H/T RCP:

Breitbart Reports: US Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday announced a fine of $335 million against Bank of American unit Countrywide over allegations it charged African-Americans and Hispanics more for loans.

The Justice Departmentsaid around 200,000 qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were charged with higher rates “solely because of their race or national origin.”

“Today’s settlement makes clear that today’s Justice Department… will not hesitate to aggressively hold lenders, including the nation’s largest, accountable for discrimination and financial misconduct,” said Holder.

The discrimination was said to have taken place from 2004 through 2008, before Bank of Americabought Countrywide.

The settlement provides $335 million in compensation for victims.

]]> http://gestetnerupdates.com/2011/12/22/bank-of-america-to-pay-335-million-for-discrimination/feed/ 3 http://gestetnerupdates.com/2011/06/24/delta-airlines-is-spinning-after-turbulence-from-jewish-voices/ http://gestetnerupdates.com/2011/06/24/delta-airlines-is-spinning-after-turbulence-from-jewish-voices/#comments Fri, 24 Jun 2011 07:16:29 +0000 Yossi Gestetner http://yossigestetner.com/?p=1634 Jewish groups and voices came out swinging against Delta Airlines for a report that the airline is forbidding Jews from flying with them on flights to Saudia Arabia. In a statement the Airline explains that Saudia Arabia is the one …

Read more »

In response to the story that Dee Tzeitung, a Brooklyn-based Hasidic Newspaper, removed State Secretary Hillary Clinton from the “Iconic WH Photo” because maybe the paper does not like women in power, let me write as follows:

In my capacity as a PR Consultant within the Orthodox Jewish/Hasidic communities, I often do business with Dee Tzeitung. The pricing and exact page placing of each ad is negotiated with the Wife of the paper’s Editor In Chief; she mostly runs the show. Therefore, to suggest that the paper removed Hillary because it has an issue with women in power, is nuts. In addition, during the 2008 Presidential Primary, the paper was rooting for Hillary who got a lot Hasidic votes in her 2006 U.S. Senate bid.

Not showing the women in the White House photo, goes in line with the Hasidic custom of full scale modesty, regardless how well-dressed the women are in the photo.  You will in fact never see a Hasidic couple showing much affection to each other in public (and by most, not even in the house in front of the children!)

Now with a political question: If as many reports suggested that Di Tzeitung removed the two women from the photo because the paper “has an issue” with women in power, can we ask if Obama has an issue with women and minorities in positions of power? After all, few of them made it to the photo in the first place… Of the fifteen-sixteen people in the photo, only two are women; one (the President) is half Black, and I did not see a Hispanic there either.

Sign up HERE to receive my posts via e-mail. Only an e-mail address is needed to complete the sign up!

Read my Twitter Account @yossigestetner that has many updates during the day (and night…).

Contact: yossi@yossigestetner.com

Time’s Joe Klein said today that the Right failed in painting Mrs. Obama as the angry Black woman.

Em, I don’t recall Conservatives trying to undermine Mrs. Obama as a person. Can Joe give me five examples of lead Right wingers trying to do it? Indeed, the Right is against Mrs. Obama’s moves to replace the mother of children with Government. But is the right painting her as an angry Black Woman? No. In fact, I didn’t know that Black women are supposed to be angry in the first place.

Funny is that the after Klein said, “She didn’t give them a chance” to paint her as an angry Black women, the host Chris Matthews said “They were looking for that.” Again, I don’t recall Right wingers looking for that, nor do I recall Conservatives talking of black women as being angry by default.

Perhaps, leftist like Matthews and Klein think that Blacks are an angry breed, and therefore they – the Leftist – believe that the Right thinks the same.

]

]

Sign up here to receive my posts FREE via E-Mail. Only your e-mail address is needed. It takes 42 seconds. Posts arrive only once a day.

In a new book, due out Monday, two writers reveal the real face of the so-called “pro-minority” party, a.k.a. “the Democrats.”

While speaking about President Obama to then-living Senator Ted Kennedy, former President Clinton said that “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee…” Yes, you read it: the first “black” President viewed Obama as some good-for-nothing, coffee delivery boy.

In the same year, Senate Democrats leader Reid said that Obama is “light skinned… with no Negro dialect.” Let me make sure you saw the words correct: Obama is “light-skinned, with no Negro dialect,” according to one of the top people in the party that “cares” so “much” for minorities!

Conservatives for years now have claimed that Dems are Racist, and that all the “pro-poor” programs pushed by Dems are rooted in racism. Democrats, all the way to the top, basically look down at African Americans, Conservatives claimed. Indeed, Dems view Blacks as coffee delivery boys that can’t even utter an English word without mixing up the alphabets.

Shame on you, Racist Dems!

Sadly about all this is, that year after year, election after every election, the African American vote goes solidly to the Democrats. Every Dem Presidential candidate in recent decades, regardless how weak he scored by the general population, received upwards of 80 percent of the African-American vote, including the “coffee delivery boy” Clinton who got even a larger percent.

As long minorities stick with the Dems party, yeah, the same party who wanted to keep them as Slaves, most of them will not get a real chance at the American dream because with their vote, minorities empower blatant RACISTS, aka DEMOCRATS, to enact laws, regulations and policies that keep minorities in the dumps.

At fault here are the “leaders” of the minority groups that will NOT ask for Reid’s head, and they will NOT stop inviting Clinton to give speeches to Black-oriented organizations. These “leaders” are self-serving, and are in this for power and popularity. They will do anything and everything to make sure that the African-American vote goes blindly for the racist Dems, which in turn keeps them, the leaders and their groups, with the most power and popularity possible, regardless if it means that Blacks get hurt by all those “pro-minority” policies pushed by America’s Racist Party.

Don’t forget to sign-up here to receive my writings directly into your inbox.

Responses were many on my writing, “Why Don’t Jews Have an Al Sharpton.” People pointed out that the Jews have their own share of Sharpton’s, between others Dove Hikind, Abe Foxman, and a host of Jewish groups that represent and defend Jews.

I have no problem with groups representing or defending the rights of Blacks, Hispanics or Jews. However the fact that the responses to my initial writing listed a few Jewish names and groups proves my very point: people think of a half a dozen Jewish names that might fit Sharpton’s shoes, instead of everyone thinking of the same one name, like it is with Sharpton in context of the Black community.

Number two: Hikind and the others do not have the clout that Sharpton has to make political and media figures jump, which proves that none of them are a Sharpton.

Number three: Take a poll of the general US population. You will likely find that for every person that knows the name Hikind or Foxman, ten times more people know Sharpton. So at the end of the day, for whatever positive or negative reasons, Jews do not have an Al Sharpton.

The best reply to my writing was the following (it was posted on a different website):

 “Opinion: Why We Blacks Don’t Have a Bernie Madoff

by Alfred Charles Sharpton, Jr.

…”

Yes, you’ll tell me that there are such organizations as the Jewish Defense League that sometimes make noise when acts are inappropriately done against Jews. Fine, I hear you, but no specific Jewish leader has the name recognition that gets called onto media programs following anti-Semitic related events. Nor does any Jewish leader have the clout that forces politicians to stand with them at press conferences the way NYC boss Mike Bloomberg stood with Al Sharpton following the shooting death of Sean Bell, which was not even a racial incident. So, why is that? Why don’t Jews have such a representative like the Reverend Alfred Charles Sharpton?

The answers are many…
1) Jews and their leaders are peaceful in nature and have the tendency to look forward rather than back. Instead of kvetching all day about anti-Semitism and all the wrong that was done to Jews decades or centuries ago, Jews in general focus mostly on family and business. No, they don’t forget that a Holocaust happened and that anti-Semitism is still alive, but they expend most of their energy on helping their family and business thrive. I mean, really, when was the last time you saw Jews rioting in the streets following the death of a Jew, or looting stores in blackouts or floods under the excuse of being oppressed in Egypt 3,500 years ago, or tortured by the Inquisition 550 years ago? In the African American community, however, some vocal people (mainly in leadership positions) focus on the whites that are out to bite the Black man. Can someone send these leaders the following memo: Blacks have been able to vote decades, and slavery ended more than a century ago. Heck, we have a Black President, yet some people in the Black community still see race and racism on every street corner, while Jews on the other hand, see money and the chance of earning a buck at every street corner. The Jewish approach, while disdained by some, is productive and society-friendly.

2) Overplaying the race card for personal publicity or financial gain like Sharpton does, only incites racial feelings where it would otherwise not be. To avoid such tensions, responsible Jewish leaders do not use the anti-Semitism card, sometimes even in cases where it may warrant strong use. Jewish leaders, certainly from the Ultra Orthodox sect, would rather have a tepid response to an anti-Semitic slur than overplay their hands and run the risk of flaming up anti-Semitic sentiments.

3) Sharpton, while “protecting” blacks from racist acts, is actually a mobster. He gives protection to those who are on his side, while crushing those who are on the other side. Here are just a few examples: when Joe Biden called Obama a “clean” man, and a LA Times reporter describe Obama as a “Magic Negro,” neither of the two got any heat for it. Yet Rush Limbaugh was not able to buy a sports team because he said a while ago that the Media supports a certain sportsman just for his skin color. So, in order to be on Sharpton’s “good side,” journalists and politicians prop him up. In the Jewish community, however, there is no major figure going around deciding who is an anti-Semite or not. Therefore, there is no need to “buy protection” from Jews who stand up against anti-Semitism. Thus, no Jewish representative has the universal recognition of being a “civil right” leader.

4) Some anti-Semitism is manufactured directly from our very own Liberal Jews, such as some mebers of the Media. The Media, which has A LOT of Jewish reporters, overplayed that “Jews and Rabbis” were among the 44 people arrested a while ago in NY and NJ. As a result, how can Jewish leaders condemn anti-Semitism when some of this problem stems from our very own backyard? Sharpton, on the other hand has some sort of Chutzpa that permits him to protest White Vs Black acts, yet completely ignore all the Black Vs Black problems in his community.

5) Liberal Jews look down at the more observant Jews. The Leftist Jews use such “gang of 44” instances to tell themselves that ‘We are not as dirty as Hasidism. We are better than them’ (of course if you don’t count Madoff). In order to distance themselves from other Jews, these very media people will not come to the defense of Orthodox Jews when they get put down by non-Jews, forgetting that Hitler didn’t care if a Jews’ name was Blitzer, Friedman or Lefkowitz. Once the media is not there, no politician is there either, thus Jews have no Al Sharpton even in cases when such a figure has a substantive and productive use.

All in all I am sure Jews can continue to live without an Al Sharpton, yet it would be good if African Americans let go of him too. It will lift up the black community even more and move the US further away from racial divides.

I am totally not a sports fan, and I actually have no clue how the NFL works, but I do know how to read comments of people, including the one Rush Limbaugh made six years ago, comments that were his biggest hurdle in obtaining some sort of ownership in the Rams.

Just to refresh your memory, Limbaugh in 2003 said that Donovan McNabb is “overrated,” and “The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.” A fire storm broke out due to this “racial” slur, and Limbaugh steeped down from his ESPN commentary job.

Until today, I still do not get one thing: the media, who are mostly people of the left, DO want to see African Americans do well, this is why the left supports Affirmative Action which basically gives a kick-start to people based on their skin color, rather than focusing on talent and skill. Limbaugh, in his mind didn’t (and still does not) think that McNabb is good, yet the media are so excited with McNabb. Why, you ask? Well, the media people – says Limbaugh in his ’03 commentary – are liberals who support Affirmative Action, and they are therefore very desirous that a black does well even if that African American is not up for the job.

This is what Limbaugh said, in essence. I am adding that if you liberal claim that Limbaugh’s statement is “racist,” you are in other words saying that Affirmative Action is racist, because after all Limbaugh merely pointed out that the media’s love for McNabb is based on Affirmative Action, not on professionalism.

Speaking of race in context of the NFL, chew this for launch: 1) 66% of NFL players are African American, while African Americans are just approximately 14% of the general U.S. population. 2) Not one National Football League team owner is Black.

New York – Despite all racial barriers that were broken down through the years here in the United States, the sad fact remains that racial sentiments is still a factor in America, and has increased with a frightening 112% since the first week of President Obama taking the oath of office.

We all heard recently that race plays a role in the fact that “some” people do not like the work of President Obama. Former President Clinton and President Obama himself both claimed in recent days that “some” critics are racially motivated. Considering that none of the two leaders gave a specific number what percentage of critics are racial-based, let us say that just 5% (one twentieth) of Obama critics fit this mold.

Going with this thinking, yossigestetner.com reviewed the President’s Job Approval Index comprised by Rasmussen, which calculates the percentage of people strongly approving vs. those strongly disapproving of the President’s work. On January 24, after three full days in office, only eighteen percent strongly disapproved of Obama’s work. However today, September 23, the number is up to 38%, an increase of 112%. In other words, racial sentiment also increased by 112%, because it is impossible to think that anything but race plays a role to “some” of Obama critics, and since the amount of Obama critics increased by 112%, we must conclude that the “some” class also increased, likely by the same 112%.

NOTE (added Feb 1, 2010) TO DUMB-HEADS: The following article is sarcasm. Read on; you will “get it.”

Yes dear reader, I am admitting to you that I am a racist! I don’t like President Obama, nor do I like my state’s governor Paterson, both of them are African American.

You see, I am totally in favor of the U.S. losing control of the situation in Iraq; the military having its worst months ever in Afghanistan, and the world’s most unpredictable nations moving ahead with WMD programs, while the U.S. gives up its plan for a land-based missile defense system in Eastern Europe. In addition, I am all for the Labor Unions, who ran to the ground the U.S. auto industry, getting a bigger piece of the Auto pie than did the secure creditors, and the unions having their bullies run Town Hall meetings rather than peaceful citizens having their say. I am all for this. Furthermore, I support the U.S. running up deficits 40%-50% bigger than what was expected back in December, and how can I be against the national unemployment rate that is now at just 9.7%? I also support a stimulus bill that six months later still has the economy losing more jobs than the economy lost before the panic of the Lehman collapse gripped the nation.

But despite being in support of all these policies, I still do not approve of the job President Obama is doing. You sure wonder why, right? Well simple, I am racist! I cannot stand African Americans in leadership positions. Why do you all think I hate Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court Justice, and Condi Rice being a few years ago the first female African American secretary of state? Simple: I hate African Americans. Ooops, my mistake. I just noticed that I actually love the fact that Mr. Thomas is on the court, and I still like how Ms. Rice spoke in public on vital issues.

Here in NY is the same thing. I am so proud of my state, between others how the Legislator was the laughing stock of the world without the governor having a clue how to get things under control, and how in this recession Governor Paterson used most of the Stimulus money for increased spending rather than covering current expenditures. I am so proud of this state’s motor vehicle administration, where it takes a damn few hours to change a stupid address on a driver’s license. I am SO in love with all this, but I still don’t want Governor Paterson to run for reelection next year. You know why? You got it: because he is black. Ill rather have a state with such weird things like a functioning Legislator and motor vehicle system; lower taxes, and lower unemployment rate, than actually having an African American as my governor for one more day.

Until a short while ago, I lived in New York’s Village of Spring Valley where village tax under the current Mayer’s eight year administration went up almost double than under his predecessor, yet the village still doesn’t have an extra dime in its coffers. In addition, the Police harass people for miner things, and one of the most important roads in the area is locked down for almost two years due to a stretch of less than two-hundred feet that the village still didn’t figure out how to fix. I would have given the current mayor high marks for his great work, if not for the fact that he is African American.

 You see, I liked his predecessor. You know why? Because he was a White man. Oops, wrong again, he is actually Black too. So why did I like the predecessor’s  work so much that I would want him back controlling the village where I grew up in? ah, I get it. He balanced budgets, cut wasteful spending and had a friendly Police Department.

I am so filled with hate, that I don’t even know what I support and why I support it.