Obama’s politics of Fraud

Print This Article


Political Analysis by John Charlton

obama-fraud1(Dec. 17, 2009) — The Democrat controlled House of Representatives just ram-rodded a financial “reform” bill through, and sent it on to the U.S. Senate.  The politics at play, however, has Barry Soetero’s finger prints all over it.

I use the name he bore in youth and tried to hide throughout his entire presidential campaign, because if there is one theme that explains and characterizes and guides the politics of Barack Hussein Obama throughout his entire adult life, it is the fraudulent pretense to be in favor of one thing, while in truth being in favor of another; to have one identity put forward as “him,” when the reality is that he is someone else.

Obama’s politics of fraud deserves a closer look.

Let’s rewind the clock and summarize what Obama or Soetero, or whatever name he calls himself today, was doing in regards to mortgages, finance, and bank relations, just a few years ago.

First, it is indisputable that the current financial crisis of the United States of America, and consequently of the entire world, was caused by the derivative market; in which paper secured on paper was sold as an investment, instead of the traditional security based investments.

Derivatives were based on mortgage rates; and mortgage rates were a good source of income, except when those mortgages were unsound.

But many a mortgage was unsound, and this was due to the the liberal politics injected into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the likes of Barney Frank.

According to MediaCircus.com, in September of 2000, even the New York Times saw that this was a recipe for failure:

Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

If that failure was widespread enough, it would lead to an economic crisis; and an economic crisis is what Alinsky said was necessary to transform America into a socialized state. When the crisis actually struck, Bush pushed through a TARP bill which saved the banks which were guilty, and let those who were honestly caught up in the mortgage crisis drown.  That increased the crisis and put the U.S. government in the center of a maelstrom from which it seems not able to escape.

But that crisis had players further back, which now came forward proclaiming themselves the saviors in the field where they previously played as enablers.

One such flip-flop, political actor, was and remains Barack Hussein Obama.

On September 19, 2008, MediaCircus.com posted an article exposéing Obama’s involvement in the roots of the economic maelstrom:

Freddie and Fannie used huge lobbying budgets and political contributions to keep regulators off their backs.

A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama.

Now remember, he’s only been in the Senate four years, but he still managed to grab the No. 2 spot ahead of John Kerry — decades in the Senate — and Chris Dodd, who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Fannie and Freddie have been creations of the congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House, designed to make mortgages available to more people and, as it turns out, some people who couldn’t afford them.

The link to this MediaCircus article includes a video, wherein Daniel Mudd, the interim CEO of Fannie Mae called Obama and the Democrats, the “family conscience” of their company!

But Obama was more than the conscience of Fannie Mae, he represented clients who sued Citicorp Bank to force it to give mortgages to the unworthy.

This was exposéd in a MediaCircus.com report of Oct. 8, 2008:

Do you remember how we told you that the Democrats and groups associated with them leaned on banks and even sued to get them to make bad loans under the Community Reinvestment Act which was a factor in causing the economic crisis (see HERE ) … well look at what some fellow bloggers have dug up while researching Obama’s legal career. Looks like a typical ACORN lawsuit to get banks to hand out bad loans.

In these lawsuits, ACORN makes a bogus claim of Redlining (denying poor people loans because of their ethnic heritage). They protest and get the local media to raise a big stink. This stink means that the bank faces thousands of people closing their accounts and get local politicians to lobby to stop the bank from doing some future business, expansions and mergers. If the bank goes to court, they will win, but the damage is already done because who is going to launch a big campaign to get the bank’s reputation back?

It is important to understand the nature of these lawsuits and what their purpose is. ACORN filed tons of these lawsuits and ALL of them allege racism.

MediaCircus then gives a link to the docket of the case which names Obama as counsel for 2 plaintiffs:

Case Name

Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois

Case Summary

Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

Barack H. Obama, as member of the law firm known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland, P.C.,  is listed as representing plaintiffs Selma S Buycks-Roberson and Calvin R. Roberson in the case.

The case never completed trial, since an out of court settlement was reached by the parties.  Nevertheless Obama’s team of lawyers had the chutzpah to seek to force the defendants to pay their legal fees; and the court granted them this:

MINUTE ORDER of 5/7/98 by Hon. Ruben Castillo : Enter order. Plaintiffs’ petition for attorneys’ fees is granted. [174-1] The Court hereby awards plaintiffs’ a total of $950,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Mailed notice (eav) (Entered: 05/08/1998)

This case took place just over 11 years ago.  Obama and his indigent clients made off with a bundle, the bank’s loss resulted in higher mortgage rates for decent hard-working folk like you and me.

That’s the Change Obama was working for.

His new financial bill, according to Representative Bachmann, allows ACORN to sit on regulatory panels which oversee — surprise, surprise! — mortgages and banks. Obama says that the time has come for the banks to come clean and start treating common Americans fairly.  From what has been cited above, you can now understand what he means by those words.

That’s the Change Obama will be working for.

© 2009, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: White House