors of a 2007 collateralized debt obligation (CDO aka derivatives… which would NOT be regulated under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 signed by Democrat President Clinton).  Hedge fund Paulson & Co. (John Paulson, the billionaire OneWest Bank investor, huge Democrat campaign contributor and Obama supporter) helped select the underlying assets that Goldman Sachs would bet against. In other words, Goldman Sachs created and sold a mortgage investment that were secretly devised to fail so that they could profit by betting against the very mortgage investments they sold to their customers.  After they take the losses, their cronies in the Federal government bail them out and now that Obama wants to pass more socialist reform, they devise a lawsuit that states investors lost $1 billion.  A drop in the bucket compared to what Goldman Sachs got in TARP funds ($10 billion directly and another $12.9 billion indirectly from AIG).  This will be a storm they weather easily.  Not named in the SEC lawsuit is, you guessed it, John Paulson.  Oh, and don’t worry too much for Goldman Sachs, the SEC lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones, who was appointed to the bench in 1995 by Democrat President Clinton following the recommendation of Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Why is this all troubling?  The abuse of power by the federal government and the lengths it will go to pass a highly controversial piece of legislation known as the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.  The irony is that this bill was sponsored by Democrat Chris Dodd who is retiring from political office this year because his financial history is tainted with economic scandal ranging from corrupt Countrywide loans, to his staunch defense of a failing Fannie/Freddie – his biggest campaign contributors, to his Irish Cottage controversy, to his AIG lies.  Of course it makes perfect sense that Dodd would be the one to craft a financial reform bill!  So he did and it was introduced on April 15, 2010.  Dodd’s bill included a $50 billion liquidation fund which is just more bailout, which is opposed by Republicans.  Well, since the Republicans have been winning the debate game despite all the laws and mandates Democrats are stuffing down our throats, this latest decision by the SEC is a way for Obama and the Democrats to create the “Wall Street Villain” once again, so they can pass their financial reform bill through with positive public favor.  Well, it probably wouldn’t be a question if it wasn’t for the timing of everything and obvious organization and coordination by Democrats.  Here’s how it goes:

● 2008 – The probe of Goldman Sachs began two years ago and most often the SEC settles such cases with banks and investment firms

● April 15, 2010 – Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 is introduced and certain elements of the bill are immediately opposed by Republicans

● April 16, 2010 – The SEC’s commissioners approved charges against Goldman on a 3-2, party-line vote, with all three Democrats voting for the charges… a rare occurrence for approvals of enforcement litigation.

● April 16, 2010 (10:39am) – The New York Times had a lengthy story (1,638 words) ready to go (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/business/17goldman.html) posted on-line

● April 16, 2010 (11:00am) – The SEC wrote their complaint and press release marking the first time that regulators have taken action against a Wall Street deal that helped investors capitalize on the collapse of the housing market.

● April 16, 2010 (11:07am) – “Organizing for America” (the community organizing arm of the DNC) sent an e-mail to supporters urging support for President Obama’s financial regulation reform bill within an hour of the announcement.

● April 16, 2010 (2:00pm) – The Democratic National Committee posted ads on Google that appeared when users searched for “Goldman Sachs SEC” that takes the Internet users the White House website, “Help Change Wall Street,” and asks for donations.

● April 20, 2010 – Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight committee, demands a documents from the SEC, asserting that the timing of civil charges against Goldman Sachs raises “serious questions about the commission’s independence and impartiality.”  Furthermore, he noted, “We are concerned that politics have unduly influenced the decision and timing of the commission’s controversial enforcement action against Goldman,” implying that the timing was a bit too convenient, saying Obama’s push on Wall Street reform “neatly coincided with the commission’s announcement of the suit.”

So, take your pick.  We got lies, sweetheart deals, major Democrat contributors, ethical questions, backroom deals, abuse of power, partisanship, cronies, payoffs and bailouts.  Where do you want to start draining the swamp first?

STORY UPDATE:

April 22, 2010 – It came to light today that lawyers for Goldman Sachs negotiated with SEC over their civil fraud charges while their CEO visited the Obama White House at least 4 times.  Obama doesn’t plan on giving back almost $1 million in campaign contributions from employees of Goldman Sachs.  Hooray for CHANGE!

April 28, 2010 – Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein underwent vigorous questioning yesterday at a Senate hearing where he wholeheartedly endorsed the Obama-Democrat’s partisan finance “reform” legislation. Hooray for CHANGE!

April 29, 2010 – The SEC has referred its investigation of Goldman Sachs to the Justice Department for possible criminal prosecution.  The SEC claims the firm and an employee named Fabrice Tourre broke the law and committed fraud when they sold clients a complex investment linked to the value of home loans that was secretly designed to fail. Another firm, Paulson & Co., a hedge fund, helped Goldman create the investment and planned to bet against it. But the SEC claims that relationship was not disclosed to Goldman’s clients, ACA Financial Guaranty and the German bank IKB.

The already highly vulnerable stock market took a big plunge today… 125 points. The culprit this time was Goldman Sachs and their latest fraud charges.  Hooray for CHANGE!

Reuters

A young couple was savagely beaten by 3 to 5 men after leaving the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans.  The girl, Allee Bautsch, suffered a broken leg which required surgery and her boyfriend, Joe Brown, suffered a broken nose, a broken jaw, and a concussion.  You can draw your own conclusions.  Hooray for CHANGE!

Hat Tip to Kathy
Big Government

FURTHER PROOF THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT SPEND ITS WAY TO PROSPERITY: Real personal income for Americans – excluding government payouts such as Social Security – has fallen by 3.2% since President Obama took office, according to the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.  Hooray for CHANGE!

Washington Times

Can Obama refrain from bowing to leaders of other nations… whether they be Kings, Queens, Emperors or (and especially) Communist Presidents?  Not only does he belittle the power and independence of the United States, but such an act is a traditional obeisance befitting a foreign dignitaries’ subjects, not peers.
In Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution one will find the following: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
And for over 200 years, Presidents have followed the standard State Department protocol that U.S. presidents are not to bow before any foreign dignitaries – to do a gesture that is beneath the dignity of his office.