Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Showing posts with label Banks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Banks. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Top 25 Richest Celebrities who Support OWS

There's hypocrisy and then hypocrisy on steroids, laced with a level of self-loathing that involves aligning with those who hate you. Enter the segment of the richest 1% of Americans who happen to be both liberal and on the side of the 99% who wants to steal their wealth.

First, there's the laughable hypocrisy of the likes of Alec Baldwin, who makes the list of the top 25 richest celebrities who hate capitalism in general, banks in particular. Baldwin does commercials for Capital One.

Or how about Miley Cyrus and Jay Z? Both of them have capitalized on OWS while not sharing their wealth. In the case of Jay Z, his 'Occupy All Streets' t-Shirts have made him a pretty capitalist penny. Ditto for Miley's OWS song.

Via NewsBusters:
Here is a list of the 25 richest celebrities supporting the Occupy Movement (Source: Celebrity Net Worth)

1. Yoko Ono - $500 million

2. Jay-Z - $450 million

3. David Letterman - $400 million

(tie) Stephen King - $400 million

5. Russell Simmons - $325 million

6. Sean Lennon - $200 million

7. Mike Myers - $175 million

8. George Clooney - $160 million

9. Brad Pitt - $150 million

(tie) Don King - $150 million

11. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) - $145 million

12. Jane Fonda - $120 million

(tie) Miley Cyrus - 120 million

14. Al Gore - $100 million

15. Roseanne Barr - $80 million

(tie) Deepak Chopra - $80 million

17. Kanye West - $70 million

(tie) Dan Rather - $70 million

19. Alec Baldwin - $65 million

(tie) Matt Damon - $65 million

21. Tom Morello - $60 million

(tie) Mia Farrow - $60 million

23. Katy Perry - $55 million

24. Michael Moore - $50 million

(tie) Susan Sarandon - $50 million

Total: $4.1 billion
No wonder liberals are so angry. They have defective wiring.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Smoking Gun to Mortgage Crisis Found?

The smoking gun in the home mortgage crisis may just be a 20-page document from 1994 and contrary to the sentiment of the OWS crowd, the banking industry's fingerprints aren't on it; the Clinton administration's are. The left, OWS, and the Democratic Party apparatchiks would have everyone believe that the banks took advantage of people who couldn't afford mortgages, leaving those people holding the proverbial bag. In reality, and this document appears to prove it, banks were mandated - as all sensible people suspected - to issue mortgages to individuals who would never pay them back.

Via Investors Business Daily:
President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a "broad-based frustration" among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

"You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place," he complained earlier this month.

But what if government encouraged, even invented, those "abusive practices"?

Rewind to 1994. That year, the federal government declared war on an enemy — the racist lender — who officials claimed was to blame for differences in homeownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination and suffer the related adverse publicity. They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties.
The piper is always paid and the Democratic Party appears to be doing all it can to make sure he doesn't come knocking on their door by placing the blame on the banking industry.

CLICK HERE for the 20-page memo, which mandated that banks grant mortgages without restrictions.

Read it all.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

ULSTERMAN REPORT: OBAMA'S COMING CHICAGO PROBLEM

After the prediction by Ulsterman's 'White House Insider' that there was no way Nancy Pelosi would hold on to the Democrat House leadership position proved incorrect, the credibility of WHI took a hit. However, the claims made by WHI in the days before Pelosi did retain that position do sound credible. The charge made by WHI was that Pelosi had the goods on Obama and was ready to leak them after leaving office. Speaking hypothetically at the time, WHI stated that if Pelosi DID stay on as minority leader, it would mean that the White House cut a deal with her.

Whether true or not, it is plausible and WHI has not spoken to Ulsterman since. However, he had already pointed the anonymous blogger in the direction of what he/she insisted was a coming scandal and it had to do with Obama's ties to Chicago. Despite WHI's incorrect prediction on Pelosi, several other predictions proved correct.

In any event, Ulsterman seems to be following the Chicago trail and it seems to lead - at least in part - to Broadway Bank and Obama's friend Alexi Giannoulias:
President Obama and fellow Democrat and former executive of now-failed Broadway Bank Alexi Giannoulias have known one another for well over a decade. Both men’s political careers were running similar arcs until Obama catapulted to national prominence following his speech at the 2004 Democratic Party National Convention. While Giannoulias remained in Illinois to serve as Treasurer, Obama won a position as a United States Senator, and shortly after, the White House.
Interestingly, the FDIC report on the failed bank should have been released by October, six months after the bank's closing on April 23rd. It was put off until after the election.

Here is a link to the belated FDIC REPORT. KFVS posted an AP story on the FDIC report as well.

Ulsterman closes the most recent report with the following paragraph:
Last week the FDIC released a summary report on the failure of Broadway Bank. The cost to taxpayers to bail out the bank’s deposits was nearly $400 million dollars. Nearly $30 million dollars had been loaned to organized crime figures in recent years.
Could it be that the WHI is still talking to Ulsterman but not wanting any of their discussions published? WHI did concede that if Pelosi ended up with the Democratic leadership position, it would leave him/her exposed.

For more on WHI's last interview with Ulsterman, click HERE.

Check out this video ad for Giannoulias' failed Senate bid. It features Obama.

Caution: Grab a vomit bag before viewing.

Monday, October 26, 2009

VIDEO: SEIU BULLYING BANKS AT ABA

Ah, the legacy of Carter's Community Reinvestment Act from 1977. Beginning in 1998, Bill Clinton gave it a steroid injection, which opened the door for ACORN-types to bully banks. Then the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (otherwise known as the $787 Billion stimulate nothing bill) came out. Check out this video thanks to BREITBART, which shows SEIU thugs at the American Banking Associates conference.



Keep in mind that SEIU is protesting banks taking bailout money yet seems completely ignorant of the fact that their Community Organizer-in-Chief is the one responsible for giving it to them. Then once you consider that groups like the Apollo Alliance, who actually contributed to writing the stimulus bill are in bed with the same SEIU thugs who are raising a ruckus at this conference, you have to scratch your head even if there's only a grain of sand in your logical hourglass.

It's just like the UAW protesting outside one of its UAW owned plants. These people are so high on anger that they can't even take a two minute break to realize how unbelievably insane their position is.

Of course, if government is responsible for giving the banks all of this money, why aren't the union thugs going to Washington, D.C. to protest the government instead of going after the people the government gave the money to? Well, to do so would mean tea partiers have a point and pride trumps facts when you're drunk on it.

So why would these nuts love Obama while getting mad at the people Obama is responsible for giving money to?

1.) They just like to be angry
2.) They want in on the action
3.) All of the above

And to think that THIS video actually came out BEFORE Obama was elected.



h/t to MICHELLE MALKIN who has much more on this story (be sure to click and read the links within her post - powerful).
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Breitbart
Doug Ross
Drudge
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Instapundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Mediaite
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
NewsBusters
Newsmax
News Real
Pajamas Media
Politico
Powerline
Rasmussen
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive