Jack Lew
If I were to tell you that President Obama had nominated a man for Treasury secretary who had an account in the Cayman Islands, had received a million-dollar bonus from Citi Bank even as that company was insolvent and was receiving billions in bailout money from the government, you might think that Obama had chosen Mitt Romney. After all, didn't Obama basically run his campaign against Romney on the charge that he was fat-cat business guy with accounts stashed away in the Caymans and that he could never relate to common folks like us?
Meet Jack Lew, one of Obama's hacks, who is the nominee to run the Treasury Department succeeding tax-cheat Tim Turbo-Tax) Geithner.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/14/Jack-Lew-Holds-Cayman-Islands-Fund-Obama-Called-Largest-Tax-Scam-In-The-World
Well, why not? Obama has nominated John Brennan for CIA chief, a man who speaks Arabic but has no clue as to who are enemies are in the Middle East, John Kerry, who everybody agrees is a windbag, to be our top diplomat and Chuck Hagel for Defense secretary even though he thinks the US should unilaterally disarm when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Lew will fit right in.
I caught an interesting little blurb in Lew’s testimony which again points up the illogic/hypocritical nature of libs/Dems, particularly the current herd of them.
ReplyDeleteAs I caught it, Lew was formerly an/the Executive VP of NYU and was involved in financial affairs/investments of that institution. When questioned as to whether he was involved in the university’s endowment fund investment in accounts in the Caymans, he testified that he had no recall of being specifically involved in those investment decisions, but was involved in decisions which would “maximize” the return on the endowment investment.
This would appear to indicate that in his view, it is perfectly OK for institutions of higher learning to make as much money as possible on their investments, while private corporations and individuals, or at least highly-paid individuals, except maybe for himself, are not entitled or permitted to do so.
It is to my mind at least a little bit analgous, in a non-financial manner, to recent statements possibly/probably by (the memory really is the first thing to go, I need to start taking notes), the ranking member of the House committee which had/has hearings going on relative to immigration. I stand to be corrected as to the identity of the speaker, who was most definitely a Dem, but NOT as to the substance of the statements.
This individual stated that the hope was that the term “illegal immigrant” would not be used during the hearings, further stating that such people were not really “illegal” but were instead merely “out of status”. One one occasion they were actually referred to as “citizens” (which they definitely are not, even though many act like they are, particularly in terms of voting), and on another as “new Americans”, which again they are not (at least not yet), but soon will be if Obama and most other libs/Dems have their way.