Author Topic: Blue State Blues: Why Democrats Are 'Better' at Corruption  (Read 343 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Blue State Blues: Why Democrats Are 'Better' at Corruption
« on: January 17, 2014, 10:39:45 PM »
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/17/Blue-State-Blues-Why-Democrats-Are-So-Much-Better-at-Corruption

Blue State Blues: Why Democrats Are 'Better' at Corruption

by Joel B. Pollak 17 Jan 2014, 12:19 PM PDT

This story begins with the first bailout the Tea Party ever stopped.

In May 2010, I helped the Illinois Tea Party organize a demonstration on LaSalle Street in downtown Chicago outside the offices of Shorebank, which was about to be bailed out by the federal government and Wall Street's biggest banks. The bank was meant to have been closed down already by the FDIC, given its staggering spiral of bad debts, but the day of reckoning had been delayed while its friends in the White House and on Capitol Hill tried to find a way to save it.

Those friends included Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), whom I challenged in the 2010 election, and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). They tried, unsuccessfully, to convince the State of Illinois to bail out the bank. They tried using their contacts in the White House--the president and first lady had been neighbors to Shorebank executives--to forestall the bank's collapse. Andhrough FDIC chair Sheila Bair, they called the same big banks they were browbeating in Congress--including Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan--to bail out their precious Shorebank.

It might have happened. But the Tea Party protest gained some local media attention, and the interest of former Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who demanded answers as to whether, and how, the Obama White House was protecting Shorebank. Republicans asked the FDIC inspector general to investigate, and the Treasury and Federal Reserve began backing away. The bank was shut down and taxpayers took over its bad assets--but its managers were permitted to buy the good ones, reopening as Urban Partnership Bank.

The FDIC inspector general concluded, incredibly, that there had not been inappropriate political influence--that the Wall Street banks agreed to help, for instance because they "believed in ShoreBank's mission and they did not feel pressure to invest as a result of the FDIC chairman's calls."

That is a joke: the banks are required to "believe" in banks like Shorebank due to the Community Reinvestment Act, as well as by the daily bullying of politicians and the thuggish tactics of far-left groups like the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America.

Quote
Now, the FDIC is suing Shorebank for $73 million over its bad loans. Yet it is not suing Shorebank's directors. Rather, it is suing the lowly loan officers. That is "a highly unusual omission," notes Steve Daniels of Crain's, "as board members have been sued in all but one of the 70-plus FDIC suits filed since July 2010."


The FDIC claims that Shorebank's board members did not actually approve the loans. But that's not what the loan officers say. And so the question of the cozy relationships between the directors and the government has arisen once again.

Initially, I found the Shorebank scandal interesting because Schakowsky's husband, Robert Creamer, had used Shorebank as part of a check-kiting scheme that he used to fund his left-wing organizing operations. He eventually went to federal prison for several months in 2006-7, where he began work on the political manifesto that laid the foundations for selling Obamacare to the public after an anticipated "progressive" presidential win in 2008 (“To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust”).

After he left prison, Creamer was hired by the Obama campaign to train its volunteers and continues to play a role in Democrat strategy on issues such as immigration reform, as well as in political campaigns around the country. There was no evidence of any quid pro quo in Creamer's dealings with Shorebank--a point he stressed to me when I met Schakowsky for a debate held by the League of Women Voters. Yet Schakowsky's personal interest in the fate of Shorebank--which was not the only troubled community bank around--remains a mystery.

While Shorebank cost the FDIC half a billion dollars, the scandal was largely overlooked, save by the Tea Party and a few journalists--notably Steve Daniels of Crain's and Becky Yerak of the Chicago Tribune.

Democrats often excel at making such scandals disappear. The IRS scandal is a case in point: the Obama administration assigned an Obama donor to lead the internal investigation, and has now rewritten the rules governing 501(c)4 non-profit groups so that many of the abuses by the IRS in the past would be legal in the future--and forgotten.

In contrast, subpoenas have been issued in New Jersey to investigate lane closures on the George Washington Bridge that members of Gov. Chris Christie's staff are alleged to have ordered as a form of political retaliation against a local Democrat mayor who would not endorse the governor's re-election.

If true, the allegations are grave. Yet they are no worse than what the Obama administration has done--not just in the IRS scandal but as a matter of routine practice, as when it shut down open-air national monuments last fall to hurt Republicans.

There is a media double standard, but there is more to it than that. The emails (!) allegedly sent by Christie's staff have an amateurish tone, reminiscent of the clumsy tactics of Richard Nixon's team of "Plumbers," whose botched burglary at the Watergate Hotel brought down that administration. It may be that Republicans are simply worse at corruption and abuses of power. Democrats occasionally get caught but seem better at covering their tracks. (Who remembers how close Obama was to Tony Rezko? Who is Tony Rezko, anyway?)

Democrats are the party of government, so they understand it better, at least when it comes to using it for a political self-interest. They know that punishing your enemies is only part of the game: the more important part is rewarding and protecting your friends.

Most know that government is inefficient at achieving anything of use (e.g., Obamacare), but when it comes to spending money and spreading favors, it must be, in the words of David Axelrod, a "well-oiled machine." That is how Democrats govern, and few manage to get into trouble.

Republicans like Christie and Nixon understand the punishment part but not the reward part. Like the leaders of formerly colonized third world countries, when they gain power they cannot help but imitate the old regimes, but seem to reproduce only their worst aspects.

Democrats learn quickly--Obama's best models were Chicago mayors--how to couch self-dealing in the public interest. They still believe, or pretend, there is a difference between "honest graft and dishonest graft." And--best of all--they heap praise on each other for their "service."
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline Atomic Cow

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,235
  • High Yield Minion
Re: Blue State Blues: Why Democrats Are 'Better' at Corruption
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2014, 10:46:43 PM »
Because Democrats have no morals whatsoever.  The end justifies the means, any and all means.
"...And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange, even to the men who used them."  H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -Lord Acton

Offline Rapunzel

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 71,719
Re: Blue State Blues: Why Democrats Are 'Better' at Corruption
« Reply #2 on: January 17, 2014, 11:13:13 PM »
Creamer is also one of the major architects of O-Care.  The state of IL would do well to get rid of Jan S..
“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves.” G Washington July 2, 1776

Offline DCPatriot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 32,116
Re: Blue State Blues: Why Democrats Are 'Better' at Corruption
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2014, 11:18:57 PM »
Because when you have the MSM covering your a$$, it's a no brainer.
"It aint what you don't know that kills you.  It's what you know that aint so!" ...Theodore Sturgeon

"Journalism is about covering the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving."    - Iowahawk

Offline Once-Ler

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,559
  • How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Trump
Re: Blue State Blues: Why Democrats Are 'Better' at Corruption
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2014, 07:08:50 AM »
In most cases perfection is achieved through practice, practice, practice.  But I think it's more than that with the rats.  All the practice in the world will not make you good at something without a real love for your craft.  Of course some of it could also be attributable to genes.  An offspring of 2 highly motivated and skilled rats is bound to produce a rat of such great malfeasance potential that its has no limits like a need to sleep even when graft can be found.
"Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."  -  President Donald J Trump

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!.....
...They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security
       Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump 5:35 AM - Sep 14, 2017

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,136
Re: Blue State Blues: Why Democrats Are 'Better' at Corruption
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2014, 07:43:02 AM »
Because Democrats have no morals whatsoever.  The end justifies the means, any and all means.

I've always believed the end justify the means or you lose.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf