Michelle Malkin » Maxine, Barney, Fannie, Freddie & TARP Hanky-Panky

Maxine, Barney, Fannie, Freddie & TARP Hanky-Panky

By Michelle Malkin • August 3, 2010 06:04 AM

Over the weekend, I gave you a refresher course on entrenched California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters’ OneUnited Bank ethics scandal. It’s a textbook case of cronyism of color.

Last night, the House Ethics Committee filed three charges against her related to those shady dealings — specifically, her role in arranging a special meeting between then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson (known on this blog as the lying, Naked Emperor) and her pals at the black-owned, deeply indebted OneUnited Bank.

In a nutshell: The minority depository institution was seeking a backdoor government rescue from its reckless decision to squander nearly $52 million of its bank capital on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stock. After the federal bailout of Fannie/Freddie, OneUnited’s stock in the government-sponsored enterprises plunged to a value estimated at less than $5 million. Only through Rep. Waters’ intervention was OneUnited Bank able to secure an emergency meeting with Paulson and Treasury. They did so under the guise of representing the “National Bankers Association.” But records obtained by congressional investigators showed that OneUnited Bank’s legal counsel, vice president and president (the latter two are married to each other) spearheaded the meeting, its agenda, and drafted the talking points/briefing material for Rep. Waters. As I noted in my OneUnited column last year:

“The banks’ executives donated $12,500 to her congressional campaigns. Her husband, Sidney Williams, was an investor in one of the banks that merged into One United. They’ve profited handsomely from their relationship with the bank…Waters (along with Rep. Frank) participated directly in pressuring the feds for OneUnited’s piece of the bailout pie. She personally contacted the Treasury Department last December [2008] requesting $50 million for the company– and failed to disclose her ties to the bank to them. The government ended up coughing up $12 million in TARP funding for OneUnited — despite another government agency rapping the bank in October 2008 for “operating without effective underwriting standards and practices,” “operating without an effective loan documentation program” and “engaging in speculative investment practices.”

You can read the separate Office of Congressional Ethics Report and Findings on Waters’ conduct here. It was completed more than a year ago, but released for the first time to the public yesterday by the House ethics panel. I’ll have much more on the case in my syndicated column tomorrow, but here are some nuts, bolts, and choice nuggets I gathered for you from the report:

THE RELEVANT ETHICS CODE RULES & STANDARDS (pp 7-8):

9. Code of Conduct:

Under House Rule 23, clause 1, Members ‘‘shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.’’

Under House Rule 23, clause 2, Members ‘‘shall adhere to the spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House’’.

Under House Rule 23, clause 3, Members ‘‘may not permit compensation to accrue to the beneficial interest of such individual from any source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position of such individual in Congress.’’

10. Conflict of Interest: The House Ethics Manual discusses at length the precedents guiding Members’ actions on matters of personal interest. Quoting Rule III, section 673 of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the manual states, ‘‘It is a principle of ‘‘immemorial observance’’ that a Member should withdraw when a question concerning himself arises; but it has been held that the disqualifying interest must be such as affects the Member directly, and not as one of a class.’’4 Although the manual states that Rule III only applies to a Member voting on the House floor, it makes clear that contacting an executive branch agency entails ‘‘a degree of advocacy above and beyond that involved in voting.’’5

As such, the manual cautions that a ‘‘Member’s decision whether to take any such action on a matter that may affect his or her personal financial interest requires added circumspection.’’ A Member who considerers advocating on a matter that may affect her ‘‘personal financial interests . . . should first contact the Standards Committee for guidance.’’

THE SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS (p.5)

There is a substantial reason to believe that Representative Waters’ conduct may have violated House Rule 23, clause 3 and House precedent regarding conflict of interest1 when she called then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and requested that Treasury Department officials meet with representatives from the National Bankers Association. A meeting was in fact granted, however, the discussion at the meeting centered on a single bank— OneUnited. Representative Waters’ husband had been a board member of the bank from 2004 to 2008 and, at the time of the meeting, was a stock holder of the bank.

OBSTRUCTION BY ONEUNITED EXECUTIVES ROBERT COOPER, KEVIN COHEE (p.21)

The Board again notes that the OCE made multiple requests to interview Mr. Cooper and Mr. Cohee. Mr. Cooper and Mr. Cohee refused the OCE’s requests. The website for the NBA currently lists Mr. Cooper as the Chairman for the ‘‘2008 Board of Directors’’ and Mr. Weekes as the ‘‘Immediate-Past Chairman.’’ However, this fact does little to answer the questions raised by this Review.

40. Pursuant to H. Res 895 1(c)(2)(C)(i)(II)(bb) and Rule 6 of the Office of Congressional Ethics Rules for the Conduct of Investigations, the Board infers that Mr. Cooper and Mr. Cohee’s refusal to cooperate, taken together with the facts above, indicate that Mr. Cooper may have used his position as the Chairman-elect of the NBA to place OneUnited in a preferential position with the Treasury Department following the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s conservatorship.

DEMOCRAT REP. BARNEY FRANK’S WARNING TO WATERS TO STAY OUT OF THE ONEUNITED BANK BAILOUT BID (the OCE report refers to him as “REPRESENTATIVE A”)

In September 2008, Representative Waters Told Representative A There Was A Problem With Oneunited, But That She Didn’t Know What To Do About It Because [her husband] ‘‘Sydney’s Been On The Board.’’56

45. Representative A recalled that the problem Representative Waters referenced was the fact that OneUnited has purchased more preferred shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other bank. Representative A described the problem OneUnited had as an exaggerated version of the problem every other bank had—OneUnited had overbought preferred shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was therefore at a greater risk of collapse than any other bank holding preferred shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.57

46. Representative Waters told Representative A that she was in a predicament because her husband had been involved in the bank, but ‘‘OneUnited people’’ were coming to her for help. According to Representative A, she knew she should say no, but it bothered her. It was clear to Representative A that this was a ‘‘conflict of interest problem.’’58

47. Representative A’s advice to Representative Waters was to ‘‘stay out if it’’—OneUnited was a Boston bank and he had a commitment to minority banks. He would address the problem. Representative A then asked his staff to take over the OneUnited issue from Representative Waters.59

The Boston Globe has more on Frank’s role. He told the Boston Herald he feels “vindicated.” Yet, he had no qualms teaming up with Rep. Waters on more permanent Wall Street bailouts masquerading as “reform.”

The ethics, judgment, and color-coded favoritism of Waters and her staff shouldn’t be the only ethics, judgment, and racial favoritism under scrutiny.

Linus Wilson at Seeking Alpha sums it up:

OneUnited Bank was left with NEGATIVE $7.0 million in equity, according to to this spreadsheet, which was mailed by OneUnited bank officials to the U.S. Treasury.

My joint research with Wendy Yan Wu, “Escaping TARP” shows that the average TARP recipient had a tier 1 capital ratio of 11.02 percent. Before it lost the bank’s capital on the Fannie and Freddie preferred stock, OneUnited was near the regulatory minimum of a 5 percent tier 1 capital ratio. After the mortgage giants were seized to prevent their failure, OneUnited’s tier 1 capital ratio was about -1 percent. In other words, OneUnited was a zombie bank. The stock owned by Ms. Waters’ husband would have been worthless without a government rescue and forbearance from regulators.

Yet, despite knowing that OneUnited had negative equity, and thus did not meet even the minimum capital requirements to be open for business, the U.S. Treasury invested $12.1 million of taxpayers’ dollars in this zombie bank on December 19, 2008. Ms. Waters’ alleged use of her position to enrich herself at taxpayer expense is troubling. So is the U.S. Treasury’s ultimate investment in OneUnited Bank based in House Financial Services Committee Chairman’s, Barney Frank’s (D-MA), district. My paper “TARP’s Deadbeat Banks” shows that OneUnited has missed five straight dividends. If it misses its sixth dividend, the U.S. Treasury will have the right to appoint two new directors to the banks’ board. Taxpayers representatives probably will soon be holding a board seat at OneUnited like Ms. Waters husband once held.

Has Congress learned its lesson? Not yet. Ms. Waters’ and Mr. Frank’s party are attempting to pass legislation to invest up to $30 billion in banks like OneUnited. An amendment pushed by U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) says that banks on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC’s) problem bank list can get access to taxpayer funds, if they get matching amounts of private capital in the amended “Son of TARP” bill. CIT Group raised private capital prior to receiving TARP funds, and it failed nevertheless. I’m wondering why OneUnited was not seized by regulators a long time ago. Perhaps the Boston lender is too politically connected to fail.

When government picks winners and losers behind closed doors, taxpayers always get left holding the bag.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Corruption,Democrats,Race Hustlers,Subprime crisis

Printer Friendly

comments (61)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

#1

On August 3rd, 2010 at 8:27 am, tre said:

When government picks winners and losers behind closed doors, taxpayers always get left holding the bag.

So? We taxpayers are just a bottomless pit full of money. Just look at the taxpayers in Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam,……
#2

On August 3rd, 2010 at 8:35 am, stillontheroad said:

If this is, which I believe it is, the tip of the iceburg I still would like to know where the 6 Billion Dollars went that was given to the CBC to shut them up.
#3

On August 3rd, 2010 at 8:38 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

When government picks winners and losers behind closed doors

Er, when has the Government ever picked a winner? Just askin is all.
#4

On August 3rd, 2010 at 8:45 am, rambler said:

Our gov, the modern day rapers and pillagers of private wealth to fund public sector corruption. This is beyond a swamp.
#5

On August 3rd, 2010 at 8:50 am, tarpon said:

Rogue, yeah me too … All we seem to get is losers and electric lemons.
#6

On August 3rd, 2010 at 9:18 am, max said:

Bang Bang Maxine’s silver hammer came down upon her own head!
#7

On August 3rd, 2010 at 9:23 am, Flyoverman said:

I will look with interest to see if the members of Congress do their civic and Constitutional duty or simply wrist slap to cover for fellow members of The Club.

After all, today’s “judges” in Congress stand a good chance of being tomorrows defendents.
#8

On August 3rd, 2010 at 9:27 am, Bachbone said:

Wanna bet both she and Rangel get off with slaps on the wrist? The GOP has no stomach for fighting, ‘specially when Democrats start flinging the word “racist” at them.
#9

On August 3rd, 2010 at 9:31 am, sbw999 said:

Cue cries of racism in 3…2…1….
#10

On August 3rd, 2010 at 9:32 am, RedDog said:

These people are criminals and what is currently happening is merely the tip of the iceberg. They all have to be brought to justice and explicit controls firmly established to absolutely prevent future breakdowns. This is the role of truly good government.

This is why criminal investigations must be ramped up next year – assuming a Republican resurgence. We are now suffering under de facto martial law. Congress has abrogated it’s responsibility by passing open-ended legislation that allows for virtually unlimited, unrestrained, regulation by unelected bureaucrats – and all of this is coordinated by czars appointed by Obama to circumvent congressional oversight. Healthcare, banking and finance, energy, the environment. They do not need Congress for anything now. They have all the power they need to institute all manner of draconian control over the country – all with no accountability or oversight.

Is this not the definition of tyranny? Am I being overly dramatic here?
#11

On August 3rd, 2010 at 9:47 am, Flyoverman said:

On August 3rd, 2010 at 9:31 am, sbw999 said:

Cue cries of racism in 3…2…1….

Oh that already happened yesterday.
#12

On August 3rd, 2010 at 9:50 am, RedDog said:

On a related note:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4768a892-9d8c-11df-a37c-00144feab49a.html

Bernanke and the other elitists at the Fed and Treasury are truly clueless. We are reliving the ’70s. They have learned nothing about how economies work nor about what motivates the human desire for freedom and prosperity.

“The recession was unusually long and unusually severe and has proved unusually resistant to unusual amounts of stimulus,” says Neil Soss, chief economist at Credit Suisse in New York.

… ya think? What a dolt. “Stimulus” to restore a healthy economy is a myth. Consider your bad econ theory moron. And a criminal ruling class in Congress bent on income redistribution.

The other is that the economy’s capacity to grow is less than thought.

… no, the government’s capacity to destroy growth and productivty knows no bounds. Economies naturally seek to survive in spite of bad government.

Companies also added less to their inventories, which lowers growth but not final demand in the economy.

… huh? They add less inventory BECAUSE there is no growth you idiot. “If you build it they will come.” only works in the Field of Dreams.

It also suggests the economy has moved further towards relying on investment rather than consumption as a source of growth…

… once again children, investment supports consumption, it is not a elemental component of growth. It only supports it.

One challenge of economic mysteries is that the clues keep changing in this way. The people who have to find the solution are Mr Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed.

… no, the people who have to find the solution are The People. And the solution involves severely paring down the size and power of a currently tyrannical government.

Come November let’s remove them from power and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.
#13

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:12 am, orlandocajun said:

Why is this an ethics violation for Congressmen/women and a federal crime for Bernie Madoff? Ethics violation almost makes it sound like parking in a handicap zone.
#14

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:13 am, rightisright said:

Come November let’s remove them from power and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

That is the only way to save America.
#15

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:16 am, TigerLady said:

Waters (along with Rep. Frank) participated directly in pressuring the feds for OneUnited’s piece of the bailout pie. She personally contacted the Treasury Department last December [2008] requesting $50 million for the company– and failed to disclose her ties to the bank to them.

How many ways can you spell crook? Is there no end to the dishonesty and criminal behavior of our elected officials?
#16

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:20 am, prendad said:

Cue the cornered rat syndrome. Water’s is screaming every possible thing she can think of to get her slimy butt out of trouble. Crickets chirping in the oval office. Where is Al Sharpton? Where is Jesse? Sharpton has already said that Rangel is innocent. Will he stand up for his sista like he did for his bro? Nah, too risky. This b**ch is evil on a stick.
#17

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:22 am, Ragspierre said:

Oh, shoot… The Collective flopped the race card…

http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/08/crash-maxine-waters-is-piece-of.html

And this is outright fascist economics, with a Banana Republic twist…
#18

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:24 am, vickisoup said:

for “operating without effective underwriting standards and practices,”

Wait…you mean, “OK, you’re black, here’s the money” is an ineffective underwriting standard??
#19

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:25 am, thejim said:

My fear is that voters fail to throw them out. Many of our fellow citizens are either ill informed, don’t really care, or simply morons, actually all of the above in far too many cases. The result being the destruction of our country. I hope that we manage to do the right thing for our nation, but see and hear too much evidence of citizen ignorance and stupidity to be confident.
#20

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:38 am, spaceycakes said:

Missourians!! Vote ‘yes’ on Prop.C!!

FREEEDOOOOOOM!

(thank you)
#21

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am, stillontheroad said:

Does anyone remember the infamous film this Slag made accusing the Federal Government of parking train loads of weapons in the hood knowing gangs would steal them and kill everyone in sight in the hood?
#22

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:39 am, J S Ragman said:

The stock owned by Ms. Waters’ husband would have been worthless without a government rescue and forbearance from regulators.

That pretty much says it all, except in CBC circles. To them, conflict of interest means “helping the community”.
#23

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:42 am, Ragspierre said:

Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington ethics advocacy group, disputed the [Congressional Black] caucus’ contention that the House ethics process is racially biased. Instead, she said, veteran lawmakers who have little to fear from their constituents are more likely to run afoul of ethical standards.

“I understand their concerns,” McGehee said, “but it’s what happens when you are in a safe district. You don’t have a lot of competition.”

Solution = TERM LIMITS
#24

On August 3rd, 2010 at 11:06 am, madshark said:

Posted in: Corruption,Democrats,Race Hustlers,Subprime crisis

Why different topics for the first three? Aren’t corruption, Democrats and Race Hustlers redundant terms?
#25

On August 3rd, 2010 at 11:31 am, Desert Dave said:

My fear is that voters fail to throw them out. Many of our fellow citizens are either ill informed, don’t really care, or simply morons, actually all of the above in far too many cases.

Voters in their respective districts will continue to vote for them until they’re dead or forced to resign. Pretty sad really….I don’t expect a Republican Rep. from those districts, but for the love of God, can’t someone with an ounce of integrity run…or at least a good 40 years younger than those two entrenched lifers?
#26

On August 3rd, 2010 at 11:33 am, Regulus said:

Watching Waters’ and Rangel’s ginned-up bravado in the face of trial reminds me of a scene from Enter The Dragon:

Han: We are all ready to win, just as we are born knowing only life. It is defeat that you must learn to prepare for.

Williams: I don’t waste my time with it. When it comes, I won’t even notice.

Han: Oh? How so?

Williams: I’ll be too busy looking good!

That’s Maxine and Cholly for you, in a nutshell.
#27

On August 3rd, 2010 at 11:52 am, right_on said:

When government picks winners and losers behind closed doors, taxpayers always get left holding the bag. SOCIALISM

“We yo’ mammas…we yo’ sistas…we yo’ awnties…” – Rep. Maxine Waters,

The “We got your back” speech that Waters delivered to an enraged crowd of predominately black rioters in L.A., in the aftermath of the Rodney King trial.
#28

On August 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

Ethics violation almost makes it sound like parking in a handicap zone.

And why should that be a violation? I’m sick and tired of the gimps getting all the best parking spaces! Where’s the equity in that? Ooh, did I say that out loud?
#29

On August 3rd, 2010 at 11:56 am, jsmiddleton4 said:

“47. Representative A’s advice to Representative Waters was to ‘‘stay out if it’’—OneUnited was a Boston bank and he had a commitment to minority banks. He would address the problem. Representative A then asked his staff to take over the OneUnited issue from Representative Waters.”

I’m sorry but doesn’t that mean Rep A is also acting unethically? Isn’t that a “wink wink I’ll take care of it.” admission?
#30

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:12 pm, granite said:

Maxine, Barney…Hanky-Panky

Ugh!
Just the thought of that forced me to take a break and walk around for a bit of fresh air.

Thank you so much for that turn of phrase, Michelle!
#31

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:14 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

“Solution = TERM LIMITS”

So they get away with being corrupt but only for a limited amount of time? And we limit the long term impact of good ones for the corruption of the bad ones?

Term limits is no solution.

Keeping a close eye on all of them is!

And that is what we have not done. We as citizens were asleep at the wheel.

No longer however.
#32

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:15 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

“Maxine, Barney…Hanky-Panky”

No, I’m going to be on top.

No, I’m going to be on top.

No, I’m going to be on top.

No, I’m going to be on top.
#33

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:20 pm, Ragspierre said:

So they get away with being corrupt but only for a limited amount of time? And we limit the long term impact of good ones for the corruption of the bad ones?

That makes no sense, IF you understand the first thing about POWER, and how it behaves.

The Founders believed…as do I…that the nation could be governed by “citizen legislators”.

There is no dearth of excellent people to fill the seats in Congress.
#34

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm, judybeth said:

Corruption breeds corruption! Yeah, I know that is a cliche, but it is TRUE!

With unethical people in charge of Ethics, and with tax-cheaters in charge of writing tax codes, with unethical, inept, unqualified Frank & CO in charge of the Banking Cmte, and the “best of the best thieves” and Frank’s “unqualified significant other” (at one time)in charge of Freddie & Fannie, PLUS all the “secret files” they keep to blackmail each other, IS IT ANY wonder that Ethics Cmte charges and hearings are a complete SHAM!

Waters has already called in the race-baiters to cry “Racism” and Foul!

The only thing FOUL is the stench coming from across the Potomac from the House, Senate, and Oval Office! jk
#35

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:26 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

“There is no dearth of excellent people to fill the seats in Congress.”

They just seem to be climbing over themselves in the primary hey?

Term limits punishes the good for the acts of the bad.

Term limits are a bad idea and ends up putting the people behind the scenes both in terms of financing and in terms of who runs the government in control.

Term limits cause us to be under the control of well financed interest groups who can afford to keep sending up candidates every time a term limit expires and civil servants.

Term limits bad idea and fix nothing.
#36

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:37 pm, Ragspierre said:

We disagree.

I’ve been all over the term limits issue for decades. I have come to my conclusion after a lot of research and thinking.

None of your edicts wash…again, IF you understand the nature of power and how it behaves.

Holding a high office for a set period of years is not “punishment”. I’m surprised anyone would even say that.

Why do you think “well financed interest groups” find it in their interest to keep people in their seats? The answer is the concentration of power held by long-term tenured incumbents.

Think for a moment of the damage done by Teddy Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Barney Frank, Caaalie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson-Lee, John McAnus, etc., etc., etc.

Think, dude. Don’t just spout crap.
#37

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:46 pm, stillontheroad said:

Hairy Maxine
She rose to power as a race baiting queen.
Her favorite line is”Show me some Green”
Hairy Maxine
She does not get her way
She is instantly mean.
“Well if you don’t like it we will Socili…… er i ment regulate your company”
#38

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:56 pm, rambler said:

We were sold this career politician thing as being a good thing because of the seniority structure DC created. It rewarded the long term re-elected with more perks which those individuals sold bay home with “just look at all the pork I’ll get for you” or “I can do more for you on this committee or having that chairmanship”. It sounded good on paper, but it allowed for a power grab. Our politicians have taken lying to a new level. Change comes through getting rid of the corrupt and the machine which protects them. Character matters, character matters,character matters!

We the people need to strike fear into the hearts of all those going to DC who will not obey the oath to the Constitution.
#39

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm, letget said:

Rush is talking about maxine and charlie now. He said that both of them were supporters for hc over this bho in the election. This might be why this bho seems not to be supporting them. Rush said, this bho holds a grudge.
L
#40

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:05 pm, Dave Turson said:

Congresswoman Waters sums up the charges:

No benefit, no improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influenced: no case.

Congresswoman Waters’ official House website bio intro line:

Congresswoman Maxine Waters is considered by many to be one of the most powerful women in American politics today.

Any questions? At this time, I only have a comment: What a woman…ruuuuuuun!
#41

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:11 pm, granite said:

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:58 pm, letget said:

Rush is talking about maxine and charlie now. He said that both of them were supporters for hc over this bho in the election.

Which simply indicates the obvious, that the “choice” between B. Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton was a “choice” between worst and worst.

It was, and is, no different from the “choice” one would have if one were told to “choose” by which method of death by asphyxiation one wished to suffer…to be garrotted from behind, or to be buried alive?
#42

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:14 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

Related sidebar:

Always remember that 1/2 of the “credit” for TARP belongs on Obama’s shoulders, not Bush’s.

TARP was split in two pieces. Bush requested the first half, then Paulson blew through it without a full accounting of how it was spent.

Then, Obama asked Bush to request the second half, saying:

“I felt that it would be irresponsible for me, with the first $350 billion already spent, to enter into the administration without any potential ammunition should there be some sort of emergency or weakening of the financial system.”

- Barack Hussein Obama II
January 13, 2009

~~U.S.~~ [Obama] Seeks Rest of Bailout Cash

It’s interesting to take a look at how Barack Hussein Obama II, House Minority Leader John Boehner, and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani all used the same word in different ways…

“Irresponsible”
#43

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm, granite said:

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:05 pm, Dave Turson said:

Any questions? At this time, I only have a comment: What a woman…ruuuuuuun!

You’re a woman
At least you say you are
You’re a woman
At least you look like you are

Couldn’t resist…from “Stepping Stone”, by Jimi Hendrix.
#44

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:27 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm, granite said:

You’re a woman
At least you say you are
You’re a woman
At least you look like you are

Couldn’t resist…from “Stepping Stone”, by Jimi Hendrix.

Jimi also sang “Excuse me while I kiss this guy!” (Purple Haze), so I guess it wasn’t a woman after all.
#45

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:37 pm, stillontheroad said:

“Move over Rover and let Maxine take over, yeah! You know what i’m talkin about, Yeah!
#46

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:42 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

Even Castles made of sand, fall into the sea, eventually.
Jimi Hendrix
#47

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:45 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

White collar conservative flashin down the street, pointing that plastic finger at me, they all assume my kind will drop and die, but I’m gonna wave my freak flag high.
Jimi Hendrix
#48

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:50 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

“A broom is drearily sweeping, up the broken peices of yesterdays life. Somewhere a queen is weeping, Somewhere a king has no wife, And the wind cries Maxine.”
Jimi Hendrix
#49

On August 3rd, 2010 at 1:52 pm, RedDog said:

On August 3rd, 2010 at 10:12 am, orlandocajun said:
Why is this an ethics violation for Congressmen/women and a federal crime for Bernie Madoff? Ethics violation almost makes it sound like parking in a handicap zone.

I wondered the same thing. Especially in light of the Frank/Dodd housing/financial meltdown. Bernie is a kid stealing chewing gum by comparison.
#50

On August 3rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm, stillontheroad said:

“You are not the only CBC soul who’s accused of hit and run
Tire tracks all across Americas back Maxine
I can see you had your fun”
#51

On August 3rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm, Ragspierre said:

White collar conservative flashin down the street, pointing that plastic finger at me, they all assume my kind will drop and die, but I’m gonna wave my freak flag high.

We all know how well that worked out…
#52

On August 3rd, 2010 at 2:30 pm, Ragspierre said:

I wondered the same thing. Especially in light of the Frank/Dodd housing/financial meltdown. Bernie is a kid stealing chewing gum by comparison.

Martha Stewart, too…

Jail time.
#53

On August 3rd, 2010 at 2:33 pm, wren said:

On August 3rd, 2010 at 11:31 am, Desert Dave said:

Pretty sad really….I don’t expect a Republican Rep. from those districts, but for the love of God, can’t someone with an ounce of integrity run…or at least a good 40 years younger than those two entrenched lifers?

To Desert Dave -

Michel Faulkner is the Republican who is running against Rep. Charlie Rangel.
http://www.faulknerforcongress.com/

There are also 4 Democrats running against Rep. Rangel in the Democrat Primary on Sept 14.

Bruce Brown is the Republican who is running against Rep. Maxine Waters.
http://www.bbrownforcongress.com/

Please check out the web sites for these candidates to see if they meet your criteria for integrity.

Running for Congress is an all consuming project that is a HUGE personal sacrifice when the candidate is running in a District that they are not expected to win.

When we find good candidates who are willing to run, we should show our gratitude by supporting them in whatever way we can: Donations, Volunteering, Voting, and/or Spreading the word about their campaigns.

It is going to take a national TEAM EFFORT to clean the House and the Senate in 2010!
#54

On August 3rd, 2010 at 2:43 pm, DBNinKY said:

The Boston Globe has more on Frank’s role. He told the Boston Herald he feels “vindicated.” Yet, he had no qualms teaming up with Rep. Waters on more permanent Wall Street bailouts masquerading as “reform.”

Excellent point!

The Democrats’ corruption is like a child’s melted ice cream cone: it runs everywhere, sticks to everything and is always the adults’ (voters) responsibility to clean up (2010 election)!
#55

On August 3rd, 2010 at 2:53 pm, DBNinKY said:

But records obtained by congressional investigators showed that OneUnited Bank’s legal counsel, vice president and president (the latter two are married to each other)… .

Whoa-oh! What an arrangement!
#56

On August 3rd, 2010 at 3:41 pm, Beukeboom said:

I see these ethics investigations being one of two things:

First this could be Obama/Pelosi/Reid’s way of getting rid of some recognizable Dems whom they feel will probably lose their re-election bid. They throw them under the bus to give replacements enough time to establish themselves and increase the possibility of those seats being held by liberal Dems.

Secondly, this all could turn out to be bogus and the investigation will turn out to have no teeth and be run on eggshells. That way Obama/Pelosi/Reid will be able to proclaim “See…they were investigated and found to be innocent!” and those being investigated will be able to use it to their political advantage as well.

It will be interesting to see if and how Rangel and Waters play the race card during the hearings since both have a longstanding tradition of using the race card at every opportunity.
#57

On August 3rd, 2010 at 4:06 pm, Ragspierre said:

Secondly, this all could turn out to be bogus and the investigation will turn out to have no teeth and be run on eggshells. That way Obama/Pelosi/Reid will be able to proclaim “See…they were investigated and found to be innocent!” and those being investigated will be able to use it to their political advantage as well.

I think this is EXACTLY what is happening.

This a means to avoid having the House…under Conservative leadership…take up these cases.

In trial law, we call it “forum shopping”.
#58

On August 3rd, 2010 at 4:35 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

I think this is EXACTLY what is “happening.”

Could very well be but the cost to them in the public’s eye will by quite large.

Regular old plain vanilla don’t give a rat’s behind about politics, even those folks are getting fed up with this wink wink stuff.

If they are guilty and then there is no substance to their penalty, that will be more reasons why the left will be trashed in November.

And the left knows it.

This is not a good time to be a democrat……
#59

On August 3rd, 2010 at 4:48 pm, baboyako said:

I wonder if the bank purchased all of that stock before or after Barney Frank said, “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.”

Barney Frank on CNBC on July 14, 2008.
#60

On August 3rd, 2010 at 6:13 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

And once again, Republicans provide just enough votes to accommodate the Democrat agenda while most again take the opportunity to run up their ACU scores in yet another half-assed losing effort.

This may seem off topic but corruption is corruption. Where exactly is the line of demarcation where misdemeanors become crimes? Are people who dwell in the land of “slightly illegal” any different that their next door neighbors in “barely legal”?

When “what is legal” substitutes for “what is right”, what makes anyone believe that legality matters either?
#61

On August 4th, 2010 at 5:46 pm, Blackstone said:

On August 3rd, 2010 at 12:26 pm, jsmiddleton4 said:

Term limits cause us to be under the control of well financed interest groups who can afford to keep sending up candidates every time a term limit expires and civil servants.

Exactly. Just look at Jack Murtha’s heir apparent in Pennsylvania. Even death doesn’t make for an effective “term limit” for these clowns.