Sunday, 14 December 2008

BERNARD MADOFF A BIG-TIME CONTRIBUTOR TO THE ??? PARTY

Ken Berwitz

bernard madoff.  Thief of thieves.  $50 BILLION dollars gone.

If he were a Republican, would you know about it by now?  Take a guess.

But madoff isn't a Republican.  He's a Democrat.  A major player in the Democratic Party. 

So, did you hear about it?  If so, congratulations.  You must really be a news junkie.

Warner Todd Houston, writing for www.newsbusters.org,  explains:

Media Forgets That Wall Street Rip Off Artist is BIG Democrat Donor

The wires services and the rest of the Old Media have also been reporting on a scandal that doesn't have to do with Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich. But, like the Blago story line, the media seem to be forgetting one small aspect of the story of Wall Street rip off artist Bernard Madoff. Like Blago, Madoff's connections to the Democrat Party seem to be of little interest to the media.

Very few media stories of the fraud perpetrated by former Nasdaq chairman Madoff mentions the heavy financial support that Madoff has donated to the Democrat Party. Campaign contributions by Madoff show many thousands of dollars going to Democrat candidates and causes. Including $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign, thousands to Charles Rangel (D, NY), Charles Schumer (D, NY), and $6,000 to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Madoff also gave generously to Senator Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) who runs a charitable foundation that invested with Madoff.

With the money that Madoff spread around in contributions is it really surprising that his actions went ignored by regulatory agencies?

In any case, the media seems wholly uninterested in the fact that Madoff is a big Democrat contributor. I found no mention of Madoff's past support of the Democrats in any of the following stories.

The Associated Press: "List of potential victims grows in NY fraud case"

ProPublica: "Losses Unknown From Madoffs One Big Lie"

Gawker: "A Bloodthirsty Public Finds the Villains We Want"

The New York Times: "Standing Accused: A Pillar of Finance and Charity"

New York Magazine; "Bernard Madoff: Its All Just One Big Lie"

Forbes: "Fleeced Madoff Investors Face Cold Winter"

... these among many others.

I found but two mentions of Madoff's support of Democrats. One brief mention in Time Magazine and one in a Bloomberg report.

So, what we are seeing is the Old Media conveniently forgetting that this guy was a big Democrat donor. Who can doubt that if Madoff was a big donor to the GOP we'd see this fact featured prominently in every story? Yes, it's another sad but true name-that-party parlor game.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:  It's good to have that D after your name.

free` Yep, this another story where the media is hiding facts, we have several major stories going on right now and in everyone the media aren't telling the whole story. The UAW bailout is another one. Keep up the good work Ken. At least the people that read your blog get to see the dishonesty of the media. (12/14/08)


IS OBAMA STILL CONFIDENT HIS STAFF DIDN'T NEGOTIATE WITH BLAGOJEVICH?

Ken Berwitz

The fraudulent claim that Barack Obama and his people had no contact with Illinois Governor rod blagojevich is breaking down.  Fast.

So fast, in fact, that the New York Times, which did just about everything short of picking out furniture with Obama during the campaign, can't pretend this away.  See for yourself below:

December 14, 2008

Emanuel Had Contact With Governors Office on Senate Seat

CHICAGO President-elect Barack Obamas chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, communicated with the office of Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois about potential candidates for Mr. Obamas Senate seat and provided a list of names, according to two Obama associates briefed on the matter.

The Obama associates said the interactions concerned several people who might fill the seat. Such contacts are common among party officials when a political vacancy is to be filled. It was not clear whether the communication was via direct telephone calls.

The Chicago Tribune reported that communications between Mr. Emanuel and the governor, both Democrats, had been captured on court-approved wiretaps, but Obama associates gave conflicting accounts of the interactions.

Obama aides have said privately that Mr. Emanuel did not engage in any deal-making with Mr. Blagojevich, whom federal prosecutors charged last week with conspiring to turn a profit from the appointment.

The federal inquiry is looking into the exact nature of Mr. Emanuels contacts with the governors office. Mr. Emanuel has not been accused of wrongdoing by federal prosecutors.

Mr. Obama has said he has never spoken with the governor about the seat. But Mr. Obamas aides have declined for five days to answer publicly questions about what discussions they had about the seat, with several saying they were doing so at the request of the office of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

In announcing the charges against Mr. Blagojevich, Mr. Fitzgerald said the president-elect was not implicated in the case.

The Illinois governor alone has the power to fill such vacancies. The criminal complaint against him alleges that he sought to benefit personally from the appointment by securing high-paying jobs for himself and his wife, or campaign contributions, in return for his selection.

Mr. Obama said Thursday that his aides were looking through all of their possible contacts with the governor and would release more information in the coming days. Republicans, meanwhile, have raised questions about Mr. Obamas refusal to say more and about his past ties with the main characters in the story.

Mr. Emanuels list of possible candidates included a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, Valerie Jarrett; the Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan; Representative Jan Schakowsky; and Dan Hynes, the state comptroller.

The criminal complaint quotes Mr. Blagojevich as saying at one point that Mr. Obamas aides were not willing to give him anything more than appreciation in return for appointing a candidate they favored.

Ms. Schakowsky told The New York Times last week that she called Mr. Emanuel last month when she was exploring whether she might fill Mr. Obamas seat. She and Mr. Emanuel had served in the House together.

Ms. Schakowsky said Mr. Emanuel had declined to tell her if Mr. Obama had a favorite to fill the seat. She said he seemed wary about Mr. Blagojevich.

Transition officials would not comment publicly on Saturday.

One of the schemes Mr. Blagojevich is accused of involves Mr. Emanuels House seat, for which Illinois law requires a special election.

According to the criminal complaint, Mr. Blagojevich talked about approaching an unnamed president-elect adviser to ask for help raising 10, 15 million for the governor to start a nonprofit organization.

The complaint quoted Mr. Blagojevich as saying that when the president-elect adviser asked him about the special election for the House seat, Mr. Blagojevich wanted it to be in his head.

Does this pass any sniff test you ever heard of?  I didn't think so.

Watch for new developments.  It's an excellent bet they're coming and just as excellent a bet they aren't going to be pleasant for the Obama people -- maybe even the head of the klan.

free` Even this article misrepresents some of the facts to tilt the story. They make it clear Obama did no wrong and use an example from the tapes as proof. They leave out the part about the gov. having to wait a few years for his payoff, so it isn't as the NYT's states that Obama did no wrong. almost every story i have seen on this all have the same theme, Obama is innocent. From the first day this story broke the media have been telling us Obama is innocent, how could they know that before all the facts come out? So all you should be grateful for is that they bothered to write anything about it, although i think it would be better if they just said nothing about it, than to whitewash it. (12/14/08)


PALIN'S CHURCH TORCHED

Ken Berwitz

Why was Sarah Palin's church in Wasilla, Alaska the object of an arson attack?  Here is the story from the Washington Post:

Palin's Church Severely Damaged by Arson

Associated Press
Sunday, December 14, 2008; A02

ANCHORAGE, Dec. 13 -- Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's home church was badly damaged by arson, leading the governor to apologize Saturday if the fire was connected to "undeserved negative attention" from her campaign as the Republican vice presidential nominee.

Damage to the Wasilla Bible Church was estimated at $1 million, authorities said. No one was injured in the fire, which was set Friday night while a handful of people, including two children, were inside, according to James Steele, the Central Mat-Su fire chief.

He said the blaze was being investigated as an arson. Steele said he didn't know of any recent threats to the church, and authorities did not know whether Palin's connection to the church was relevant to the fire.

"It's hard to say at this point. Everything is just speculation," he said.

Pastor Larry Kroon declined to say whether the church had received any recent threats.

Palin was not at the church at the time of the fire. She stopped by Saturday, and her spokesman Bill McAllister said in a statement that the governor told an assistant pastor she was sorry if the fire was connected to the "undeserved negative attention" the church has received since she became the vice presidential candidate Aug. 29.

"Whatever the motives of the arsonist, the governor has faith in the scriptural passage that what was intended for evil will in some way be used for good," McAllister said.

The 1,000-member evangelical church was the subject of intense scrutiny after Palin was named Sen. John McCain's running mate. Early in Palin's campaign, the church was criticized for promoting in a Sunday bulletin a Love Won Out conference in Anchorage sponsored by Focus on the Family. The conference promised to "help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome."

The fire was set at the entrance of the church and moved inward as a small group of women worked on crafts, Steele said. The group was alerted to the blaze by a fire alarm.

How fortunate that the women and children inside the church at that time were not incinerated along with the physical plant.

And how interesting that the Associated Press, whose article this is, tossed in the fact that Wasilla Bible Church is against homosexuality amd believes it can help people overcome it. 

What is that all about?  Did the AP do it to explain why the church was hit?  If so, does it have evidence that homosexual activists did this?  Did the AP check last week's bulletin to see who else the Wasilla Bible Church might have angered?

Is it meant as an explanation that justifies the torching?  "Hey, these people are homophobes, they brought it on themselves", something like that?

Well, here's a thought:  Has the Associated Press considered that this might have been done out of political hatred?  You know, the kind that is churned up when media spend months telling readers/listeners what an objectionable dunce one of the congregants is and what an affront it was that she ran for the vice presidency?

I guess it hasn't.

free` excellent commentary. the media and especially the AP/DNC are no longer credible in my opinion. there are just too many examples of there bias to trust anything they write. (12/14/08)


OBAMA'S ENERGY CZAR

Ken Berwitz

This one needs no help from me.  I'll just post Michelle Malkin's expos of what an ethically challenged selection Barack Obama appears to be making for his (therefore our) energy czar:

Crooked Carol Browner: Obamas ethically-challenged energy czar

By Michelle Malkin    December 12, 2008 09:10 AM

My syndicated column today puts the screws on Clintonite Carol Browner, rumored to be Obamas choice for energy czar. Shes not so fresh and so clean. And conservatives should raise their voices for, you know, real change.

***

Same old, same old.

The trouble with Obamas energy czar
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Yet another Clintonite has been wheeled out of the political morgue to serve in the Obama administration. Carol Browner, a neon green radical who headed the Environmental Protection Agency from 1993-2000, is widely rumored to be the president-elects choice for energy czar. But an ethical cloud still hangs over Browners EPA legacy. It doesnt take a team of Ivy League-degreed lawyers to figure out that this is one more headache the Hope and Change crew doesnt need.

In the spirit of reaching across the aisle, let me dust off the cobwebs and help out all the smarty-pants vetters on the Obama team with a little background on Browners stained past:

On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judges order requiring the agency to preserve its records. This from a public official who bragged about her tenure: One of the things Im the proudest of at EPA is the work weve done to expand the publics right to know.

Asked to explain her track-covering actions, the savvy career lawyer Browner played dumb. Figuratively batting her eyelashes, she claimed she had no clue about a court injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth on the same day she commanded an underling to wipe her hard drives clean. Golly gee willikers, how could that have slipped by her?

According to testimony in a freedom of information lawsuit filed against EPA by the Landmark Legal Foundation, a Virginia-based conservative legal watchdog group, Browner commanded a computer technician on Jan. 19, 2001: I would like my files deleted. I want you to delete my files. Not coincidentally, the Landmark Legal Foundation had been pressing Browner to fully and publicly disclose the names of any special interest groups that may have influenced her wave of last-minute regulatory actions. Two days before she told her technician to purge all her records, EPA had gone to court to file a motion opposing the federal court injunction protecting those government documents.

Plausible deniability? Not bloody likely.

Incredibly, Browner asserted that there was no work-related material on her work computer. She explained she was merely cleaning the hard drive of computer games she had downloaded for her son, and that she wanted to expunge the hard drive as a courtesy to the incoming Bush administration. How thoughtful. Later, her agency admitted that three other top EPA officials had their computers erased despite the federal court order and ongoing FOIA case (the record is silent on whether Browners son was playing games on their desktops, too). A further belated admission revealed that the agency had failed to search Browners office for public documents as required by Landmarks public disclosure lawsuit.

Not only were all the top officials hard drives cleared and reformatted, but e-mail backup tapes were erased and reused in violation of records preservation practices.

After a two-year legal battle, Judge Lamberth finally held the EPA in contempt of court for the systemic file destruction actions Lambert lambasted as contumacious conduct (obstinate resistance to authority). As is typical in Washington, Browner weaseled out of any serious repercussions. Lamberth inexplicably decided that slapping the agency as a whole with contempt rather than any individual would deter future cover-ups.

Is this a gamble the Obama administration wants to take? Browner has crossed the line and violated public trust before in her capacity as eco-chief. Early in her first term as EPA head, Browner got caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. Browner exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups, who turned around and attacked Republican lawmakers for supporting regulatory reform. These are the very same groups anti-business, anti-sound science, pro-eco-hysteria that Browner would be working arm in arm with as Obamas energy czar.

This is regression we cant afford.

What is this?  "Change we can believe in", or "Change we can recognize because it was there 8 years ago"?

Did you really expect Mr. Obama to honestly do what he promised?  And, if so, based on what?  His honesty about wright, rezko, ayers or his willingness to show us his real birth certificate?

 


OBAMA'S FREDDIE MAC/FANNIE MAE MORTGAGE

Ken Berwitz

Let me start by saying that I do not know, and therefore cannot vouch for, this web site. 

On the assumption I've made myself clear, I will now post what I found at www.deathby1000papercuts.com.  See what you make of it:

Obama Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Chicago Home Mortgage $903,000 over Legal Limit


Relativity by E. M. Escher

While researching an article about Obamas Chicago home about the circumstances surrounding who is the owner, I happened across a bit of information: Obamas home has a Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac mortgage to the tune of $1,320,000. (Page 5 of Cook County Property Assessment Record)

The information comes from the Cook County Clerks office where the owner of the Obama home is listed as William Miceli, a former supervisor of Obamas when he worked at the David Law Firm.

Whats unusual about the Obama mortgage is that the upper limits of a Fannie Mae loan on a single family dwelling as of January, 2008, is $417,000 while mortgages in high cost areas cannot exceed $729,750.

The Obamas mortage, through Northern Trust Company, is in the amount of $1,320,000.

The limits for a Freddie Mac single family dwelling is $417,000, with an upper tier of $625,500 for homes located in Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

I looked into whether Cook County, Illinois, where the Obama home is located, and whether it is considered by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac as a high cost area. I found this little snippet written by Lew Sichelman, of the Reality Times in 2004, a few months prior to the Obamas purchasing their home:

Effective Jan. 1, the new FHA ceiling in high cost areas is 87 percent of the limit on loans which can be purchased by Freddie Mac. The Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae conventional loan limit rose to $359,650, also on Jan. 1. In most of the nations 3,300 other jurisdictions, the FHA floor is $172,632. But in about 530 places, the FHA maximum is somewhere in between $172,632 and $359,650.

The new limits already are the subject of controversy. For example, some Chicago area lenders already are grumbling that Jefferson County, a distant Washington area jurisdiction at best, is considered a high-cost area but Cook County, Ill., is not.

I took it one step further and entered the Obamas South Greenwood address at Fannie Maes Loan Limit Geocoder. The results: Obamas South Greenwood home was eligible for a maximum Fannie Mae loan of $417,000.


Click Image to Enlarge

Im not sure how, but the Obamas managed to procure a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortage $903,000 over the legal limit.

Wouldn't you like to know more about this?  Wouldn't you think mainstream media would be greatly interested - especially given the involvement of slumlord and convicted felon antoin "tony" rezko's involvement in Mr. Obama's home purchase?

Will these "journalists" ever do their job when it comes to Obama?  Or is he just too godly for them to trouble him with issues like whether he got an illegal home loan?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!