Thanks to IBD, Congress is finally probing the administration's shakedown of banks over alleged "lending discrimination." At issue is backdoor funding of Acorn clones.
Last week, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith fired off a three-page letter to Attorney General Eric Inaction Jackson Holder warning that his recent punishment of Bank of America's mortgage unit seemed political. In fact, he may have abused his power.
As IBD first reported Jan. 4, 'BofA Must Pay Excess Settlement Funds To Acorn Clones," the $335 million lending-bias deal requires BofA to fork over a chunk of the payout to leftist groups not connected to the suit.
The unusual term is part of a secret Justice program to redistribute millions in settlement cash to third parties instead of alleged victims.
Critics told IBD it's a "political backdoor" to subsidize Democrat-tied bank shakedown groups.
"I am concerned that the terms of the Justice Department's recent settlement with Countrywide Financial will allow the department to give large sums of money to individuals and organizations with questionable backgrounds or close political ties to the White House without any guidelines or oversight," Smith, R-Texas, wrote in his Jan. 25 letter.
"If that is to be the case," he said, "this sort of backdoor funding of the president's political allies would be an abuse of the department's law enforcement authority."
Under the order, excess funds will be handed to groups that "provide education, counseling and other assistance to low-income and minority borrowers." Excess funds should be turned into the Treasury. Simple enough.
This language mirrors Acorn's mission statement.
The corrupt group, which has re-emerged under other names after coming under investigation in 2009, continues to receive federal funds. Acorn Housing Corp. got some $700,000 in federal money after changing its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America.
Posted by: Mike Ramsey ||
02/01/2012 10:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gangster Government. Thank you Lamar Smith for shining a bright light on the rats.
President Obama raised more than $56 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 for his re-election bid, $24 million of which came through a channel that allowed him to raise money from wealthy donors in chunks of more than $30,000.
At least $9 million of that haul came from just 88 newly enlisted wealthy power brokers, which the campaign has attempted to brand as “volunteer fundraisers.”
About one-third of the $56 million came from people giving $200 or less. Small donors make up one-fifth of the Obama re-election money raised in 2011.
While the Obama campaign consistently has touted its grass-roots, small-donor fundraising appeal, the reach of the tentacles of a few hundred people, largely Hollywood moguls, Wall Street financiers and Chicago establishment figures, is astonishing.
Of $120 million raised in 2011, 445 bundlers gathered at least $75 million for Mr. Obama, and likely much more.
#2
So after going through and making the loan process a nightmare, they will go back and streamline it?
Had to look up GSE - it is either Government Sponsored Enterprise or Grape Seed Extract, hard to tell in the text.
In basis, this will be paid for by fees upon the banks, then loss of interest revenue for banks, in addition to the non-recess recess appointment made which begins the new card fees program.
#5
Let me guess. The housing market is still strong in DC. Who do you think will get the money. I would like to know the names of those approved. Even if this program is stillborn people move to DC to gain power for their group. Its not we the people there anymore.
Remember the concept of "smart power"? That was Barack Obama's promise, along with strengthening our friendships with allies abroad. It's generally helpful for both approaches to get the names straight:
President Obama mistakenly referred to the nation of Georgia as "Russia" after a bilateral meeting with the Georgian president -- an unfortunate slip-up, given that the president was celebrating 20 years of Georgian independence from Soviet rule.
"[O]ne of the first things that I did was express my appreciation for the institution-building that's been taking place in Russia -- in Georgia," Obama told reporters following a meeting with Georgia's President Saakashvili. Moments earlier, Obama had noted that it was "a wonderful occasion to have him here as we'll be celebrating this year 20 years of independence for Georgia and the eighth anniversary of the Rose Revolution."
That gaffe isn't just an Austrian-language moment, either:
Georgia was conquered in 1921 when the Soviet Red Army invaded the country. Three years ago, Russia invaded Georgia as part of a territorial dispute that has simmered since Georgia regained independence after the Communist empire collapsed in 1991.
Smart power, indeed. When you are too "smart" too look up and remember some important historical facts for a country you are visiting, maybe you should just keep your fat mouth shut.
After a furious backlash from West's backers over a redistricting plan that would imperil his 2012 prospects, the tea party favorite got a political gift Tuesday: the opportunity to run for a nearby seat -- one much more favorable to his prospects.
Under the state's proposed redistricting plan, drawn by Republican state lawmakers, West's current district would become much more hostile territory. The freshman congressman will instead run for a South Florida seat, whose current occupant, GOP Rep. Tom Rooney, announced on Tuesday that he would vacate the district and run nearby. After redistricting, his old 22nd District went from 51% Donks to 57%, the 18th District will be 51% Trunks and contains 20% of his current constituents.
[Iran Press TV] Mitt Romney ...whose real first name is actually, no kidding, Willard, was governor of Massachussetts and is currently the front-runner for president on the Publican ticket. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney's foot is in an ideological bucket because of Romneycare, a state-level experiment that should have been a warning against Obamacare if anyone had been paying attention. Romney's charisma is best defined as soporific, which is probably why he is leading the Publican field... won the Florida presidential primary Tuesday, taking a long stride toward capturing the GOP nomination.
His victory handed Romney Florida's 50 delegates, the biggest cache yet, but more than that the win shows his ability to capture support in a big, costly and diverse state that will be a major battleground in the fall contest against President B.O..
Posted by: Fred ||
02/01/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
By most accounts, despite his NOT-THE-US-BATTLESHIP-OKLAHOMA Florida victoire', the MITT-VS-NEWT GOP RACE REMAINS WIDE OPEN.
#5
Mitt outspend Newt by a huge margin. He won't be able to outspend Obama.
Turnout was DOWN 14%. Why? Because this was a Republican primary. Mitt and the media have been able to hurt Newt, but they still can't appeal to conservatives.
Romney will lose the election. The sad irony is that the very idiots who want to nominate him will blame conservatives for his loss.
#6
Sure, which countries should he raid? How about starting with Britain? He could also outsource our allegiance to the Chinese. Whoops, Billy was there first.
#8
"I heard $16 million out of a total $20 million for all candidates. Mitt's gonna embarrass Barry by being the first billion dollar politician."
Yes, he outspent Newt 4-1 in Florida and only 2-1 in SC.
Another way to look at this - Romney ran 65 TV ads for every 1 of Newt's.
But you miss the point entirely. Obama will outspend Romney. Where do you think all that stimulus, Solyndria, etc money is going? Right back into Obama's campaign coffers is where. If Romney raises a billion then Obama will raise 2.
#10
Obama has been ghosting the Republican primary on the taxpayer dime, is that included in the 2:1?
Maybe there is a campaign law expert out there, I know a president has the bully pulpit and all but can a president call out individual candidates and not count it as a campaign event?
#11
Iblis: The sad irony is that the very idiots who want to nominate him will blame conservatives for his loss.
The 'idiots' will be correct.
The 'true' conservatives (how you define that I don't know, perhaps, like Spectre, they have tattoos) don't like Mittens at all. Sure fine, but to borrow the Rumsfeld saying, you go into an election with the candidates you have. If the 'true' conservatives wanted somebody different, they should have gotten that person to run, run well, and win.
But they didn't so now they're going to sulk. This includes the libertarian-conservatives who demand that the Pubs nominate a candidate that pleases them without lifting a damned finger to help out (yeah, I'm looking at you Bill Quick).
It's utter horseshit, of course.
Mittens may not be conservative enough to please some, but he's way, way better than the flaming socialist we currently have in power. I remind the Bill Quick acolytes that they sat on their hands in '06 and '08 because they didn't like the Pub choices and the Pub spending and corruption. How'd that work out for your ideals, fellas? Are we more libertarian today because Barack Obama is President, we had Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and we still have Dingy Harry as Majority Leader?
Moses may have led his people to wonder the Sinai for forty years so as to purify them, but it wasn't fun for the people walking around in the baking sun.
Perspective matters. We will not (as Inspector Clouseau might say) go from a blue to a crimson nation in one swell foop. It takes time. It takes a lot of work. We've seen our country go as far left as it has because the progressives have spent the last half-century out-hustling conservatives and libertarians. You will NOT change that in one election.
Mittens may not be my kind of guy. But if it's Mittens versus the fumbling, bumbling, incompetent, malevolent Bambi in November, Mittens it shall be. Provide him with a tea-party motivated (or at least fearful) House and a more Pub Senate, and we'll begin to turn the country. Some. A little. And then I'd better see the Quick acolytes rolling up their sleeves and pushing like hell to make a difference.
Mittens. Newt. Religious Rick. Whoever. The 'perfect' candidate for the 'true' conservatives, for the Quick acolytes, isn't running. You got what you got. Make a choice. Stand behind whoever wins. Vote.
As the wise old Mr. Buckley said, you vote for the most conservative candidate electable.
Q: why is a syphilitic camel a better candidate than Barack Obama?
A: you can cure syphilis.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/01/2012 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Still, if you'd taken Santorum out of the race it would have been a horse race. That's assuming Santorum votes would have gone to Newt which may or may not be a valid assumption. But it does look as though Santorum should take this opportunity to bow out gracefully.
#13
Mittens may not be conservative enough to please some, but he's way, way better than the flaming socialist we currently have in power.
Yeah. I even voted for McCain. I held my nose and did it. Or, as ZZ Top said, "Ain't all good but it's what we got."
But then, the primaries aren't over yet. I'm still hoping that Newt will hold on until the June primary in California. Hmmm. Maybe I should send him some money.
#14
If you look at the 4 remaining candidates, their election records are as follows:
Santorum: W 4 L 1 80.0%
Gingrich: W 11 L 2 84.6%
Paul: W 12 L 2 85.7%
Romney: W 1 L 2 33.3%
Since Romney won in FL among voters who consider "electability" to be important, we need to ask "Why does Romney do so poorly when facing actual democrats?"
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
02/01/2012 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Al, apples and oranges. Paul and Gingrich were running in stacked GOP congressional districts. Those are as close to automatic as you can get, short of the old Soviet Union or a gerrymandered "minority" congressional district. Winning those hardly proves any electoral prowess for national office, otherwise Shelia Jackson Lee would be leading the U.S.
#17
Romney FINNALLY wins a primary. After a recount Santorum won Idaho, Newt won South Carolina, and Mitt wins Florida. Does anyone think Mitt will win in Texas where over 50 delegates are at stake. No.
#18
Iblis: politics belongs to those who show up. Sit on your hands and you are guaranteed 1) your views won't be heard and 2) your hands will start to hurt.
Dole was no prize but he was better than Clinton, as events showed. McCain was certainly no prize but I'd take him today over Obama.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/01/2012 17:18 Comments ||
Top||
#19
SW:
I'll be caucusing next week for the first time ever. And I will stand up and explain why I think Romney is a big, fat idiot. And it will make no difference whatsoever. But thanks anyway for your pointless advice.
Dole was no prize but he was better than Clinton, as events showed. McCain was certainly no prize but I'd take him today over Obama.
Exactly the kind of mistaken reasoning that keeps getting us into this sort of mess. Yes, either of our lame guys would have been better than their guy -- BUT OUR GUYS LOST! It's a false choice, as in, you don't get to choose between Romney and Obama, because Romney will lose.
Another tidbit --
43% of Romney's vote (about 300,000) in FL was early voting cast in December when Romney spent $5m and no one else had the money to compete there. In January Romney spent another $12m and picked up just 400,000 more votes.
He sucks. He's going to lose. People who don't get that will blame everyone else, but the fact is Romney is a suicidal pick for the party. I'm telling you now, so don't even go off on some tangent about showing up.
#20
Iblis, try asking them why the MSM is pushing Romney so hard. Obvious answer (since they're in the tank for Bambi): They know something about Romney, but they're hiding it until late October in an effort to boost Bambi. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
02/01/2012 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Obama and his Generals have been shaping the General Election battlefield for over a year (99% v 1%, Wall Street Fat Cats, Rich not paying their fair share, Cayman Islands, etc. etc.). They are drooling at the opportunity to face Romney.
They will be able to articulate the difference between the start-up successes of Bain and the huge profits made ala the Gordon Gekko type loading of weak companies with debt and making 10s of millions before they fall. Newt's foolish use of Bain in his campaign doesn't mean the Dem Opposition research didn't already have a lot worse dirt on Bain already in the can.
While Wall Street Goldman Sachs types got rich too many people saw there 401ks turn into 101ks. So far Romney is champ in Goldman Sachs political donation money.
Yup, Romney is the most electable or was he the next in line like Dole and McCain. I sometimes wonder if people like Daniels, Christie et al were advised to sit this out.
#22
P.S. Newt had a lot against him in Florida, early voting that took place when he was in the tank in Iowa, Advertising wise he had a pocket knife in a gunfight, and he let himself get into a pissing contest with a skunk. This is not to fail to mention he look tired and confused in the debates.
#23
Interesting debate. Not sure who I agree with.
FWIW, just gonna toss in my $0.02. I try to take the big-picture approach (like, sitting on the moon, watching these silly earthlings). Sometimes the details distract from, rather than clarify, the longer trendline.
Thusly, all the way up to the first week of Nov. 2008, I said I'd eat my hat if B.O. won the election. Well. I ate my hat.
Lesson learned: we're in uncharted territory. The rules we grew up with don't apply anymore, so never say never. Also, I badly underestimated the "anyone-but-Bush" factor, which hurt all Republicans to some degree. Maybe I am now overestimating the "anyone-but-Obama" factor, but, 9 months out, I still think Tweedledee just might pull this off.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Remember the concept of "smart power"? That was Barack Obama's promise, along with strengthening our friendships with allies abroad. It's generally helpful for both approaches to get the names straight:
Allen West just got a new lease on life.
