Saturday, October 8, 2011

So this is one of the guys who created the sub-prime mortgage collapse...

Just in case you thought the President was the victim of a bad economy that he didn't help create:

In His Activist Days Obama Sued Banks to Ease Lending Practices… Now He’s Suing Banks For Risky Mortgages
Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, September 2, 2011, 3:59 PM

In his early activist days, Barack Obama the community organizer sued banks to ease their lending practices. Now his administration is suing banks for issuing risky mortgages.
State Sen. Barack Obama and Fr. Michael Pfleger led a protest in Chicago in January 2000. (NBC 5 Week of January 3, 2000)
Breaking on FOX News…
The Federal Housing Finance Agency announced late this afternoon that it had sued 17 large banks for risky mortgages.
The Street reported:
The Federal Housing Finance Agency announced Friday afternoon that it had sued 17 large banks, alleging violations of federal securities laws in the sale of mortgage-backed securities to government-sponsored enterprises, including Fannie Mae (FNMA), Freddie Mac (FMCC).
According to a Reuters report, the FHFA’s suit was related to $41 billion in mortgage-backed securities issued by the 17 banks.
Bloomberg reported that the FHFA sued to recover losses on $6 billion in mortgage-backed securities packaged by Bank of America (BAC), $24.8 billion in securities originally packaged by Merrill Lynch, and $3.5 billion originally packaged by Citigroup (C).

Obama is a Alinskyite hard-left Chicago pol who got elected by a MSM in the employ of the DNC. He was never vetted by the mainstream press, never held a real job, and acts now as if the presidency is an imposition on his golf game.

Now we find out that he sued banks to force them to make bad loans. When the loans failed and the economy crashed around them, Obama's teleprompter told us that he was The One to get us out of the jam.

It seems he helped get us into this jam. No politician who had anything to do with pushing the subprime mortgages-- and that includes Obama, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, among many others, should currently hold office. Several (Frank and Dodd) should be under criminal investigation for their intimate personal and financial connections to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

We'll get to express our opinion on this matter in a very direct way on November 6, 2012.


  1. I am such a huge fan of Obama. I would jump off a cliff for him. It is a breath of fresh air to have the Bush administration gangsters out of office. They lied to the world, over and over. It is a sign of democracy gone astray that Bush and co. can still walk the streets freely. A travesty of law. I find it utterly incomprehensible how somebody – anybody – can support such irresponsibility, and do so proudly.

    Guess when you put God into the equation, anything goes.

    PS – (Breaking on FOX News…)

    Fox ‘News’ is an oxymoron.

    Funny Dr. Egnor, I thought you didn’t like communists, why do you refer to an organisation that resembles one sided Politburo brainwashing ?

  2. Michael,

    Um... This was published on Fox News on September 2. Not particularly topical. What's happened since then? I also don't give much credence to any Murdoch outlet.

    Bush had many years after 2001 to reform the mortgage market. It wasn't actually the mortgages that were the disaster, it was the derivatives, putting together large numbers of bad mortgages into packages and on selling them as good investments, which they weren't.

    And then the oil price went up in 2007, putting the petrol price up too and causing financial stress in mortgagees who really couldn't afford the mortgages in the first place. And because the mortgaged properties were out in the sticks requiring a car and the extra cost of petrol, the market value of the properties collapsed too.

    Obama might be a keen golfer. Bush was an exercise junkie, with a resting heart rate than many would 'die' for. He was also a lazy president, not concerned with details.

    Also, don't forget that Obama is a Nobel Prize winner (his sole qualification being that he isn't Bush).

  3. I don't trust any media outlet, left or right.
    I have seen the realities of what they report on, and know they twist and bend the truth continuously to push their partisan agendas. There is NO objective news sources today.
    Does that mean Mr Obama is clean? Hell no.
    He is a politician. How do we know he is lying? His mouth moves.

    Here's what I don't like about Mr Obama.
    1)He does not know who his allies are.
    2)He was elected on racial preference. He is the first RACIAL president of the USA. Elected BECAUSE of his ethnicity, not his resume.
    3)He is insipidly (economically) Left wing. That results in disaster for the NA continent. We are growing here and rely on competitive commodities and manufacturing markets. He is killing those very markets during a time of recession.
    4) He looks like Alfred E Newman from Mad Magazine.

    Obviously 1 & 2 are my big beefs. 3 is reversible (and will be). 4 is just a peeve.
    1 may be posturing. I doubt it, but my clearance is not high enough to be able to guess at the real reasons for snubs and arrogance. There could be a reason for such drama...Chamberlain-esque stuff. If not, it is an indicator of just how inept this president is.
    2 Is my BIG beef. The USA is our neighbour, and when they are run in a sane fashion they're GREAT neighbours. When they act crazy...we have worries. So, when the Super-Power next door votes in a man based on skin colour and 'change', it sets off alarm bells up this way.
    Up here, among my circles, my friends are even more critical than I. They say "He is the worst since Carter!" ; And we did NOT like MR Peanut up here...
    There's my take on Mr O & B.
    Not a fan of either.
    The big favourite up this way for 2012 is Herman Cain. Very popular up here.

  4. Don't forget to mention that Obama is an islamic atheist.

  5. CrusadeRex,

    I would say that George W Bush was the worst president since Gerald Ford.

    As an Australian, I would have been happy with John McCain, but once he selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, I was strongly hoping that Obama would win. McCain with his health problems would have been a worry with a completely inadequate president in waiting in the wings if something happened to him.

    Herman Cain doesn't seem to bad I suppose. It all depends on whom he selects as his running mate if selected. The same possibly applies to him as it did to McCain. He had stage IV bowel cancer in 2004 which apparently has disappeared with treatment, surgery and chemotherapy. It probably has; bowel cancer is one type of cancer that if you survive 5 years you have a very good chance of being cured permanently (unlike melanoma and breast cancer).

    That said, both Woodrow Wilson and Roosevelt had serious health problems towards the end of their presidencies. Actually, thinking about it, that actually increases my concern about the health of presidential candidates. Wilson didn't campaign enough to make Versailles fair, setting up for WWII, and Roosevelt probably let Stalin get away with too much.

    Why did you and your circle hate Carter so much? Was it because he didn't bomb Iran when the Americans in the embassy were taken hostage? Or what?

  6. @Bach,
    "Why did you and your circle hate Carter so much? Was it because he didn't bomb Iran when the Americans in the embassy were taken hostage? Or what?"
    No. I do not hate the man. I just think him unstable. Loony left. Off the end of the graph etc.
    As for his infamy in Canada: We are the neighbours of the USA. Our economies are very intricately connected. It has been said that no two nations trade more. I don't know about that, but it is a HUGE amount of trade. Cater's fiscal and foreign policy was the big beef up here. He was bad for business on both sides of the border.
    Iran was another issue entirely. Our remaining sentiments with regards to that president are more or less selfish up this way: $$$.
    But you do make a good point about Iran. He did come of as weak as well as incompetent. That does not get him points in military circles anywhere, NM NATO forces.
    Not a top tier CNC.
    We were no big fans of W OR Bubba either...but they were not nearly as destructive to relations between our nations as Carter.

    BTW I am not in favour of aerial bombardment in general. Against a hardened fortification, sure. But cities like Tehran? I feel if a conflict is worth killing for, it is worth sacrificing (IE dying) for.
    Soften em up a bit? Maybe.
    But as the Yanks say, 'boots on the ground' is the best way to oust an enemy. Up close and personal.
    I may be in Branch these days, but I rose through infantry and recon. So bombing Iran is not a solution for an embassy situation, in my book.
    Bombing enrichment facilities and reactors in modern Iran? Not my first suggestion. Better to take control and shut down such facilities. Again, men in theatre.

  7. CrusadeRex,

    Carter noted that he could have bombed Iran, but it would have killed 20,000 Iranians and the hostages would probably have died too, so he decided to use just moral pressure (after the commando revue raid failed).

    Reagan didn't have to do much, and the Iranians just handed the hostages back. He also didn't go gung-ho. His only action when 240+ American marines killed in a truck bomb attack in Beirut was to pull all Americans out of Lebanon.

    Putting troops on the ground is extremely expensive and also counterproductive, as Afghanistan and Iraq have shown. Taking on a country with 60 million people is a very bad idea.

    Carter's problems weren't entirely of his own making. The oil crisis of 1979 causing a spike in petrol prices was a problem few presidents would be able to master. The GFC of 2008 was partly due to the oil price spike of 2007, making those who couldn't afford their mortgages even less able to do so, and depressing the market value of houses out in the sticks where private cars and high petrol consumption are necessary.

    I'm a little worried that you think that bombing cities is possibly (maybe) a suitable tactic in softening up a target. That should never ever be considered. And the American military realizes this. When 10 civilians were accidentally killed in Afghanistan recently, a general went to the afghan president to explain and apologize.

    I wasn't actually making a point about Carter being weak. Actually, I prefer leaders not to feel that they have to appear strong, and as a result, not be prepared to compromise in a crisis. Kruschev once said that he's not like some Csarist officer who feels the need to shoot himself if he farts at a ball. Both Kruschev and Kennedy backed down during the Cuban missile crisis. The world would have been a worse place if they hadn't compromised.

  8. Agh, spell check on an iPad, commando RESCUE raid ...

    I better go to the gym to wake myself up.

  9. "Carter noted that he could have bombed Iran, ..."
    Well, sure. The attack on the Embassy was an act of war.
    I don't know where the figure comes from for 20K. Is that Carter's?
    I would think an indiscriminate bombing of Tehran would probably kill a lot more folks than 20K. On the other hand a naval target, for example, may yield a few hundred enemy casualties - far below the 20K estimation.

    "I'm a little worried that you think that bombing cities is possibly (maybe) a suitable tactic in softening up a target."
    No need to worry. I don't see it as suitable.
    It can be effective, but is a ruthless method. If it is to be strikes they should be used against strategic targets. To avoid human loss, but to also conserve assets. Big ordinance costs BIG money. So for moral and pragmatic reasons - I say limit strikes and use manpower for necessary operations.
    I thought I had made it quite clear that bombing was not a favoured tactic. Bombing cities even less so. As a retaliatory measure I can see the reasoning, but that is not what we are posting about here. We are chatting about the Iran hostage crisis. My nations involvement in this affair is something we are quite proud of.

    "That should never ever be considered."
    I like that you say NEVER. But it depends on what you mean.
    If we are discussing an actual war, THAT should never be considered. Never take ANYTHING off the table, or you weaken your position.
    If we are are talking about a diplomatic crisis, then I am hard pressed to think of a strategically sound excuse to bomb civilians and cities. That is the tactic of the enemy I have been fighting for 18 years.
    The killing of innocents goes against my oath and my faith. It offends my ever sense.
    I stand against such madness.
    That's my job description.

  10. To clarify: When I say 'soften them up', I mean to reduce hardened targets for infantry and armour. I am referring to destroying military targets.

  11. CrusadeRex,

    I stand by my comment that bombing of cities should never be considered, because it isn't effective, besides killing civilians, so it shouldn't ever even be on the table as an option.

    It didn't work in WWII.

    The 20,000 was Carter's figure, and probably isn't realistic. The three allied bombing raids on Dresden on 13/14 February 1945 killed 25,000 and that was indiscriminate bombing of a city swollen with refugees from the Soviet offensive of January.

    Attacking military targets in a city is difficult to justify since it may miss and hit civilians.

    I think that Carter's strategy regarding the hostages was appropriate. I don't think that a president should feel obliged to act tough for appearance sake. Reagan did the appropriate thing withdrawing the troops from Lebanon too.

  12. "I stand by my comment that bombing of cities should never be considered, because it isn't effective, besides killing civilians, so it shouldn't ever even be on the table as an option."
    Again. As a retaliatory measure, it was effective. Horrible. Inhuman. But effective.
    'You bomb us and kill our kids, we bomb you and kill your kids too.' BRUTAL reciprocity.
    Both sides must live in constant fear.
    I was raised by a woman who dined in shelters every night of the war. A woman who had to get up and go to work the morning after her sister and two nieces died (burned alive) in one such bombing. I know all to well how effective it was. She was still feeling the effects when she died at 91.

    "It didn't work in WWII."
    Did Dresden work? Did bomber command work? We won the war... It worked all too well.
    There is no better example of the effectiveness of such bombings than the Manhattan project and the resultant destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Was that justified?
    A conundrum of our age.
    Allow hundreds of thousands (millions) to die in a land invasion of Japan and protracted war, or drop the 'big one'. I am glad that decision was not mine to make.
    Look, Bach - I am not going to argue the in favour of terror in any of it's forms.
    As I stated before, I stand opposed to such methods.
    Sufficed to say fear, in general, is an extremely potent tool in warfare.
    I will argue it is an evil on evil method that I do not relish; that no real soldier relishes. It is part of conflict that reminds us war is not a game, despite all the 'armchair quarterbacks' in the media and politics.

    "Attacking military targets in a city is difficult to justify since it may miss and hit civilians."
    Often targets are relocated into such zones in hopes we show this kind of civility (weakness in war). It is unfortunate, but again a reality of modern war.
    Imagine a Chinese invasion of mainland Australia. Would you blame the Chinese for striking AA missile batteries in Sydney? Well, blame them or not - you better EXPECT them to strike.
    So a responsible defensive force, Like the RAAF, will attempt to clear the zone near such assets as best as possible. This is so when the Chinese DO strike those legit targets, the local civilians are not all killed in the blast.
    A ruthless enemy COUNTS on you hitting their population. They fire rockets from atop apartment buildings full of civilians. Store munitions in markets and mosques. The position ordinance near hospitals. They USE the civilians as a 'shield'.
    I am sure you have heard the media BS on this horrible and ruthless tactic: 'Human Shields'.
    This is one single way a ruthless enemy can exploit the morality of their enemies.

    "I think that Carter's strategy regarding the hostages was appropriate. I don't think that a president should feel obliged to act tough for appearance sake."
    Acting weak can be effective too, actually. It is not about appearing strong all the time. It is about appearing the way you WISH to be perceived by the enemy. I am not suggesting what you seem to infer here: That you must always appear strong. There is a time and a place for all appearances in war.
    Pretending one is against killing 20K civilians in a bombing raid, then SUPPORTING Saddam is not convincing ANY enemies of our humanity. Such blather is for OUR 'sheep' , OUR civilians.
    If Carter believed it, that's his problem - not the Pentagon's. But, he did NOT.
    Carter had no problem in the 1980 backing of Saddam's offensive in a war that would cost over 1,000,000 lives. He had no issues allowing the two sides to escalate. He had no issue placing an embargo on Iran DURING that war....
    So, in short his Iranian policy was inconsistent and his posturing largely infective.
    Could it have been worse? Sure.
    Was all the blame Carter's? No.
    That said - we still don't like him.

  13. CrusadeRex,

    The bombing of Germany was more for revenge, because initially it was the only way Britain could strike back against Germany, and later because Britain had a large weapon that was virtually useless for any other purpose.

    It was also ineffective. Germany was able to increase production of war material right up to almost the end of 1944. It was only when American bombers started targeting oil plants, transport, energy production, etc in precision attacks that production of war material nosedived.

    In Britain, the communities who were targeted by the Blitz were not in favor of bombing Germany because they'd experienced the horror of it. It was only the communities spared the Blitz who were in favor (see Grayling's 'Among the Dead Cities').

    The city bombardment towards the end was overdone, with all cities of over 100,000 being targeted, including Wurzburg (Grab am Main) demolished just 3 weeks before being captured).

    Revenge is never a good motive for bombing civilians.

    The bombing of Japanese cities was problematic. Revenge was probably a strong motive, since Japan had attacked Pearl Harbour in a surprise attack, and the atrocities in the Philippines well known.

    The carpet bombing of Japanese cities hadn't caused Japan to surrender despite great losses. So perhaps the added horror of the two nuclear bombs gave the Japanese government excuse to surrender. However, the Japanese were trying to start surrender negotiations through the Soviets and Stalin was delaying to give himself time to join the war against Japan and pick up some spoils, so it might have been premature.

    And no, I don't fear the Chinese. Why do you keep on demonizing them? Their military hasn't fired a shot in anger for 25 years. That's a pretty good record. China is well and truly firmly anchored in international trade and is a good global citizen. They have long realized that it's cheaper to buy the resources they need than to pay the blood and money they'd need to pay to capture, hold and exploit the resources.

    Regarding the Iraq-Iran war. That started in September 1980. It lasted 8 years. Reagan became president in January 1981. Aren't you being a bit unfair in blaming Carter for what happened over 4 months when Reagan was in command for almost 8 years.

    Iran was weakened because the Shah had armed Iran mainly with American weapons, so when the revolution kicked out the Americans Iran weren't able to get replacements. And Iraq had a windfall gain due to the 1979 oil crisis causing it to be swimming in oil money to purchase weapons from any source.

    I think that you as in 'We still don't like him (Carter)' are a peculiar group. I can't imagine that I'd ever still bare a grudge against a long past politician 30 years after he's gone, no matter how bad, ineffective, or whatever.

    The only politician that I can think that I had a strong dislike of was Malcolm Fraser who was the Australian PM till 1983. He's mellowed, or I've mellowed, and I think he's actually quite a good chap, even if he was Army Minister during the Vietnam War and supported conscription of 18 year olds to fight there.

  14. @Bach
    It was a hypothetical military situation to illustrate a point. I was attempting to use locations and powers you and the readers are familiar with.
    I think you know that, but prefer NOT to credit me for that much reason...and perhaps to avoid facing the reality I have clearly demonstrated?

    "Why do you keep on demonizing them?"
    Why do you continue to demonize ME so?
    I have NO ICBM's aimed at you, or anywhere near you. I have no contingencies drawn up for an invasion of Australasia. I have NEVER carpet bombed anyone, nor sanctioned that act.
    I was not suggesting an impending Chinese aerial assault. You know that. But, perhaps I should have painted a picture of a fascist Uncle Sam? Or a newly nationalistic Japan? Country X and Country Y? Maybe then you could see past the left/right partisanship and party politics to the thrust of my comment? Maybe?

    "Revenge is never a good motive for bombing civilians."
    Killing masses of unnamed civilians (in any manner, at any stage of development, or with any illness) is objectively wrong.
    I agree.
    Again, I will not defend the methods used in the Second World War, or of warfare in general. I simply defend the reality of the situation. I do not approve of war, I do my duty. What more can I say?
    Please stop insinuating that I do approve of mass bombings and slaughter, or that I am somehow ignorant of my trade. I have actually SEEN the things you read about, and you think you find them more distasteful than me?
    Never mind....
    You keep on thinking that way, and I will keep on thinking my way - so that you can.

  15. CrusadeRex,

    OK, I accept what you write.

    Although you did write something revealing with: ' "It didn't work in WWII". Did Dresden work? Did Bomber Command work? We won the war ... It worked all too well'.

    We won the war because the Soviets paid the price. The casualties of the western allies in the month after D-day, which was a maximum for the western allies in Europe, the Soviets were suffering every single month of the war since June, 1941, and more, with a total of around 27 million for the war.