Posted on 09/25/2009 11:21:32 AM PDT by Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo
1) Circa 1994/1995, Bill Ayers ghostwrites Dreams from My Father.
2) Barack Hussein Obama Jr thereby agrees to the publication of a fictional account of his own life, which includes a tale of a bogus Caucasian girlfriend who is in fact based on William Ayers's memories of his deceased lover, Diana Oughton.
3) Diana Oughton has perished in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion of 1970, and Ayers has gone on to marry Bernardine Dohrn [Ohrnstein] during his period in hiding.
4) Bernadine Dohrn [Ohrnstein] has received her JD in 1967, from the University of Chicago Law School, but does not return to gainful employment until circa 1984, when she finds work at Sidley-Austin, LLP, of Chicago.
5) During her time at Sidley-Austin, Bernadine Dohrn [Ohrnstein] works with a young intern and lawyer named Michelle LaVaughn Robinson.
6) Since 1965, Newton Minow has been a partner & senior counsel at Sidley-Austin.
7) Circa 1987/1988, Newton Minow's daughter, Martha, is instrumental [along with Ayers and Khalid Al-Mansour] in getting Barack Hussein Obama Jr admitted to Harvard Law School.
8) Now fast forward to 2007 & 2008 & 2009, when Goldman Sachs bets its portfolio of Liar Loans against the short-traders then coordinates the Obama campaign from within the Bush Treasury Department and sabotages the McCain campaign from within the Bush Treasury Department and hoodwinks George Bush into signing the TARP and receives tens of billions of dollars stolen from the American taxpayer and laundered through AIG and emerges from the collapse of the markets as the dominant force in NYSE program trading and transforms those tens of billions of dollars [stolen from the American taxpayer] into record bonus payouts in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
9) In July of 2009, Matt Taibbi publishes a blistering exposé of Goldman Sachs.
10) Nell Minow, daughter of Newton and sister of Martha, is immediately dispatched to spearhead the campaign to destroy Matt Taibbi.
11) Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs, along with subprime lender Credit Suisse, has come to dominate a particularly odious form of chicanery known as DARK POOL TRADING.
12) In turn, Credit Suisse's Steven Koch has been a major donor to the Obama campaign, leading bundling efforts which run from at least March of 2007 all the way through to December 26, 2008 [at which time he is joined by Goldman Sachs's Bruce A. Heyman and Sidley-Austin's John Levi].
13) In the meantime, Bernardine Dohrn [Ohrnstein] has found work as an Associate Professor at Northwestern University School of Law.
14) And in 1998, Bernardine Dohrn [Ohrnstein] delivers the paper "Another Kind of Innocence: Children and the Death Penalty" at the National Conference on the Death Penalty and the Wrongfully Convicted, Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, IL.
15) But Credit Suisse's Steven Koch sits on the Advisory Board of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law, is on the Honor Roll of Non-Alumni Donors of the Friends of Northwestern University School of Law, and is a member of the John Henry Wigmore Club of Donors to the Northwestern University School of Law.
16) And Steven Koch serves as a member of the Law School Visiting Committee of the University of Chicago Law School, which has employed Barack Hussein Obama Jr as an untenured lecturer.
17) And finally, Steven Koch has served as a member of the Board of Trustees of Francis W Parker School, while William Ayers, on the other hand, is a Consulting Editor of Francis W Parker's Schools Journal, he has published the paper, A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire: Teaching Toward Transformation, in Vol. 3, No. 2 of Schools Journal, and his Curriculum Vitae indicates the following presentations: The Art of the Personal Essay: Writing Our Lives Francis Parker School, Chicago, IL, October 19, 2004; Writing Our Lives, Francis W. Parker School, April 19, 2004; Fugitive Days - Then and Now, Francis W. Parker School, April 5, 2004; and Hidden Questions, Francis W. Parker School, Chicago, Illinois, December 1, 2000.
Yes, I think I’m beginning to understand. It’s almost like insider trading, the ones in the “in crowd” get a head’s up about a large transaction about to take place, and Goldman Sachs has a deal to place their (the favored customer) order first before the other order is placed, thus the favored customer gets the stock at a lower price but it is done through this pool so no one can really see what is going on. Not sure if that is correct but that is how I’m understanding it.
Bookmarked for later in depth reading. Did you send this to Beck?
Here's an outstanding post on the Obama team's methodology.
MHGinTN POSTED: The Axelrod methodology of Layering Lies:
Obama started with a ‘who?’ when Bill Ayers was raised by the media........then it segues to a 'well'.....
There was the ‘well, perhaps they met because their children attend the same schools’ (Mara Liasson tried that lie right before the election on FOX Special Report, and no one raised an eyebrow to correct her idiocy).
Then there was...... ‘well, he’s a college professor who lives in my neighborhood.’
Then there was the..... ‘well, I think we served on an Annenberg board overseeing an educational program in Chicago, but I don’t know the guy personally.’
Then, ‘I don’t really know about Ayers’ past, I was only six when all that stuff you're referring to took place.’
The idea is to layer on lies, adding only what is needed to placate the particular challenge that the enemedia will repeat for them.
The process was used with Obama’s commie friends, his hidden history, the Reverend Wright, etc. The process was even used with the Larry Sinclair embarrassment. On ABC, Obama finessed his close association with ACORN by stating, 'well, that's not the biggest problem facing the country.'
SOURCE: FR THREAD 9/24: Andersen Book Blows Ayers' Cover re 'Dreams From My Father'
Geitner via Granny Dunhman bank in Hawaii... (tax cheat head of IRS).
One conservative columnist summed it up best:
Obama got elected, and suddenly it was "Olly, Olly octen free."
All the left-wing weirdos and villains came out of hiding, set free by Obama to do their evil deeds.
Interesting , from your article Kelly is now dead,
Christopher Kelly died September, Ties to Blagojevich and Rezko
Obama's advisor Valerie Jarret also has ties to Rezko
Folks might be interested in comparing the compilation of material presented by sheik to SAAD’s material.
(Notice Sheik ends with Soros)
GLenn needs to put it all together in one program.
FOX needs to add a second hour of Beck to cover all the material freepers have investigated.
Glenn Beck = me@glennbeck.com
“I don’t know if there are words to describe just how evil these people really are.”
Your graphic and verbiage did the job.
Thanks for the ping JVB!
” The idea is to layer on lies, adding only what is needed to placate the particular challenge that the enemedia will repeat for them.
The process was used with Obama’s commie friends, his hidden history, the Reverend Wright, etc. The process was even used with the Larry Sinclair embarrassment. On ABC, Obama finessed his close association with ACORN by stating, ‘well, that’s not the biggest problem facing the country.’ “
The SOB just refused to answer altogether on ACORN. May he rot in hell.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5989163.ece
Soros take on letting Lehamn Brothers die.
I posted the chart and links from here on our blog http://democratsforsale.blogspot.com and this is the comment that came in this evening when I was gone. Usually comment on a post but this time I let it stand for itself and sourced it to this link at FR. Nell Minow must have missed the sourcing after this reply on our blog. I posted back that we posted in as a stand alone without our comments and the source was at the bottom of the document. Thought you would all be interested in what Nell Minnow had to say:
Nell Minow said...
Evil? Your unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and defamatory allegations at least reach the level of bearing false witness. I am not in any way conceding the validity of any of the points you made when I limit myself to correcting the record on the defamatory and false statement about me. The only thing you are correct about is that I am the daughter of Newton Minow and the sister of Martha Minow. But not only was I never “immediately dispatched to spearhead the campaign to destroy Matt Taibbi,” that brief statement contains three separate lies. No one “dispatched” me. The only involvement I ever had with Taibbi’s article was that I answered the phone when a reporter called me and made a comment about his article. Not only am I not involved with, much less spearheading a campaign against Taibbi; the most ludicrous point of all is that I support and endorse Taibbi’s Goldman article.
I have spent much of my career complaining about the same kinds of issues he documents; my comment was that if anything he underestimates the scope of the patterns of bad behavior, that it was a systemic problem, and that it can only be addressed by looking at all financial services companies.
Please be more careful in the future. These wild, false, frothing at the mouth ravings do not do you any good, especially when you cannot tell the difference between spearheading an assault on someone and endorsing his findings.
September 26, 2009 5:46 PM
Very interesting .. Nell Minow responds ... PING!
and so quickly!?
Thanks for pinging! I almost fell off my chair when I got home and saw she had replied to the post on the blog. Couldn’t wait to post it here.
Can tell you I was shocked when I got home and saw I had a post to moderate and it was her. This was the last thing I expected. Don’t know how she found it either unless someone is now following our blog, Democrats for Sale!
Interesting....Hit a nerve?
I can imagine!
.........
From Mike Taibbi: July 7, 2009:
On The ‘Everyone Was Doing It’ Excuse
“The [Rolling Stone] article makes a very compelling case against Goldman Sachs, but I think the problems it identifies are pervasive in financial firms and corporate America in general,” says Nell Minow, who is the co-founder of the Corporate Library, a research firm that tracks corporate-governance issues. “We need to launch substantive financial reform rather than weighing the faults of one firm versus another.” Minow’s point is this: spend too much time on Goldman and you miss the fact of how broadly the financial system and the regulations that are supposed to keep profiteers in check failed us. And she’s right.
via Goldman Sachs vs. Rolling Stone: A Wall Street Smackdown – TIME.
(snip)
According to Steven Gandel of Time, the problem with my piece is that it is — get this — too specific. According to the above passage, focusing on Goldman in particular when attempting to explain (in general) the crimes of Wall Street to ordinary readers is somehow a distraction from the “real problem.” To repeat:
…spend too much time on Goldman and you miss the fact of how broadly the financial system and the regulations that are supposed to keep profiteers in check failed us.
I had to read that passage several times to even begin to grasp its ostensible meaning. Apparently this is the best argument that Time could come up with to discredit this article, that the rhetorical technique of using a specific example of a specific bank like Goldman to tell a broader story about Wall Street in general distracts readers from the “more important” issue of how government regulators… failed to stop banks like Goldman! I mean, really, how’s that for circular thinking? This is silly stuff even by Time magazine’s standards.
I’ve been shocked by how many grown adult people seem to have swallowed this argument, that the argument against Goldman’s behavior during the bubbles of recent decades is invalid because “everyone was doing it” — and other banks, like for instance Morgan Stanley, were “just as bad” as Goldman was.
Two things about that. One, it isn’t true, not really. By any reasonable measure Goldman is and has been the baddest guy on the block for a long time. When it comes to government influence, no other Wall Street company even comes close. And while maybe one might have made an argument that other players were more damaging to society before the crisis of last year, there’s simply no question now, after the bailouts and especially after the AIG fiasco, that Goldman now reigns supreme in the area of insider advantage. To pick any other bank to tell the story of the rapidly growing influence of Wall Street on politics and the blurring of public and private roles would be a glaring journalistic oversight, and surely even Goldman’s biggest supporters would admit this.
Two, even if it is true that “everyone else was doing it”: so what? Who cares? To me this response is highly telling. We published a piece accusing Goldman Sachs of systematically ripping off pensioners and other retail investors by sticking them with rafts of toxic mortgages it knew were losers, of looting taxpayer reserves to cover its bad bets made with AIG, of manipulating gas prices to massive detrimental effect, of helping to explode an internet bubble that caused over $5 trillion in wealth to disappear, and numerous other crimes — and the response isn’t “You’re wrong,” or “We didn’t do that shit, not us,” but “Well, Morgan did the same stuff,” and “Why aren’t you writing about Morgan?”
(snip)
Normally I don’t care so much when people criticize my work. It goes with the territory. But in this case, the response of a bank like Goldman and Goldman’s supporters is characteristic of the subject matter in a way that is important to point out, even after the fact of publication. These are powerful people who know how to play the public relations game, have all the appropriate contacts, and have a playbook that they follow to discredit their critics. Whether it’s me now or the next guy who takes them on, they’re going to come back with some kind of charge, be it “Everyone was doing it,” or “We’re just smarter than the other guys, you can’t blame us for that,” or “The real culprits are the ineffective regulators,” something.
They’re going to say that and more, but whether it’s this time or the next time, the important thing is to pay attention to what they don’t say. And what they didn’t say about this piece is that it was wrong. They didn’t deny any of it. They said others were just as bad, they said I was a bad guy, they said it was a conspiracy theory. But they didn’t say it was mistaken, and that’s the only thing that matters.
http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/07/07/on-the-everyone-was-doing-it-excuse/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.