Today it was reported that Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has been calling Wall Street friends to cough up $125 million to save ShoreBank, which faces federal closure next week. Rep. Jan Schakowsky suggested in January that Illinois taxpayers foot the bill. That would have been the first state-led bank bailout in U.S history. The idea was abandoned–so it appears the government is shaking down Goldman Sachs instead.
ShoreBank has close connections to the Obama administration, including controversial figures such as former “green jobs czar” Van Jones. Its executives have contributed in the past to Rep. Schakowsky and other Illinois politicians. ShoreBank did not just make loans in poor communities–there are other local banks that do that without getting into trouble–but also specifically made loans that the recipients had little hope of repaying.
Now ShoreBank is calling in some political favors, and the politicians are responding with a classic Chicago-style shakedown. It is probably no coincidence that Goldman Sachs suddenly took an interest in ShoreBank after it was slapped with a federal civil fraud lawsuit and a criminal investigation. Many Wall Street observers believe that the charges against Goldman Sachs were politically motivated, in timing if not in substance.
Regardless, Mr. Blankfein got the message, telling Goldman Sachs shareholders last week that he would try to rebuild the company’s image. He called up other bailed-out institutions that are being threatened with federal charges–Bank of America, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase–and got them to cough up millions for ShoreBank. So although the ShoreBank bailout is “private,” American taxpayers are still indirectly on the hook.
Showing posts with label VAn Jones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label VAn Jones. Show all posts
Friday, May 14, 2010
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Valerie Jarrett on Jones: "We were watching him...for as long as he's been active..."
From Power Line
"The key point about the Van Jones affair is what it tells us about Barack Obama. Jones isn't someone who slipped through the cracks of the vetting process. We know this because, as Scott pointed out earlier today, top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett has said, "So, Van Jones, we were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House; we were watching him. . .for as long as he's been active out in Oakland."
Having watched the rise of Van Jones, why did Team Obama nonetheless "recruit" him into the White house? Because what Jones says and believes is well within the range of what Obama believes, and thus not jarrring to him and his crew.
If Jones is now beyond the pale, it is only because the Obama crowd finally hears him through the filter of a controversy. When Obama and company heard him only through the filter of what they believe, there was no controversy because his statements -- e.g., his attack on Israeli "occupation" dating back to 1948 and his claim that "U.S. tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the U.S. borders and outside the US borders" -- are not particularly controversial to Team Obama.
This, of course, is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright phenomenon all over again."
"The key point about the Van Jones affair is what it tells us about Barack Obama. Jones isn't someone who slipped through the cracks of the vetting process. We know this because, as Scott pointed out earlier today, top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett has said, "So, Van Jones, we were so delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House; we were watching him. . .for as long as he's been active out in Oakland."
Having watched the rise of Van Jones, why did Team Obama nonetheless "recruit" him into the White house? Because what Jones says and believes is well within the range of what Obama believes, and thus not jarrring to him and his crew.
If Jones is now beyond the pale, it is only because the Obama crowd finally hears him through the filter of a controversy. When Obama and company heard him only through the filter of what they believe, there was no controversy because his statements -- e.g., his attack on Israeli "occupation" dating back to 1948 and his claim that "U.S. tax dollars are funding violence against people of color inside the U.S. borders and outside the US borders" -- are not particularly controversial to Team Obama.
This, of course, is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright phenomenon all over again."
After ignoring attacks against Van Jones' racism et al, what does the NYT report when he resigns?
If you're the New York Times, smug and liberal, you take pleasure in ignoring news that would embarrass liberals, Democrats, trisexuals or anyone who hates America or longs for the approaching socialist paradise.
The Times and its staff undoubtedly have found it almost erotic to close their eyes to conservative media's relentless pursuit of Van Jones, which have gone to the extreme of publishing Jones's own anti-American and anti-white rants.
The trouble starts when the right wing media attacks result in the sudden resignation of Van Jones.
How would you like to write the Times's lead about the sudden resignation of a sterling public servant, with an unblemished record, who suddenly quits a well-paid, highly visible job in the administration of a president who has masqueraded as a national savior?
It can't be easy, I tell you.
This is how the Times handled the challenge:
"Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs 'czar' on Saturday, after weeks of controversy over his past comments and affiliations had slowly escalated.
Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said on Sunday that Jones had resigned because “the agenda of the president is bigger than any one individual” and he did not want the dispute to get in the way of creating green jobs in this economy.
After George Stephanoupoulos, the host of ABC’s “This Week,” asked several questions about Mr. Jones’s past controversial statements, Mr. Gibbs said that the president “doesn’t endorse what he said.”
Not bad, but certainly far short of inspiring. The Times exonerates Obama by blaming poor vetting for Jones's hiring. But why wasn't Jones vetted properly?
Because Obama already knew that Jones met his basic requirement: he was a hard leftist who was hostile toward white people and the American system.
The Times and its staff undoubtedly have found it almost erotic to close their eyes to conservative media's relentless pursuit of Van Jones, which have gone to the extreme of publishing Jones's own anti-American and anti-white rants.
The trouble starts when the right wing media attacks result in the sudden resignation of Van Jones.
How would you like to write the Times's lead about the sudden resignation of a sterling public servant, with an unblemished record, who suddenly quits a well-paid, highly visible job in the administration of a president who has masqueraded as a national savior?
It can't be easy, I tell you.
This is how the Times handled the challenge:
"Van Jones resigned as the White House’s environmental jobs 'czar' on Saturday, after weeks of controversy over his past comments and affiliations had slowly escalated.
Appointed as a special adviser for “green jobs” by President Obama, Mr. Jones did not go through the traditional vetting process for administration officials who must be confirmed by the Senate. So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said on Sunday that Jones had resigned because “the agenda of the president is bigger than any one individual” and he did not want the dispute to get in the way of creating green jobs in this economy.
After George Stephanoupoulos, the host of ABC’s “This Week,” asked several questions about Mr. Jones’s past controversial statements, Mr. Gibbs said that the president “doesn’t endorse what he said.”
Not bad, but certainly far short of inspiring. The Times exonerates Obama by blaming poor vetting for Jones's hiring. But why wasn't Jones vetted properly?
Because Obama already knew that Jones met his basic requirement: he was a hard leftist who was hostile toward white people and the American system.
For Van Jones, green jobs meant redistribution
"Van Jones, a special adviser to the president, revealed his Trojan-horse strategy during a 2008 interview on leftist Uprising Radio in Los Angeles.
"The green economy will start off as a small subset" of a "complete revolution" away from "gray capitalism" and toward "redistribution of all the wealth," he said. "And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."
"The green economy will start off as a small subset" of a "complete revolution" away from "gray capitalism" and toward "redistribution of all the wealth," he said. "And we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."
Friday, September 4, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
