Thursday, May 7, 2009

The Chicago Boss in the White House

We all knew that President Obama was in bed with the Chicago mob. Nobody rises that far that fast in Illinois politics otherwise. And the Chicago mob is in bed with the Unions. (For a comprehesive list of sources, see David Horowitz's The Shadow Party, chapter 9).

What did Obama voters who were fund managers or worked for them, or who were bond holders expect?

Those of us who read Mike Royko's Boss tried to tell them. (Yes, I'm that old and yes, I grew up in Illinois. New Mexico's corrupt patron system seems positively amateurish to me).

From The Business Insider:

" . . . sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.

The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election."

More links at the Wall Street Journal.

And here is an excerpt from a letter written by Clifton F. Asness, the founding principal of AQR Capital Management, and a man unafraid to speak his mind:

"The President has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds. He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.”

"The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter,” was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders,” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear.

". . . Let’s be clear, it is the job and obligation of all investment managers, including hedge fund managers, to get their clients the most return they can. They are allowed to be charitable with their own money, and many are spectacularly so, but if they give away their clients’ money to share in the “sacrifice,” they are stealing. Clients of hedge funds include, among others, pension funds of all kinds of workers, unionized and not.

"The managers have a fiduciary obligation to look after their clients’ money as best they can, not to support the President, nor to oppose him, nor otherwise advance their personal political views. That’s how the system works. If you hired an investment professional and he could preserve more of your money in a financial disaster, but instead he decided to spend it on the UAW so you could “share in the sacrifice,” you would not be happy. " (Emphasis mine. EHL)
Hat tip goes to Cafe Hayek: Speaking Truth to Power.

The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders statement ends with the most important point:

". . . As we all appreciate, laws are the foundation of our economy and society. Despite recent travails, our country remains the economic envy of the world and the United States remains a vital engine of global growth. The rule of law made it that way. We urge that people remember this and not succumb to unproductive and unwarranted finger pointing."

With his statement calling these organizations (who represent "teachers, pensioners, and retirees") "speculators" who are "unwilling to sacrifice," Obama clearly demonstrates that he may be a lawyer, but that he does not respect the rule of law. We learned this when we heard his Chicago Public Radio interview, when he stated that the Constitution is flawed because it does not allow the government to take your wealth and redistribute it to others. Normally, we call that theft.

Well, those Obama voters with money are learning. They will always lose to the Progressive thuggery that now resides in the White House. They will lose, no matter how pristine their political credentials are, no matter how they protest. They will lose, because they have something to loot. In the immortal words of Willie Sutton, "That's where the money is."

And nobody knows how to loot like a Chicago politician.

Welcome to lawlessness, Chicago Mob style.

Who will Obama come after when he is finished looting Wall Street? He and his ilk will come after you and me. And our children.

He is already doing it. He is going after the funds of teachers and retirees in order to pay off his political obligations. Politicians and mobsters will take from us what they cannot produce.

Get ready to be looted.


Mark said...

Where to start, where to start...

Do you really believe that anyone who makes good in Chicago politics is mob-connected? That's like saying anyone who similarly advances in New York politics is in bed with the Jews, or anyone who gets ahead in Mississippi politics is in hock to the Klan. Such blanket statements are just plain phony. There is zero evidence that Obama has had anything to do with organized crime in Chicago or anywhere else. It's a smear, nothing more.

And by the way, I wouldn't use David Horowitz as an source, as he is notorious for his bigotry against anything even remotely Muslim, not to mention his sloppy attacks on teachers he considers "anti-American." (The website Free Exchange on Campus has a long list of rebuttals.)

Now then, to this supposed "thuggery."

The alleged "threats" you describe against hedge funds mixed up in the Chrysler bankruptcy never happened. They were denied by none other than Perella Weinberg, the firm which was allegedly threatened. A spokesman put it bluntly to ABC News: "The firm denies Mr. Lauria's account of events." When someone who is supposed to be the victim says nothing happened, it's a pretty good indication there's no there there.

Thomas Lauria says he accused the White House of "threatening" the hedge funds because Obama said, "I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."

Lauria is evidently so paranoid he interpreted that as a threat: "[It] kind of sounds like 'You're fair game.' In whatever sense. People are scared. They have gotten death treats. Some have been told people are going to come to their houses. God forbid if some nut did something, I'm just wondering how the president would feel."

His proof is - I kid you not - nasty comments on blogs and discussion boards. He cannot point to any actual threats or ominous visitors because there haven't been any.

Belief is one thing, but outright paranoia is another. These guys sound like the wacko Republicans in the 1990s who insisted Bill and Hillary Clinton were up to their necks in the "Arkansas Mafia" and left a trail of corpses behind them wherever they went.

Are you sure you want to get mixed up with these people?

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...

Yes, Mark. I lived with Chicago politics and all that it entailed for many years. I know thuggery when I see it. Obama has gentrified it a bit for the elites inside the beltway, but it is still threat and intimidation.

As far as Obama's political lineage is concerned, it was clear from a long time back. You can follow it in the archives of any of the Chicago papers.

As my (Chicago) grandma used to say: Show me who a man hangs out with and I will show you his character. Saul Alinsky. Bill Ayers. Bernadine Dorn. I've known who these people were since I was a small child. I saw what happened in Chicago in '68. I know who planned it and why.
Obama was mentored by and associated with all three of them.

As for your smear of David Horowitz, it is expected. He was one of the founders of the New Left in the '60's. You would have to believe evil of him or question your own beliefs. And that is precisely what very few in the New Left had the courage to do. And it is apparent in their progressive heirs as well.
And of course, anyone who questions your rightness must be "racist" "bigoted" or "stupid."
And increasingly, no one is listening to it. It gets old.

Perella Weinberg made the first accusations. He caved out of fear. But there is still the matter of what the other funds have said. They have not given their names out of fear, except for Oppenheimer.

As for the professors, I don't even need to look at the denials. I have experience the like of them and the c**p they teach right here at UNM. I have sat through one professor who was dismissed here (finally) as part of a GPSA task force because of his indoctrinatory tactics. Academic Freedom does give anyone the right to teach crap and grade for political correctness instead of content and argument.

The White House denies the thuggery? Part of it was said right out loud by The One himself. But they deny the other stuff? Ho. Hum. So what else is new? The Pols in Washington have been lying to us with impunity for years. Why should I start believing them now?

We saw what this administration and Congress did to the AIG execs . . . Government funded picketing of their houses? Threatening their families? Please.
As I said, I know thuggery when I see it.

Your hero is in bed with some pretty nasty people?

As for me, being a third party person, who supports all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I am already labeled an "extremist." I've got nothing to lose.

G-d Save the Republic of the United States!

There. I am pretty sure that I've now committed hate speech of some kind or another.

Susan said...

Great post from a fellow Illinoisan. Chicago rules Illinois politics now, and I'm afraid 'the players' have an incredible amount of power in DC too. Scary.
Mark, you need to live what you think you know so much about...

John Kass does a pretty decent job covering the Chicago Outfit:,0,128860.column
For generations, the Outfit has formed the base of the iron triangle that runs things, and no understanding of politics in Illinois is complete without them.
Sentencing of other bosses continues on Monday. The dancing monkey show in Springfield will be over by then, but if the national media wants to understand Chicago, they should show up in federal court to see how the apes behave.
These fellas below are probably concerned about some Blago squealing. I imagine the White House Chief of Staff might be concerned too.,0,5976595.column
Recently, other politicians insisted the Outfit is dead. One is state Sen. Jimmy DeLeo (D-Chicago), sage adviser to Gov. Rod Blagojevich. When he started in politics, DeLeo once kept tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer. He probably didn't want it to spoil.
"What does that mean, `mob associated?'" DeLeo asked rhetorically, in a 2001 Sun-Times story. "In the year 2001, is there really a mob in Chicago?"
Another political expert is state Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano (R- Elmwood Park), who echoed DeLeo. "The Italian Mafia is gone," Saviano was quoted as saying. "I don't see it happening around here."

Elisheva Hannah Levin said...

Oops! I left out a word that was pretty important. Had to run the Boychick to the dentist and got myself in a hurry: I meant to say:

Academic Freedom does NOT give anyone the right to teach c**p and grade for political correctness.

Thanks, Susan. And thanks for the Kass links. I didn't have time to look them up, but I do read the Trib.
I am getting old. Remember the old ad?

"If you think about the world the way your daddy did. You'll grow up to read the Chicago Trib.
But if you see the world anew,
Read the Sun Times for a different point of view."

Mark now thinks I am a gun-toting member of the klan. Notice how these Progressives never address the real issue? If you disagree with them, you MUST be racist and a member of the clan.

The real issue:
Obama, acting just like a Chicago Pol, called these people "speculators" and worse because a)the Prez didn't get what he wants from them, and b) these people appealed to the rule of law. The issue is that we have a man who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and therefore the rule of law as POTUS.

By the way, Mark:

1)Chicagoans know that Ayers and Dorhn have watched the Obama kids. They were friends and neighbors, just as I am friends with people twice my age. In an interview with the New York Times (America's newspaper of record), Ayers said he did the Pentagon bombings, and also said he would do it again. In the forward to one of his books on education (which I had to read for my master's) he said that he got away with his crimes scott free.

2)ACORN and the SEUI organized those protests outside of the AIG execs houses. ACORN is also in bed with this administration, and they have gotten an enormous amount of money in government grants for their activities. They are slated to get still more from the so-called Stimulus. From personal experience with them here in New Mexico during Election 2000, I can tell you that ACORN is into voter registration fraud. Although there were complaints that year, and our party had to disassociate ourselves from them, nothing came of it. However, after this past election there were guilty pleas. There were also convictions in 13 other states.

The whole federal government is as corrupt as Chicago politics. This is an institutional problem not confined to one party or one administration.

Like the other organizers of our teaparty here, I went to bed a law-abiding, peace-loving, hard-working mother of two. I woke up the next morning, an extremist.

I am a Constitution respecting, patriotic American mom. Part of a proud tradition, which has been clinging to G-d and guns since 1776.