A few weeks ago I posted the analysis by Robert Fitch, an old white power-to-the-proles lefty, of Obama's role in Chicago's real estate wars.
Now in the Daily Caller, Neil Munro has a long article shedding light on President Obama's role in Chicago's real estate disaster, using as a focal point the one case in which Obama ever spoke up in court (according to a 2008 Chicago Sun-Times article), a disparate impact discrimination lawsuit against Citibank to get more mortgages for minorities.
President Barack Obama wants his 2012 re-election campaign to focus on Gov. Mitt Romney’s private-sector record, but his own private-sector history shows that he promoted and profited from the nation’s disastrous real-estate bubble.
One striking example comes from the president’s 1995 housing-discrimination class action lawsuit: It provided him with legal fees, greased his political donations and boosted his role in Chicago politics.
While he made personal gains, his lead African-American client, Selma Buycks-Roberson, declared bankruptcy in 2001 — and again in 2008 as she received a home foreclosure notice, according to unpublicized federal and city records obtained by The Daily Caller.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
10 comments:
But but but but he's a COMMUNISS!
Obama was a slumlord?
OT: I just noticed that The American Conservative has a new better website, and you can see all of Steve's articles in one place:
TAC: Steve Sailer
The odd thing is that Obama's doesn't really want the election to focus on Romney's private sector record. I realize that he has tried to make it an issue, but his efforts so far have been much weaker than that of Romney's opponents such as Gingrich in the primaries.
Obama's campaign team could be holding stuff back for the last week of the election, when it would be difficult for the Romney campaign to counter it.
An alternative explanation is that Obama's chief donors did the same type of stuff as Romney is accused of doing (basically buying companies and stripping them of their assets), the Obama administration has been enabling this administration, and they don't want the blowback.
Contrast how the Obama campaign has handled Bain Capital with how the Bush campaign handled Kerry's record in Vietnam.
Only one black person sacrificed at the altar of Obama's ambition?
If one can't exploit their own group then who can you stick it to? Politicians gather together a base so they can later trade them off like so many baseball cards.
I understand the current head of Bain Capital is an Obama supporter.
Makes sense, actually, it's a sort of principal-agent problem. You have these groups designed to further the interests of some ethnic/religious/gender/whatever group, who have interests, and then the interests of the people running the group. Why does the NAACP waste time on elite college admissions, when most African-Americans would be better served by getting manufacturing going again? Why does the National Council of La Raza focus on making sure Hispanics never assimilate (which keeps them in place) rather than encouraging assimilation, which would actually help most Hispanics a lot more? Why does NOW agitate for insurance funding for contraception and gay marriage rather than making it easier for women to stay home with their kids (which a lot of women would rather do)?
Because the interests of the elites are different from the interests of the populace, and people have a good capacity for furthering their own interests and then convincing themselves they're acting for the group's benefit.
Only one black person sacrificed at the altar of Obama's ambition?
Steve was one of the first [if not THE FIRST] pundits to tie the economic collapse in 2008 to the Community Reinvestment Act and the Fannie/Freddie liar-loan-mortgages to minorities [especially in the Sand States].
What he is relishing here [if I may be so bold as to speak for him] is that when Obama jumped on the CRA bandwagon, back in 1994, the client he chose to represent would subsequently declare bankruptcy not once, but TWICE.
So Obama is the poster child for the liberal-dogooder legalistic asininities* which led DIRECTLY to the greatest economic crisis since the 1930s.
*That's being generous and assuming that it wasn't all intentionally planned by the likes of Cloward and Piven.
How bright actually is the President? His grades at Occidental were not good. He did not make high school National Merit
semi finalist. There is scant record of anything he contributed to the Harvard Law Review. Where's
the beef?
Post a Comment