Freddie, Fannie Funded Jesse Jackson’s Pet Projects

[carpro]

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=32803

Freddie, Fannie Funded Jesse Jackson’s Pet Projects
Tuesday, July 22, 2008

EXCERPT

The NLPC says the management teams of both companies made sizeable contributions to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Citizenship Education Fund Annual Conference, Jackson’s main fundraising event of the year. The conference took place June 28 through July 2 in Chicago.
According to the conference program, obtained by an NLPC staff member who attended the event, Freddie Mac, as a “Platinum Sponsor,” paid $150,000. Fannie Mae paid $100,000 to be listed as a “Diamond Sponsor.”

Both Freddie Mac (The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) and Fannie Mae (The Federal National Mortgage Association) are private corporations chartered by Congress and responsible to the federal government.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Read a little further......
From the link:

Freddie Mac was recognized by the Washington Business Journal and Greater D.C. Cares as the top corporate philanthropist in the Washington region. Freddie Mac and the Freddie Mac Foundation have invested over $348 million in the Washington area since 1991.

Over the past five years, Fannie Mae and its foundation have contributed over $100 million to organizations and initiatives in Washington, D.C.

Wow: so the author of this article chose to write about the $150K that was given by Freddie Mac to Jackson's group, which represents about 0.04% of $348 Million. Was there any mention of the other 99.96% of that money?

BTW, exactly where does the National Legal and Policy Center get THEIR money?

Well, let's just take a look:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1127

I just KNEW that the Scaifes would somehow be involved, and they gave more than $150K, DIDN'T THEY???

Nice job, carpro!
:thumbs:

 

[carpro]

Read a little further......
From the link:


BTW, exactly where does the National Legal and Policy Center get THEIR money?

So you're saying the story isn't true?

Or you just don't object to "private corporations chartered by Congress and responsible to the federal government" using thier money to fund Jackson while the taxpayers eat $25 Billion these two mismanaged giant quasi public corporations squandered away?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

So you're saying the story isn't true?

Nice try at misdirection, carpro. I didn't say anythingabout the validity of the story. I simply pointed out that the group who are bringing up this donation are less than objective, as exhibited by:
1. The amount given to Jackson's projects is a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the money that Freddie Mac has donated to groups such as his. Look at the numbers in the report, and you will see that it is a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the total amount.
2. I never once questioned the validity of the numbers. That is a fact regardless of whether or not you want to acknowledge it.

Or you just don't object to "private corporations chartered by Congress and responsible to the federal government" using thier money to fund Jackson while the taxpayers eat $25 Billion these two mismanaged giant quasi public corporations squandered away?

That's funny: Rush Limbaugh made this point on his show, in terminology very close to what you wrote here. Are you sure you don't listen to him? Isn't it amazing that his comments (or comments very similar) consistently show up on this board? I cannot recall you ever disclosing whether or not you listen to him, so I guess it was simply coincidental.

This, of course, is another simplistic transparent attempt at misdirection. You are interjecting a point that I did not make, and asking me if I object to it.

Interestingly (albeit not surprisingly) you totally evaded my point: that this group is nothing more than a political hack group that has received funding from the Scaifes. You have opted instead to ask me about points I never made, attempting to misdirect the conversation.

Bottom line: once again, your "source" is less than objective. I used the numbers provided by your source to demonstrate that the money involved represents a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the total amount of money. And just think: I used their numbers, taken from the article you provided.

:tonofbricks:

 

[sag38]

While this is a small fraction I wonder if it is not an example of where the rest of the donations went. It takes a person or organization with a particular mind set to give money, no matter the amount, to the likes of Jessie Jackson. I'd like to see more specifics of where these donations went before I could accept Bap in Rich's defense of this practice.

 

[dragonfly]

While this is a small fraction I wonder if it is not an example of where the rest of the donations went. It takes a person or organization with a particular mind set to give money, no matter the amount, to the likes of Jessie Jackson. I'd like to see more specifics of where these donations went before I could accept Bap in Rich's defense of this practice.

What is it with people like you and Carpro?

Baptist in Richmond said nothing about "defending" the practice; he simply commented on the amount Jackson's organization received, which was only a fraction of the money being discussed.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's funny: Rush Limbaugh made this point on his show, in terminology very close to what you wrote here. Are you sure you don't listen to him? Isn't it amazing that his comments (or comments very similar) consistently show up on this board? I cannot recall you ever disclosing whether or not you listen to him, so I guess it was simply coincidental.

Tadaaaa!:laugh:

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

<double post>

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

While this is a small fraction I wonder if it is not an example of where the rest of the donations went. It takes a person or organization with a particular mind set to give money, no matter the amount, to the likes of Jessie Jackson. I'd like to see more specifics of where these donations went before I could accept Bap in Rich's defense of this practice.

Please re-read what I wrote and show me where made a "defense of this practice." The truth is, I didn't write anything in defense of the contribution.

Again, the money given to Jackson's affiliated organizations represents a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the $300-plus million that Freddie Mac gave to organizations. This Scaife-funded organization that published these numbers made mention of the money given to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Citizenship Education Fund Annual Conference, yet made no mention of any other group that received funds.

As for the NPLC, I went to their website, and noticed a few things:

1. At the time I visited the homepage, there were ten press releases. Of these press releases, eight of them involved Charles Rangel, Jesse Jackson, Barack Obama and Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton. Wow: what do these men have in common?

2. The other two press releases involved Wal-Mart, with a link to a page entitled "Wal-Mart embraces the Left." <long pause - :laugh: >

I don't know anything about the NPLC other than what they have offered, but if the Scaifes are involved, the group is less than objective.

Perhaps if this group dicussed more about this large sum of money coming from Freddie Mac (other than the VERY SMALL FRACTION given to Jackson's groups), it might have been considered more objective. Instead, it is demonstrating exactly what it is: an attack piece.

Regards,
BiR

 

[carpro]

That's funny: Rush Limbaugh made this point on his show, in terminology very close to what you wrote here.

Great minds run in the same channels. :thumbs:

If it wasn't for Rush's faithful listeners like you, I'd never know what he says. :laugh:

 

[carpro]

1. The amount given to Jackson's projects is a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the money that Freddie Mac has donated to groups such as his. Look at the numbers in the report, and you will see that it is a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the total amount.

It's also a very small fraction of the $25 Billion bailout.

That makes it ok for you?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

It's also a very small fraction of the $25 Billion bailout.

That makes it ok for you?

Amazing: you start this discussion, and you are the one who cannot even stay on topic. Perhaps you could address the actual subject that you started, rather than interject a completely-unrelated subject into the discussion?

Since you brought it up, why don't you comment about the fact that this donation does indeed represent a VERY SMALL FRACTION of the money Freddie Mac has given out to organizations, or even the legitimacy of the group who certainly looks like another astroturf organization?

After all, you are the one who started this whole thread.........

Great minds run in the same channels. :thumbs:

If it wasn't for Rush's faithful listeners like you, I'd never know what he says. :laugh:

Oh, so are you saying that you don't listen to Rush Limbaugh?
You certainly seem to imply that.

 

[carpro]

Amazing: you start this discussion, and you are the one who cannot even stay on topic. Perhaps you could address the actual subject that you started, rather than interject a completely-unrelated subject into the discussion?

Sorry you can't keep up. I was under the impression you thought Limbaugh was the topic, as usual.

Limbaugh aside...

Based on your comments so far, I would have to say that you seem to be willing to sell your principles cheaply.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Sorry you can't keep up. I was under the impression you thought Limbaugh was the topic, as usual.

Limbaugh aside...

Based on your comments so far, I would have to say that you seem to be willing to sell your principles cheaply.

carpro,

I addressed both the issue you raised as well as the source you referenced, and this is the best you could do?

Amazing: you have hijacked your own discussion!

Please stop misrepresenting what I have written: I did not say anything about whether or not this was legal/moral/appropriate/otherwise. To imply that I have is simply not the truth. Since it was your source, perhaps you could offer something remotely related to the discussion you started.

You really do look foolish.....

P.S. You also didn't answer my direct question to you......again.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

BTW, did you read the New York Times the other day?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html?em

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/24davis.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Hmmmmm......

 

[bobbyd]

NY Times? Nah, I don't bother with them...we've got plenty of TP at my house right now.:laugh:

 

[carpro]

No one looking for straight factual news reads the New York Slimes.