PDA

View Full Version : It's been awhile...



Uncle Bill
08-15-2010, 10:48 AM
...so time to rattle a few chains and excite several of the leftists on board. I see by reading the many posts, the socialistic lefties are back to making excuses as to why their full control of congress and the WH is being stymied by those lowly SOB conservatives. HAHAHAHAHA You folks are indeed pathetic.

But here's something for you to contemplate...another episode in the life of your messiah.




This is an interesting story put together from various articles and TV shows by the British Times paper. It shows what Obama and his friends are really all about. It's not hope and change...it's THE MONEY, STUPID!
I warn you, the first part is a little boring, but stick with it. The second part connects all the dots for you (it will open your eyes). The end explains how Obama and all his cronies will end up as multi-billionaires.



A small bank in Chicago called SHORE BANK almost went bankrupt during the recession. The bank made a profit on its foreign micro-loans (see below) but had lost money in sub-prime mortgages in the US. It was facing likely closure by federal regulators. However, because the bank's executives were well connected with members of the Obama Administration, a private rescue bailout was arranged. The bank's employees had donated money to Obama's Senate campaign. In other words, Shore Bank was too politically connected to be allowed to go under.


Shore Bank survived and invested in many "green" businesses such as solar panel manufacturing. In fact, the bank was mentioned in one of Obama's speeches during his election campaign because it subjected new business borrowers to eco-litmus tests.
Prior to becoming President, Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, a liberal charity. This foundation was originally established by Joyce Kean's family which had accumulated millions of dollars in the lumber industry. It mostly gave funds to hospitals but after her death in 1972, the foundation was taken over by radical environmentalists and social justice extremists.
This JOYCE FOUNDATION, which is rumored to have assets of 8 billion dollars, has now set up and funded, with a few partners, something called the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE, known as CXX. It will be the exchange (like the Chicago Grain Futures Market for agriculture) where Environmental Carbon Credits are traded.
Under Obama's new bill, businesses in the future will be assessed a tax on how much CO2 they produce (their Carbon Footprint) or in other words how much they add to global warming. If a company produces less CO2 than their allotted measured limit, they earn a Carbon Credit. This Carbon Credit can be traded on the CXX exchange. Another company, which has gone over their CO2 limit, can buy the Credit and "reduce" their footprint and tax liability. It will be like trading shares on Wall Street.
Well, it was the same JOYCE FOUNDATION, along with some other private partners and Wall Street firms that funded the bailout of Shore Bank.
The foundation is now one of the major shareholders. The bank has now been designated to be the "banking arm" of the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE (CXX). In addition, Goldman Sachs has been contracted to run the investment trading floor of the exchange.
So far so good; now the INTERESTING parts.
One Shore Bank co-founder, named Jan Piercy, was a Wellesley College roommate of Hillary Clinton. Hillary and Bill Clinton have long supported the bank and are small investors.
Another co-founder of Shore Bank, named Mary Houghton, was a friend of Obama's late mother. Obama's mother worked on foreign MICRO-LOANS for the Ford Foundation. She worked for the foundation with a guy called Geithner. Yes, you guessed it. This man was the father of Tim Geithner, our present Treasury Secretary, who failed to pay all his taxes for two years.
Another founder of Shore Bank was Ronald Grzywinski, a cohort and close friend of Jimmy Carter.
The former Shore Bank Vice Chairman was a man called Bob Nash. He was the deputy campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid. He also sat on the board of the Chicago Law School with Obama and Bill Ayers, the former terrorist. Nash was also a member of Obama's White House transition team.
(To jog your memories, Bill Ayers is a Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He founded the Weather Underground, a radical revolutionary group that bombed buildings in the 60s and 70s. He had no remorse for those who were killed, escaped jail on a technicality, and is still an admitted Marxist).
When Obama sat on the board of the JOYCE FOUNDATION, he "funneled" thousands of charity dollars to a guy named John Ayers, who runs a dubious education fund. Yes, you guessed it. The brother of Bill Ayers, the terrorist.
Howard Stanback is a board member of Shore Bank. He is a former board chairman of the Woods Foundation. Obama and Bill Ayers, the terrorist, also sat on the board of the Woods Foundation. Stanback was formerly employed by New Kenwood Inc. a real estate development company co-owned by Tony Rezko.
(You will remember that Tony Rezko was the guy who gave Obama an amazing sweet deal on his new house. Years prior to this, the law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had represented Rezko's company and helped him get more than 43 million dollars in government funding. Guess who worked as a lawyer at the firm at the time. Yes, Barack Obama).
Adele Simmons, the Director of ShoreBank, is a close friend of Valerie Jarrett, a White House senior advisor to Obama. Simmons and Jarrett also sit on the board of a dubious Chicago Civic Organization.
Van Jones sits on the board of Shore Bank and is one the marketing directors for "green" projects. He also holds a senior advisor position for black studies at Princeton University. You will remember that Mr.Van Jones was appointed by Obama in 2009 to be a Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House. He was forced to resign over past political activities, including the fact that he is a Marxist.
Al Gore was one of the smaller partners to originally help fund the CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE. He also founded a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) and registered it in London, England. GIM has close links to the UK-based Climate Exchange PLC, a holding company listed on the London Stock Exchange. This company trades Carbon Credits in Europe (just like CXX will do here) and its floor is run by Goldman Sachs.
Along with Gore, the other co-founder of GIM is Hank Paulson, the former US Treasury Secretary and former CEO of Goldman Sachs. His wife, Wendy, graduated from and is presently a Trustee of Wellesley College. Yes, the same college that Hillary Clinton and Jan Piercy, a co-founder of Shore Bank attended. (They are all friends).
And now the closing...
Because many studies have been exposed as scientific nonsense, people are slowly realizing that man-made global warming is nothing more than a money-generating hoax. As a result, Obama is working feverishly to win the race. He aims to push a Cap-and-Trade Carbon Tax Bill through Congress and into law.
Obama knows he must get this passed before he loses his majority in Congress in the November elections. Apart from Climate Change he will "sell" this bill to the public as generating tax revenue to reduce our debt. But, it will also make it impossible for US companies to compete in world markets and drastically increase unemployment. In addition, energy prices (home utility rates) will sky rocket.
But, here's the "KICKER" (THE MONEY TRAIL).
If the bill passes, it is estimated that over 10 TRILLION dollars each year will be traded on the CXX exchange. At a commission rate of only 4 percent, the exchange would earn close to 400 billion dollars to split between its owners, all Obama cronies. At a 2 percent rate, Goldman Sachs would also rake in 200 billion dollars each year.
But don't forget SHORE BANK. With 10 trillion dollars flowing though its accounts, the bank will earn close to 40 billion dollars in interest each year for its owners (more Obama cronies), without even breaking a sweat.
It is estimated Al Gore alone will probably rake in 15 billion dollars just in the first year. Of course, Obama's "commissions" will be held in trust for him at the Joyce Foundation. They are estimated to be over 8 billion dollars by the time he leaves office in 2013, if the bill passes this year. Of course, these commissions will continue to be paid for the rest of his life.
Some financial experts think this will be the largest "scam" or "legal heist" in world history. Obama's cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs. They will make Bernie Madoff's fraud look like penny ante stuff.

M&K's Retrievers
08-15-2010, 11:10 AM
Uncle Bill, you have been busy while you were gone. Welcome back.

Gerry Clinchy
08-15-2010, 12:31 PM
Bill, if this is accurate, it sure seems like Shore Bank has brought together a lot of old friends.

What strikes me is that the very people who advocate saving the planet from CO2 emissions stand to profit substantially from doing so. To me that is a conflict of interest. Gore promotes the theory on what appears to most as an altruistic motive; when, indeed, he stands to profit considerably. Same goes for any of the others in positions of substantial influence; but even more unsavory if they are also employed by the govt. Needless to say, all of them will never feel the pinch of the utility costs the way the rest of us will.

YardleyLabs
08-15-2010, 12:55 PM
Bill, if this is accurate, it sure seems like Shore Bank has brought together a lot of old friends.

What strikes me is that the very people who advocate saving the planet from CO2 emissions stand to profit substantially from doing so. To me that is a conflict of interest. Gore promotes the theory on what appears to most as an altruistic motive; when, indeed, he stands to profit considerably. Same goes for any of the others in positions of substantial influence; but even more unsavory if they are also employed by the govt. Needless to say, all of them will never feel the pinch of the utility costs the way the rest of us will.
It seems to me that the people who advocate most for no limits on carbon emissions are those who stand to benefit most from the absence of controls (petroleum companies and utilities). Some people put their mouths where their money is, others put their money where their mouths are. What's the surprise?

subroc
08-15-2010, 01:13 PM
It seems to me that the people who advocate most for no limits on carbon emissions are those who stand to benefit most from the absence of controls (petroleum companies and utilities). Some people put their mouths where their money is, others put their money where their mouths are. What's the surprise?

it seems to me the ones that advocate to control carbon emisions are those who stand to benefit most, the UN, al gore, carbon trading schemes, academia with grant money. some people just want to loot the treasury of the United States under the guise of helping the environment.

Gerry Clinchy
08-15-2010, 01:56 PM
It seems to me that the people who advocate most for no limits on carbon emissions are those who stand to benefit most from the absence of controls (petroleum companies and utilities). Some people put their mouths where their money is, others put their money where their mouths are. What's the surprise?

Did I say it surprised me? :-)

And that would be the same flaw I find in lobbying.

One might say that the thing about these people that makes them a tad different, is that their monetary interests are not out in the open. Who would doubt that an oil company lobbying for offshore drilling had an interest in the outcome? Their interests are quite evident.

And those "lobbying" for the cap and trade (as an exmaple)... are they registered as lobbyists? Without openly revealing their monetary interests it is more likely that people (voters?) might be misled.

depittydawg
08-15-2010, 02:25 PM
But here's something for you to contemplate...another episode in the life of your messiah.




Fact is, the only people who have ever referred to the current President of the United States as "The Messiah" are the right wing nutjobs. No doubt you heard that first on Fox and have been unable to get it out of your head sense.

M&K's Retrievers
08-15-2010, 03:14 PM
Fact is, the only people who have ever referred to the current President of the United States as "The Messiah" are the right wing nutjobs. No doubt you heard that first on Fox and have been unable to get it out of your head sense.

Not to be confused with left wing nutjobs.

Pals
08-15-2010, 03:33 PM
I personally have dealt with the CCX-had to sign up some of my farmers who had planted grasses and trees. The State Association of Conservation Districts was pushing this down our throats. CCX is a load of BS, the whole program is a sham. They have no idea what they doing, can't talk to landowners, let alone explain the "program". Thank goodness I no longer have to be associated with that group.

Hi Uncle Bill-I hope youi are doing well-glad to see you back posting!!!

BonMallari
08-15-2010, 05:16 PM
Uncle Bill, back in the house....Hope you are feeling better, a belated Happy Birthday pal ..You were missed by many of us...

Henry V
08-15-2010, 09:45 PM
it seems to me the ones that advocate to control carbon emisions are those who stand to benefit most, the UN, al gore, carbon trading schemes, academia with grant money. some people just want to loot the treasury of the United States under the guise of helping the environment.

What a load of BS. Tell me, how will the UN profit or Al Gore compared to other ways to make money? Yes it's the boogeymen in academia making their $100K a year doing research. Be afraid. But do not have any concern about the oil and gas companies and their bobos with net profits in the billions every quarter.

Exactly how would a cap and trade program for CO2 loot the treasury? Did the cap and trade program for nitrous and sulfur oxides loot the treasury when it was implemented 20+years ago to help with acid rain emissions?

kjrice
08-15-2010, 11:34 PM
The whole carbon credits sham is simply an elaborate shakedown.

badbullgator
08-16-2010, 07:46 AM
WHAT THE #^$% IS A CARBON CREDIT AND HOW CAN YOU OWN OR SELL SUCH A THING????
If you want to cut carbon emissions fine, but the very idea that someone owns something called a carbon credit is crazy and puts the entire movement in question as there is a made up profit motive

BS regards

paul young
08-16-2010, 09:47 AM
Corey,

do a google search on sulfur and nitrous dioxide cap and trade. it has been pretty effective at decreasing acid rain and it's effects in the northeast and eastern Canada.

carbon credits are not something "new" that has been dreamed up.

hope this explains the concept a little for you.-Paul

Franco
08-16-2010, 09:57 AM
It seems to me that the people who advocate most for no limits on carbon emissions are those who stand to benefit most from the absence of controls (petroleum companies and utilities). Some people put their mouths where their money is, others put their money where their mouths are. What's the surprise?

The only people that will benefit are the carbon credit traders on Wall St because any additional taxes will be paid for by the consumer.

YardleyLabs
08-16-2010, 10:12 AM
The only people that will benefit are the carbon credit traders on Wall St because any additional taxes will be paid for by the consumer.
If that were actually true, producers would have no incentives to reduce costs of any kind. Obviously, they do. If one company is running a high emission facility while another is running a low emission facility, the impact of a carbon credit, tax or exchange process is to change the relative costs of their products. While it is possible that some of the increased cost will be passed on to consumers, it is unlikely to be the full cost. In addition, higher consumer cost will result in reduced consumption. Carbon emissions will decline through the combination of reduced consumption and shifts of business from less carbon efficient producers to more carbon efficient producers. That is the miracle of capitalism.

By contrast, allowing polluters to dump carbon into the atmosphere without penalty undermines the ability of capitalism to work and imposes an involuntary "tax" on all of us in the form of dirtier air, higher rates of asthma and other pulmonary problems, and accelerated global climate change.

aandw
08-16-2010, 10:49 AM
If that were actually true, producers would have no incentives to reduce costs of any kind. Obviously, they do. If one company is running a high emission facility while another is running a low emission facility, the impact of a carbon credit, tax or exchange process is to change the relative costs of their products. While it is possible that some of the increased cost will be passed on to consumers, it is unlikely to be the full cost. In addition, higher consumer cost will result in reduced consumption. Carbon emissions will decline through the combination of reduced consumption and shifts of business from less carbon efficient producers to more carbon efficient producers. That is the miracle of capitalism.

By contrast, allowing polluters to dump carbon into the atmosphere without penalty undermines the ability of capitalism to work and imposes an involuntary "tax" on all of us in the form of dirtier air, higher rates of asthma and other pulmonary problems, and accelerated global climate change.

i don't see much if any of a shift in business from one to another. if it is cheaper to run a low emission wouldn't they all be doing it now? if you price the carbon credits high enough to make the playing field even or shift it could run some businesses under. increased unemployment plus a lot higher energy cost to consumers.
how do you determine how many each company gets in credits. if you give them the same, a low emission company would have extra but it doesn't reduce it overall. if you give according to what they produce now some companies, including low emission companies, could have to shut down periodically because everybody ran out.

Marvin S
08-16-2010, 11:35 AM
UB - good to see you presenting us with tidbits again. The latest concern is a Double Dip Recession, wonder how many can handle that?

Uncle Bill
08-16-2010, 12:07 PM
UB - good to see you presenting us with tidbits again. The latest concern is a Double Dip Recession, wonder how many can handle that?


It will just be the samo-samo, Marvin. The usual suspects will be on one side with the unionized, atheists, psuedo independants, socialists, the bleeding from falling on the sword, and the just plain ignorant. And you already know their answer to any economic problems...BLAME BUSH!

Their transparency is all so predictable, it's almost amusing if it weren't so pathetically damaging to our once great nation.

But trust me Marvin, when I say that even out here in fly-over country, there are many, many, voters that have had it with their last experiment at the poles. If the next elections don't get taken over by the Black Panthers, and the Chicago thugs, there should be some true conservatives at the helm, and just mebbe we will keep this ship from sinking.

UB

YardleyLabs
08-16-2010, 12:24 PM
i don't see much if any of a shift in business from one to another. if it is cheaper to run a low emission wouldn't they all be doing it now? if you price the carbon credits high enough to make the playing field even or shift it could run some businesses under. increased unemployment plus a lot higher energy cost to consumers.
how do you determine how many each company gets in credits. if you give them the same, a low emission company would have extra but it doesn't reduce it overall. if you give according to what they produce now some companies, including low emission companies, could have to shut down periodically because everybody ran out.
Actually, may have already made the conversion, believing that it will give them a competitive advantage over time. Some of the worst polluters, by contrast, purchased plants that were known to be non-compliant, betting on their abilities to get the laws changed.

WaterDogRem
08-16-2010, 12:59 PM
By contrast, allowing polluters to dump carbon into the atmosphere without penalty undermines the ability of capitalism to work and imposes an involuntary "tax" on all of us in the form of dirtier air, higher rates of asthma and other pulmonary problems, and accelerated global climate change.


Oh gezz, I didn't know carbon dioxide was such a pollutant and caused such respiratory conditions, amazing how we all don't have those issues.;)
Since we all are you're so called polluters, due to the fact we exhale carbon dioxide, guess we should all be penalized & regulated, oh wait that's what the left wants in the end.

kjrice
08-16-2010, 07:00 PM
The only people that will benefit are the carbon credit traders on Wall St because any additional taxes will be paid for by the consumer.
BINGO! Gore's scheme revolves around an elite few that controls what everyone else does. Sounds familiar huh? It's an elaborate shakedown.

Gerry Clinchy
08-18-2010, 05:06 PM
http://www.suntimes.com/business/2571600,CST-NWS-shore06.article

Looks like Shore Bank is on the brink of failure.

Failure to secure $75 bil. fed bailout means low-income lender's days are numbered



ShoreBank has been trying to raise at least $200 million. The federal bailout was a crucial piece, but banking industry experts said the Federal Reserve has been put off by continued declines in the institution's financial condition.

The bank lost $39.6 million the first six months of the year, according to a report it submitted to regulators. In 2009, it lost $119 million.

The report showed ShoreBank being hammered by bad loans to apartment buildings with five or more units. It said it had $103 million in loans to such properties on which no payments are being made.




Its fate has become a political storm in Washington. ShoreBank has close ties to President Obama, who remembers it from his days as a South Side community organizer and has publicly praised its business model, and to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett. Conservative critics of the president have charged that Wall Street banks helped out ShoreBank to win favor with him while financial reform was being hashed out.

The White House has denied direct involvement in the ShoreBank matter, saying the president has left decisions to regulators.

The private equity came from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and the capital units of General Electric Co., among others.


http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/08/10/shorebank-brink-extinction/



And according to people close to the matter, both scenarios are unlikely to occur. First, executives at the Wall Street firms believe that ShoreBank’s finances are in such disarray that they won’t receive a return on their first investment
http://konac.kontera.com/javascript/lib/imgs/grey_loader.gif
(http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/08/10/shorebank-brink-extinction/#)much less any additional money they contribute, which makes adding more money from them nearly impossible. The Wall Street firms -- Goldman Sachs (GS (http://quote.foxbusiness.com/symbol/GS/snapshot): 149.14 ,+0.57 ,+0.38%), Morgan Stanley (MS (http://quote.foxbusiness.com/symbol/MS/snapshot): 26.26 ,+0.05 ,+0.19%), Bank of America (BAC (http://quote.foxbusiness.com/symbol/BAC/snapshot): 13.32 ,+0.12 ,+0.95%), Citigroup (C (http://quote.foxbusiness.com/symbol/C/snapshot): 3.86 ,+0.02 ,+0.52%) and JPMorgan (JPM (http://quote.foxbusiness.com/symbol/JPM/snapshot): 37.89 ,+0.41 ,+1.09%) -- and General Electric (GE (http://quote.foxbusiness.com/symbol/GE/snapshot): 15.69 ,+0.11 ,+0.71%) agreed to pitch in a total of $150 million to recapitalize the institution, which in addition to $75 million infusion of cash from the federal government was thought to be enough to save ShoreBank.


But it wasn’t. As FOX Business first reported, analysts believed the bank needed as much as $400 million survive, and a recent study by the Federal Reserve confirmed that the $225 million in additional capital fell far short of what was necessary to provide a long-term fix to ShoreBank’s problems.



Then there’s the issue of the federal government making a larger infusion of capital. People close to the bank say that’s unlikely because of the controversy surrounding the initial bailout effort. Scores of banks have been allowed to fail since the 2008 financial (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/08/10/shorebank-brink-extinction/#) collapse, but ShoreBank, which has been singled out for its work in financing “green jobs” and lending to the poor by President Obama (http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/politics/obama-administration/barack-obama.htm), and has ties to one of his chief economic advisers Valerie Jarrett, received extraordinary levels of support by the federal government to survive; FDIC chief Sheila Bair, one of the nation’s top banking regulators, called top officials at the big banks to provide a capital infusion to keep ShoreBank alive.




Meanwhile, the controversy surrounding ShoreBank’s connections to key officials in the Obama administration continues to swirl. The president’s former “green czar”, Van Jones, who was ousted following the disclosure of statements he made about the 9-11 terrorist attacks, had ties to the bank. Jarrett, one of President Obama’s associates from Chicago, served on Chicago civic board with a director of ShoreBank. Through a spokeswoman, Jarrett says she played no role in prodding the big banks to contribute money (http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/08/10/shorebank-brink-extinction/#) to the ailing company even though Wall Street executives say her name was used to convince them to provide the initial infusion of cash.

“There was no way this bank would have been kept alive this long without its political connection,” said an executive at a bank that made a contribution.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/business/23cncshorebank.html


While a severe recession certainly played a role, an examination of ShoreBank’s financial statements and interviews with former employees and analysts show that ShoreBank brought many troubles on itself. An ill-timed, overly aggressive expansion at the height of the credit bubble, a headlong push into risky markets on Chicago’s West Side and to the inner city of Detroit, and an unwillingness to foreclose on troubled loans combined to weaken the bank to the point that regulators last July ordered a major recapitalization.



From 2005 to 2007, the bank’s assets grew more than 30 percent, to $2.2 billion. And when Joseph Hasten, a new chief executive, came on board in early 2007, he vowed to quintuple ShoreBank’s lending over the next six years.

But the bank had moved into two of the nation’s toughest markets, Detroit and Cleveland, with troublesome results. The Detroit operation, in particular, became the source of management headaches and steep loan losses. At the same time, ShoreBank was reluctant to foreclosure on delinquent loans.

Even good intentions can result in damage to those who would depend on a bank to be a custodian of their funds:



“The question comes up, was this bank managed as well as it could have been?” said Bert Ely, head of Ely & Co., a bank consultancy based in Alexandria, Va. “Or were they too much into the social-welfare thing?”