Are Obama And Geithner The Twins From Hell?

Class War For Idiots / January 15, 2010

By Mark Ames

This article was first published in Alternet.

A lot of us have been wondering, despondently, why the Hell Barack Obama is keeping Timothy Geithner on the job as Treasury Secretary, given his central role in the plunder of trillions of dollars from American taxpayers, and his record of subverting democracy in the service of Wall Street billionaires. Geithner’s the guy that drove the getaway car in the heist — so why was he hired to run the Treasury? You’d expect to see a guy as corrupt as Geithner serving as the Finance Minister in some Central Asian autocracy — but not in Barack Obama’s government, not after all he promised in the campaign.

Maybe a better question is: Why did Obama choose Geithner in the first place? On the surface, those two are supposed to be on relatively opposite ends of the American spectrum: Geithner is an East Coast Republican blue-blood whose catastrophic tenure at the New York Fed represented everything Obama — a half-Kenyan liberal Democrat from America’s western-most state — promised to change for the better.

The most recent hope-crushing revelation about Geithner — emails showing that the New York Fed under Geithner’s watch forced AIG to lie to the public in order cover up tens of billions of taxpayer dollars that were being funneled through AIG and out the backdoor to top financial institutions like Goldman Sachs — proves once and for all that Geithner is the worst choice imaginable for the job. He’s the epitome of the sort of incompetence, sleaze and corruption that Bush specialized in — so why did Obama name him, and why is he sticking by him?

So far the most convincing rational explanation I’ve read comes from William Black, the former Savings & Loan investigator-hero who understands public-private corruption in this country like few others. Prof. Black, like a true prosecutor, puts Geithner’s rise to head the Treasury in simple crime-world terms: he’s there to cover up his own heist. All across the board, as Black has pointed out, the same perps who caused the collapse of the financial system and the looting of all those trillions are all in positions of power to cover up their crimes, and keep the details out of the public eye.

But there are also other, deeper, personal reasons too. I came across some rather disturbing biographical similarities between Obama and Geithner that show why Obama might be more comfortable with a guy like Geithner on a deeper, mammalian level.

Even though Geithner and Obama come from such different backgrounds and from different political parties, both have strikingly similar temperaments — both earned reputations as conciliators and centrists in campus debates at their respective Ivy League schools, over the very same hot-button issue: affirmative action.

In the early 1980s, when little Tim Geithner was a student at Dartmouth (following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather), he reportedly made his first big mark on campus by inserting himself in the middle of a nasty battle over the university’s affirmative action program. The reason it got so nasty was because the anti-affirmative action movement was being led by the notoriously racist, homophobic Dartmouth Review, a new student paper founded while Geithner was a student, funded and patronized by some of the biggest names in the emerging American rightwing: Irving Kristol (Bill Kristol’s daddy), William Buckley of the National Review, and the conservative Republican Jack Kemp. The Dartmouth Review‘s editor at that time was Dinesh D’Souza, an Indian immigrant eager to play the suck-up waterboy to the university’s white rightwing elite — even if that meant being their dark-skinned face of elitist white racism.

Under D’Souza’s editorship, the Review not only attacked the very same affirmative action that helped D’Souza get into Dartmouth, but it also published the sort of rank racist drivel that would have made George Wallace wince. One such article was described as a “lighthearted interview with a former Klan leader” — which D’Souza illustrated with a staged photo of a black man hanging from a tree on Dartmouth’s campus. Another Review article on affirmative action was even more racist: It was headlined “Dis Sho Ain’t No Jive, Bro,” and it included lines such as, “Now we be comin’ to Dartmut and be up over our ‘fros in studies, but we still be not graduatin’ Phi Beta Kappa.” It was so offensive that even Jack Kemp, a hero in the National Review rightwing crowd, resigned from the Dartmouth Review‘s advisory board in disgust.

Young Tim Geithner was a student at Dartmouth at the same time D’Souza was — meaning he saw the whole thing develop. When the racist articles were published, the student body was practically in revolt, and according to a Bloomberg article published last year, some students were so pissed off they were gearing up to mob-attack D’Souza. That would have been the sane, decent thing to do — hunt D’Souza down brand “Suck-Up” across his forehead. But little Timothy Geithner, the “natural mediator,” was more concerned with keeping things as they were, playing the role of human lubricant. Some today might think that this shows something decent and solid in Geithner’s character — but in fact, it reveals a total absence of ethical engagement, and instead, a natural willingness to preserve the status quo, no matter how warped and loathsome that status quo is. D’Souza should have been chased out of America and out of the Western Hemisphere for good; but Geithner saved him, according to a Bloomberg article:

From his years as a Dartmouth College student and mid-level Treasury official through his stint at the New York Fed, Geithner, 47, has thrived as a backroom negotiator and conciliator.
Geithner’s knack for diplomacy surfaced in the midst of student demonstrations over affirmative action. The Dartmouth Review, a student biweekly, was edited by Dinesh D’Souza, a social conservative who later rose to prominence with books attacking multiculturalism and feminism.
The Review lambasted what it called Dartmouth’s liberal bias and its minority admission policies, riling many students. During gatherings in which some students said D’Souza should be attacked, Geithner calmed them down, proposing that they start an alternative publication, says Rudelson, the former roommate. Geithner kept his distance from the new publication, called the Harbinger, occasionally taking photos for it.
“He was always the natural mediator,” Rudelson says. “He had this amazing ability to listen to people, no matter how extreme their views might be.”

So we can see early on in his life that Timothy Geither, even when confronted with the most obvious ethical choice — fighting racism — our Treasury Secretary chose instead to protect and preserve both the racists and the anti-racists. And that is another way of saying, Geithner protected the bad guys. After all, they’re the ones who needed to be preserved — they needed a “mediator” who legitimized their presence, a mediator who appeared to be “in the middle” and “without an agenda” to preserve and protect them. Geithner was that man.

The result: D’Souza went on to become a highly-influential rightwing author and an inspiration to scores of waffentwerps, earning millions for himself by promoting racism and bashing the disadvantaged. One of D’Souza’s first proteges was that human lamprey and radio host Laura Ingraham, whose first big article for D’Souza was to publish the names of students who belonged to Dartmouth’s Gay & Lesbian Union. Many students were devastated by the outing: One gay student reportedly dropped out, and another reportedly attempted suicide. (Ingraham’s brother, ironically enough, was gay.)

Ingraham later dated Larry Summers, who was Geithner’s boss in the 1990s, and whom Obama picked to run the economy from the White House. Summers, as we know, created controversy while he was president at Harvard by picking fights with prominent African-American academics, and his claims that women were genetically inferior at mathematics and science. You can see how this depressing picture is starting to come together — because Obama picked these guys to run our economy.

Anyway getting back to Obama-Geithner — in the early 1990s, a decade after Geithner protected D’Souza from a mob of angry students, Barack Obama found himself in a similar situation at Harvard law school. Obama had been named the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, meaning he had to take a stand on one of the biggest issues dividing the law school’s students: affirmative action. Keep in mind that, without affirmative action, it’s unlikely that Barack Obama would have been where he was, at Harvard Law, the first African-American editor of the esteemed school’s legal magazine. Not because Obama wasn’t qualified, but because affirmative action made it harder for the entrenched white elite to keep all the slots to themselves.

So how did Obama handle the battle between rightwing anti-affirmative action students and liberals? Just like Geithner would have. According to a profile a couple of years ago in the Boston Globe:

Classmates recall an especially emotional debate in the spring of 1990 over affirmative action, which conservative students wanted to abolish.
Presiding over an assembly of 60 mostly white editors in a law school classroom, Obama listened to impassioned pleas and pressed conservatives to explain their reasoning and liberals to sharpen their thinking. But he never spoke about his own point of view or mentioned that he believed he had benefited from affirmative action. “If anybody had walked by, they would have assumed he was a professor,” said Thomas J. Perrelli, a classmate and former counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno. “He was leading the discussion but he wasn’t trying to impose his own perspective on it. He was much more mediating.”
Obama was so evenhanded and solicitous in his interactions that fellow students would do impressions of his Socratic chin-stroking approach to everything, even seeking a consensus on popcorn preferences at the movies. “Do you want salt on your popcorn?” one classmate, Nancy L. McCullough, recalled, mimicking his sensitive bass voice. “Do you even want popcorn?”

So you can start to see why Obama’s press spokesman, Robert Gibbs, told reporters that the President has “full confidence” in Geithner. They’re peas in a pod. In more ways than just their temperament.

“God I admire his nose.”

To most of us, this sort of one-note obsession with conciliation and even-temperedness seems ill-suited to the times and circumstances. This country doesn’t need the status quo maintained, it needs a complete change of the way this country is run, and the type of people running it. But if you were one of the plutocrats, you’d have a different view of things. You’d want to preserve what you’d plundered, and hire some human buffers to get between you and the 300 million Americans you’d ripped off. And as the record shows, you couldn’t choose two more perfect, reliable buffers than Tim Geithner and Barack Obama. Geithner, we know, was hired and promoted at the NY Fed and then at Treasury to do precisely that — make sure that the heist went off smoothly and to keep the mobs away from the plutocrats. So now the question is, is that why so much of the establishment, including Wall Street, also got behind Barack Obama? Did they look at his record, and his temperament, and say, “This guy’s just like Timmy. Only better.”

Further Note: In one of those too-bizarre-to-be-true coincidences, when Barack Obama’s mother ran a microcredit program in Indonesia funded by the Ford Foundation, it was Tim Geithner’s father, Peter Geithner, who disbursed the money on behalf of the Ford Foundation. Both Barack and Tim spent a part of their childhoods growing up in Southeast Asia, thanks to their parents’ work. Of further interest is the fact that the Ford Foundation — which Geithner’s dad ran in Indonesia — was a well-known CIA front in Indonesia’s savage anti-communist civil war in the 1960s.

This article was first published in Alternet.

Mark Ames is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion from Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine.

Click the cover & buy the book!

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline

24 Comments

Add your own

1. jonny.m | January 15th, 2010 at 7:48 am
I’ve never been a communist or anything, but the more I read about this stuff the more I want to overthrow capitalism. If there’s any major difference in corporate capitalism & organize crime, it’s only in scale.
2. Evilcor | January 15th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Fuck. Just – fuck.
3. wengler | January 15th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Good article. This explains why Obama pushes Republican ideas into bills when no Republican will even vote for them.
We need a jobs bill and yet we get a stimiulus bill loaded with inexplicable Republican tax cuts including one for new home buying and one for “new hiring”. What business is ever going to hire someone based on a tax cut?
As for Geithner you knew the fix was in when the plutocrats covered up his whole inability to pay taxes. A Treasury Secretary that doesn’t even bother to pay his fair share to the treasury. Good grief.
4. Old eXiled Fan | January 15th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Y A W N . . .
5. also an old exile fan | January 15th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Good article. BUT, I do miss the whore stories. Could Ames replicate that Ron Jeremy inspired gonzo journalism in America? That would be good. I am simply tired of being pissed at the establishment. It is s much better to beat off to whore stories than to get wrapped around the axle about endless government and Wall Street shenanigans. I do realize that this is exactly what the ruling class wants the rest of america to do, but why fight. It is over. What is left for us is the joys of masturbation. Ames, you do realize that, don’t you? In a way, this is article is exactly that. A whore story without explicit sex scenes. The kind that would give a healthy male a boner.
6. proletariat | January 15th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
this is not a surprise. if you think barack obama was anything near the left, or even the center, you’re only a baby step separated from benito mussolini. there has never been a leftist president elected in american history. the closest we ever got was eugene debs, and even he was paralyzed by the cancer that is pacifism.
7. baal | January 15th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
YEAH ! BORING….
really, who gives a shit about some big green preppies doing the back door thingy….are we suppose to really care ?
8. person | January 15th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
What movie are those those two faces pasted on to?
9. Jay | January 15th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Lemme get all professorial and shit. Ahem! America’s two-party system encourages and ultimately glorifies the moderates in our society as the “reasonable” peacemakers between two “extremes,” no matter if one extreme is obviously wrong and the other right — even if those extremes are, in Geithner’s case, those who support robbing U.S. taxpayers blind and then shitting in their mouths, and those who oppose being robbed and eating shit.
10. Plamen Petkov | January 15th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
I LOVE this bullsh*t. “subverting democracy” As if USA had a real “democracy” before Obama came to power 2008. All I needed was that sentence to know what a bullshit article this was and NOT bother reading it.
11. Alex_C | January 16th, 2010 at 12:26 am
The best thing for Capitalists in the US is that, Americans can’t tell the difference between Capitalism and Free Trade. Free Trade is, the mom’n’pop grocery store, or ISP, or shoe store/shoe maker. etc. It’s someone like me, or you, making a goofy (or not goofy) musical instrument or bike part or something, and selling it for what the market will bear. I made it through last year peddling crafts that I decided had to cost me less than a dime to make, and telling people to give me what they think it’s worth, had to average over a dollar. If I could make something for a dime and sell it for thousands of dollars that’d work too, that’s not unfair, the price is determined as a free contract between the buyer and seller. For most products, it equilibrates at a fair and reasonable price. That’s free trade. It tends to be rather agile, for instance, I was making almost $1000 a month during the summer, now I’ve had to resign myself to making well, nothing, for the 4 winter months. So what, I tighten my belt. I eat simpler, I get along. This year may be better or worse than last; next winter may be a great one because I come up with something to do that I can do in winter.
Capitalism means, you have things like corporations, which have the rights of persons but never die, you have stock and a whole class of people who do nothing but trade in stock, and this means you have to have economic growth, no matter what. The stockholders have to have their profits, no matter what. It fits perfectly with a fiat, debt-as-money system like we’ve had since 1913. You have to get people into debt, you have to have ’em working their asses off to pay for the new house and new car. You have to outlaw owner-built houses and cabins and simple dwellings, you have to make roads etc set up so riding a bicycle is highly dangerous, and make public transportation impractical or in most places in the US, nonexistent. You have to do this to support the capitalist class, which does not exist under simple free trade, but does, and runs the show, under capitalism.
As a friend puts it, “you push a button, you make money, people die …. then you invent a machine to push the button for you, you make MORE money, MORE people die …”
We’ve been propagandized for generations to believe capitalism == freedom and free trade and Mom’s apple pie, but they are not at ALL the same.
12. Strahlungsamt | January 16th, 2010 at 3:13 am
Here in Ireland we have our own bad bank situation. The Govt is trying their best to launch this NAMA (National Asset Management Agency) to take over the failing banks. This will be paid for at taxpayer expense.
Guess who our incompetent turd world govt. brought in to manage this disaster?
That’s right, GOLDMAN FUCKING SACHS!!!!
13. Pádraig Ó Buth Chanain | January 16th, 2010 at 9:27 am
@12: “Here in Ireland” – I take it you mean the southern Irish state? In Ireland there are two albeit similar bad bank situations, that in the occupied six counties and that in the free state.
14. Cap Matifou | January 16th, 2010 at 9:51 am
jonny.m, you need to step a little further away to get the big picture (which extends in yet another picture concerning hyperdimensional reality, but let’s stay for now with this one.)
Communism was hand steered from Wall Street from day one. It was not the revolt of the poor, but a power grab of the selected few.
“Communism or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.” – Garry Alan
http://www.peoplesbankparty.org/creation_of_money.htm
“If one understand that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs.”
http://www.survivalbookshop.com/why-the-super-rich-support-socialist-dictatorships
And you can be part of the structure for decades, until the manipulation begins to emerge in plain view.
School of Darkness by Bella V. Dodd, Ex-Communist
http://genus.cogia.net/
She describes, how they were instructed to get instructions from wealthy bankers located in the Waldorf towers, when Moscow was not reachable. The Soviet Union was a hand steered Wall Street scam. Alone the circumstances before, while and after the 1917 revolution making you wonder what was there going on. The russian one party has got the name “communist” after the suggestion from the US.
15. This One Guy, Y'know? | January 16th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Look, while I agree that Barack has completely betrayed the misplaced hope that dupes like me put into him back in ’08, the logic you use in this article is pretty fucking flimsy. “Yeah, Obama’s election was manipulated from the wings by EVIL BANKERS, and we know this because both he & Geithner are assholes of a similar breed.” Which breed is the exact opposite kind of asshole of “maverick” John McCain, so I suppose if he had one you’d be arguing that OBVIOUSLY the economic crisis was set up by evil merchant bankers to put a fascist wartime economy in place. These are two very different plans, the “getaway heist” one and the “military dictatorship” one, and it’s hard to reconcile the two.
16. Frank McG | January 16th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Am I reading this article right? Geithner and Obama are corporate plundering conspirators because back in university they both called for reason and debate in place of violent lynch mobs?
I can’t wait for the follow up article on how Martin Luther King was a secret sleeper agent for the Masons because of his message of non-violence.
17. Pádraig Ó Buth Chanain | January 17th, 2010 at 12:58 am
@14: “Communism was hand steered from Wall Street from day one.”
Adolf, my old friend, how the hell are you? Goddamnit, I thought you’d died!! Why did you never call?
18. Fissile | January 17th, 2010 at 6:38 am
“Not because Obama wasn’t qualified, but because affirmative action made it harder for the entrenched white elite to keep all the slots to themselves.”
You’ve got that ass backward. The “entrenched white elite” loves affirmative action because it keeps out the one group they despise the most: working class white males.
19. fajensen | January 17th, 2010 at 8:04 am
I think the article misses the obvious:
Geitner is there as the artificial flavour enhancer for Obama’s team. With all the dirt swirling around Geitner, his scummy deals, his crooked friends, e.t.c., Obama comes off purty perfeckt.
All Obama needs to do “later” is to pin it all on Geitner and pass himself off even more squeky-cleaner “the defender of the Working American” or whatever and win another term. It will work, just wait.
20. Carlos | January 18th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Shocking the Obama isn’t all the hope and change he pretended to be, as exemplified by his coziness with Wall St. pricks.
Anyway, you slam D’Souza, but you’ve wildly mischaracterized his anti-affirmative action stance. I listened to him speak at my college. He’s premise was that favorable admissions based solely on race was dumb. You should look at a person’s level of achievment compared to his economic background. (All you neo-commies should love that shit, using economics as a basis for measuring social something or other!) He gave an example of using favorable admissions to admit a black student who scored 1000 on the SAT (old scoring) and was from a background of poverty or low-income over a white kid from a posh background who scored an 1100. He reason was that it took more effort and ethic for a poor black kid to achieve that score than for some pampered white kid to underperform compared to his peers. He went on to say a similar metric should be used for people of any color, and that economic disadvantage, not skin color was what favorable admissions should really pay attention to.
21. Like yah! | January 19th, 2010 at 2:47 am
I think the mistake runs deeper in this article by granting Obama the power to appoint Geithner. None of the key people except for Rahm was actually appointed beyond the formalities.
CIA, FBI, Military: Bush’s
State Department: Clinton’s
Treasury+Fed: G&S; JPM.
Obama, the most inconsequential president ever.
22. porkers-at-the-trough | January 24th, 2010 at 7:39 am
Another terrific commentary by Mark Ames.
I’ve found in reading on wars, military & historical leaders, and movements, that if you want to take a shortcut to understanding the forces behind a given war or movement, look at the pyschology that develops in the young men who go on to become the leaders of those forces.
e.g. Kaiser Willhelm II, OVERCOMPENSATING for his deformed arm (his insecurity over his deformity led to overcompensation, i.e. bullheaded and dictatorial, a maniacal obsession on militarist prowness) led to (contributed to) the mass carnage of WWII.
This Ames biopic gives a dark insight into both Obama’s and Geithner’s Dinesh D’Souza-esque flirtation with evil, currying favor from those who would otherwise deny you access.
There is no “Third Way” as disgraced former British Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to have it: there is a straight line continuum, dictatorial Right, and democratic, egalitarian “left.” Sometimes those who proclaim “liberal” goals exercise right-wing DICTATORIAL powers (Stalin style “Communism” being an example), and sometimes what is “liberal” and reformist to one group, harms the privileges and powers of another, eg when one race group “rescues” their brethren who are a minority elsewhere, as when Hitler “liberated” Sudatenland & Austrian Germans, or when Milosovic attempted to “empower” Serbs who were minorities in Croat and Kosovar regions.
But Clinton, Obama, and most “Democrats” today try to have their cake and eat it too… PRETEND that they are “liberal” and “Democratic,” while actually HELPING the establishment Right-Wing CHIP AWAY at a century of hard-fought “liberal,” progressive, democratic progress.
IF you are not ACTIVELY TRYING TO RESTRAIN the power of the wealthy, establishment, radical Right-Wing, then you are EMPOWERING them, either actively (eg Clinton passing Phil Gramm’s GLBA & CMFA finanical “Deregulation” atrocities in 1999 & 2000), or passively with your silence.
@ #5, I don’t miss the whore stories a bit… I got a delicous reptilian shudder of revulsion up my spine, just trying NOT to think about that Larry Summers and Laura Ingraham date! (OK, Summers probably wasn’t quite as Jabba the Hut grotesque back then.)
23. Thorfinnsson | June 8th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Mr. Ames,
If you ever wonder why Middle Americans don’t rise up against the current corporate elite, this article is a good idea of why. Despite being strongly opposed to the current economic paradigm, you remain deeply wedded to the current ideological paradigm of anti-racism, feminism, and other liberal delusions.
In your vision, we’re supposed to rid ourselves of the existing corporate oligarchy, yet retain the cultural Marxism.
Thanks, but no thanks. I’d rather see the nation plunged into absolute ruin first so that we can rid ourselves of liberalism in toto. Perhaps then we can not only establish a sane economy that rewards workers, but patriarchy, white supremacy, and civilization.
24. S.Quadd | February 26th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
Same background (cartel bank connections) same goals (NWO, cartel banks own everything) may have known each other for a long time; Obama was vetted by Bilderberg at a meeting at Michigan Dunes area; cartel banks paying both Obama and Romney campaigns, hedging their bets (opensecrets), surprised Obama and Romney don’t just run together.
Friday, May 21, 2010
ShoreBank, Obama’s Mother and Geithner’s Father – Hmmm… Coincidences?
Obama’s mother, Stanley A. Dunham, worked for Tim Giether’s Father Peter Geither at the Ford Foundation. Ford Foundation is partnered with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Peter F. Geithner, Treasury Secretary Geithner’s father, worked for the Ford Foundation.
No surprise here though, really. Obama and family are highly connected to the East Coast banking crime syndicate (Rockefellers, Soros, Ford Foundation etc.). In other words, Obama and family are highly connected to (Council on Foreign Relations) CFR banking family members, or better known as the Federal Reserve conglomerate.
The fairy-tale story that Obama delivered during the Democratic National Convention (the one with the Greek columns and the fireworks) about his mother living on food stamps was most probably just another little white lie that he told to the American people. Why? Stanley Ann Dunham was professionally connected to Tim Geithner’s father, Peter. Please read this excerpt from the Economic Policy Journal:
“Who is Timothy Geithner?
Morgan Reynolds, who served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush’s first term, has done a little fact checking on the new Treasury Secretary:
Who is Geithner? He is a creature of the eastern banking establishment and ruling class through and through. His résumé nicely matches his actions in handing out government money and guarantees to the “right people.” Geithner’s father Peter is director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation, a New World Order operation. Peter Geithner oversaw the “microfinance” programs developed in Indonesia by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, Barack Obama’s mother. Geithner’s maternal grandfather, Charles F. Moore, was an adviser to President Eisenhower and vice president of Ford Motor Company, according to Wikipedia. Geithner’s wife Carole Marie, like Geithner a 1983 graduate of Dartmouth College (Ivy League), is daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Albert Sonnenfeld of Princeton, N.J., a professor of French and comparative literature at Princeton University (Ivy League) for 27 years.”
Thus, Obama and Tim Geithner most probably were childhood friends. Remember Tony Rezko? Obama used Rezko to launder about $100 million of taxpayer dollars while Obama was still a State Senator. Geithner is Obama’s right hand in accessing the Tony Rezkos (people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates) of the national level for Obama and the Democrats while he’s President. That’s why that with all this trouble about AIG, Obama is still not going to get rid of Geithner. Geithner is a valuable tool for them to rob this country through its national policies.
Peter Geithner (Tim’s Father) was director of the Asia program at the Ford Foundation, a New World Order (NWO) operation. Peter Geithner oversaw the “microfinance” programs developed in Indonesia by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, Barack Obama’s mother.
Note: As many of you may already know, the Clintons also have strong ties to the Indonesia Microfinance program. They have been to Indonesia several times to “take care of their business”. It is the hub of the New World Order micro-finance scheme. The same scheme that was adopted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to trigger the collapse of the housing market. It was first instantiated by Carter (a NWO puppet), and then made increasingly effective by Clinton (another NWO puppet) by removing almost all restrictions. The Ford Foundation are partners with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Did you know that when Son of Stanley was going to school in Los Angeles, he went with a Pakistani friend to visit his mother in Indonesia, who was working for Peter Geithner at that time. After this, he spent a couple weeks in Pakistan, before he abruptly transferred to Columbia in New York where Peter Geithner was headquartered.
A little more about Peter Geithner and his ties to known NWO operations: Peter F. Geithner is an advisor to the Asia Center at Harvard University and a consultant to the Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium, Rockefeller Foundation, Sasakawa Peace Foundation, and other organizations. He serves on the boards of the National Committee on United States-China Relations, the China Center for Economic Research (Peking University), the Center for the Advanced Study of India (University of Pennsylvania), Clemente (Holdings) Asia, Inc., and the Institute of Current World Affairs.
Peter Geithner’s obviously rather unconventional style, gives him a lot in common with Stanley Ann, considered to be a pioneer in the field of anthropological microfinance for underprivileged Asian women. Though from far different backgrounds, both parents afforded their sons with globe-trotting, exotic childhoods, culminating in Peter’s Son playing Robin to Stanley Ann’s OBatMan. Small world, huh?
According to The Atlantic, young Timmy Giethner’s experiences at Dear Old Dad’s knee in Asia, even in China during the Tiananmen Square uprising, greatly influenced his life choices:
“First, his Asia background. Geithner’s father, Peter Geithner, was a development specialist who opened the Ford Foundation’s China office – the first foreign NGO here, under a special agreement that continues to this day. That was just before Tiananmen Square, and the father was part of the Foundation’s difficult but, ultimately, undoubtedly correct decision to remain engaged. Tim apparently also studied Chinese, was posted in Tokyo for Treasury, and focused on Asia studies as undergraduate and graduate student. This is all great background for Treasury’s international dealings in the coming years.”
Now you can see why China is lending us all this money for Socialist/Marxist agendas? China knows that if the US is to become Socialist/Marxist, our country will no longer lead the world in innovation and technology. China has their own plans for world “hemogany”. In fact, Chinese leaders know that Communism doesn’t work, and this is why they have adopted a simulation model of Western government through their “Strategic Moderization Objective”.
There is also a solid link between the Islamic Banking Cooperative, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, The Ford Foundation, Devron Bank of Chicago and the Bank of Indonesia (Stanley A. Dunham was a research coordinator at this bank and a program officer for the Ford Foundation).
Devron began selling Islamic home refinancing products for Muslims to Freddie Mac (see below).
CHICAGOLAND, ILLINOIS – Devon Bank today announced it would begin selling its Islamic home financing products to Freddie Mac, effectively expanding opportunities for Muslims living in Illinois and nine other states to become homeowners while observing traditional Islamic restrictions on paying interest on mortgages and other types of debt. Based in McLean, Va., Freddie Mac is one of the nation’s largest investors in mortgages and Islamic home financing products.
ShoreBank Wins Friends on Wall Street, Critics in Washington
ShoreBank Corp., a small Chicago-based bank whose motto is “Let’s change the world,” today reportedly raised $150 million from a group of large financial services firms including Goldman Sachs Group (GS),GECapital and Citigroup (C), according to the Financial Times.
Some Republicans in Congress are questioning whether politics played a role in the decision of such large firms to assist such a small bank based on the South Side of Chicago.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein played a “personal role” in arranging the rescue, the FT says. A source familiar with the matter tells DailyFinance that Blankfein did “make some calls,” but added that the New York-based bank felt no White House pressure to do so.
Facing Political Pressure?
Charlie Gaspirinoof Fox Business News is reporting that ShoreBank has ties to the Obama administration because Valerie Jarrett, President Obama’s senior adviser, served on the board of Chicago Metropolis 2020, a civic organization run by Adele Simmons, a director at ShoreBank. He also reported that “several executives at Wall Street firms say they are facing some political pressure to bail out the bank from Washington.”
Bloomberg News reported that former ShoreBank executive Robert Weissbourd served on the president-elect’s transition team.
Goldman, which denies Securities and Exchange Commission civil fraud charges that it duped investors into buying mortgage-backed securities that were secretly designed to fail, declined to comment. The investment bank invested $20 million in ShoreBank, a person familiar with the matter says.
ShoreBank, whose work in lending to low-income communities has been praised by President Obama, declined to comment. “We have nothing to say at this point,” bank spokesman Brian Berg says.
Referred to Bank Regulators
The White House denies ShoreBank got any improper help.
“White House officials have not met with ShoreBank regarding support measures for their bank, nor has the White House ‘made asks’ of financial assistance to other financial institutions for ShoreBank,” Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, tells DailyFinance. “Questions that come to the White House from institutions regarding the CDFI [Community Development Financial Institution] program are referred to the Treasury Department or to their bank regulator, who are the ones that decide these matters.”
Rep. Spencer Bachus, (R-AL), the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, is outraged and is demanding an investigation by Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. He is also demanding relevant documents from the White House including any involving Blankfein.
“In a year in which hundreds of banks are expected to fail, it is good news that this troubled institution has managed to survive,” Bachus and Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL) wrote yesterday in a letter to Obama. “The question that many are asking, however, is why did government-supported Wall Street institutions decide to save ShoreBank rather than numerous others that faced a capital shortage.”
ShoreBank, which says it has $2 billion in assets,serves Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland, with a mission to invest “in people and their communities to create economic equity and a healthy environment,”according to its website. Several media reports say that the bank needs to raise as much as $300 million.
Posted by CowGirlFromHell on May 20, 2010 See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/atvJsK
American Spectator: Shoring Up Chicago’s Local Bank
ShoreBank: An Extension of Crime Inc.
Glenn Beck talked quite a bit about ShoreBank on his Fox program today. Big Government has been publishing some incredible investigative reporting on Chicago’s ShoreBank for several months. Links are below. – Reggie
January 19, 2010: Rep. Schakowsky’s ShoreBank Bailout
March 4, 2010: ShoreBank, Sharia Law and Bank Bailouts
March 5, 2010: ShoreBank’s Evolution from Community-Based Banking to the Microfinancing Arena
March 8, 2010: Shorebank: The First ‘Green’ Bank
March 10, 2010: ShoreBank: A Key To Green Jobs
March 13, 2010: The Star Players in the ShoreBank Story
April 4, 2010: ShoreBank: Too Green to Fail?
May 14, 2010: Sachs + Schakowsky+ Shorebank = Shakedown
May 20, 2010: Shorebank Bailout: The Ties that Bind