2: Obama Accounting: Black Funding & Lawsuit Settlements

The Obama/Holder Department of Justice (DoJ):
Directing lawsuit settlement awards to DoJ-favored "qualified organizations".

DoJ lawsuit settlement monies traditionally are restricted to injured parties. The Obama/Holder DoJ now directs lawsuit monies to favored community organizing groups who may sponsor education and advocacy programs related to lawsuit issues. These monies are demanded by DoJ in pre-trial-type settlements in which there has been no finding of wrongdoing and in excess of restitution amounts.

In US v. AIG & Wilmington Finance, DoJ demanded $6.1 million, the largest settlement awarded to US DoJ plaintiffs who may have suffered as a result of an alleged violation. AIG was not found guilty of Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act violation allegations in allowing third party wholesale mortgage brokers to charge African-American borrowers higher direct broker fees.

DoJ further demanded $1 million to be paid to approved ACORN-type community organizing organizations for credit counseling and financial literacy programs.

Similar "settlement-plus" tactics were used at the state level by Minnesota "wannabe governor" Attorney General Mike Hatch. Hatch settled with Capital One Bank for allegations of fraudulent advertising for $749,999, $1 short of the amount required to be more rigorously reported. The settlement was a 3-way split between the State of Minnesota, Legal Aid, and ACORN. ACORN later announced its support of Mike Hatch for governor of Minnesota.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Obama Accounting:
...Law (sic, is) a sort of glorified accounting that serves to regulate the affairs of those who have power-...

_____________________________________________________________________________________

There are several recurring Obama financial themes:
1. Strong-arming corporations for large pre-trial settlements.
It may produce revenue for the Obama Administration. But it appears extortionate, given the failure of the DoJ to make a finding of wrongdoing.
It also is inflationary: Capital One Bank increased its overall consumer interest charges. Some customer APRs were increased 6-8%, while customers were notified this was a corporate decision unrelated to the consumer's credit.

2. Obama/Holder DoJ "settlement-plus" amounts are earmarked for Obama-approved ACORN type community organizer groups which target mostly Afro-American or other ethnic groups for education and advocacy programs. This does discrimate against white mainstream and other Americans, it is an example of "reverse racism".

3. Obama/Holder DoJ "settlement-plus" amounts are earmarked for Obama and Democratic candidate supporters, pay-forwards or pay-backs for community organizing for votes.

4. Obama has a legal habit of looking at his last lawsuit for his next lawsuit. It was true in Chicago with Voter Registration and ACORN and its true in Washington, DC. Obama bailed out AIG with $180 billion. Recently AIG reduced its loan by
$4 billion with The Reserve Bank of NY to $15 billion. The AIG/Wilimington Reserve Bank DoJ settlement takes back $6.1 million, plus $1 million, from another AIG company.

5. The wholesale mortgage issues in the AIG/Wilmington Reserve Bank "settlement-plus" do not appear to be related to retail consumer credit and financial literacy education programs delivered by ACORN-type community organizer companies. The Security & Exchange Commission (SEC) might be needed to sort out real vs. sham issues in moving AIG monies.

6. "De facto" discrimination cannot be a legitimate legal cause to be used by a black advocacy Administration to payout monies to blacks and their political allies. Are Obama/Holder willing to payout to whites, who are thusly discriminated against by not being offered housing in less expensive predominantly or totally colored neighborhoods?

More on "Obama Accounting" in the next blog in this series.

References: www.wikipedia.com, HotAir.com, The Washington Examiner.

Email mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for a copy of this or other blogs posted by mary for monthlynotesstaff on http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com or http://monthlynotesfour.blogspot.com on www.google.com.

1: Obama Accounting: Black Funding & Lawsuit Settlements

Here is the key to the Obama Presidency. It unlocks the black war chest of booty, money hidden behind the illusory veil of transparency. Obama's agenda, spoken in his own words, during the campaign (AP, 2007):

"...Law is a sort of glorified accounting that serves to regulate the affairs of those who have power- and that all too often seeks to explain, to those who do not, the ultimate wisdom and justness of their condition."

Early in law, Barack Hussein Obama learned how to use the "letter of the law", much like his Democratic Party mentor, William Jefferson Clinton, notorious for the "it depends on what you mean by IS" defense in the Monica Lewinski investigation at the time of his Impeachment Trial. Obama embellished his legal reputation in 1988 as THE Editor of the Harvard Law Review. Obama actually was one of 80 first year student-editors.

Obama's tale of reaching through the loopholes of the law for the money which he and his administration would earmark for Afro-Americans and other ethnic supporters may have unexpected and ironic consequences.

Obama's career impulse as black advocate began before social organizing, law school, then politics. In 1981 he gave a speech at Los Angeles, CA Occidental College demanding "divestment" (disinvestment) of American college money in South Africa, during the anti-apartheid movement. Here Obama first met his corporate foe, General Motors (GM). As a result of "disinvestment" economic sanctions, GM, the largest employer of black South Africans, was forced to leave South Africa. In 1977, Rev. Leon Sullivan, a black American preacher, formulated the Sullivan Rules, which forbade US companies from doing business in apartheid South Africa. Ironically, Obama, Sullivan, and others reversed the fortunes of black South African GM employees and contributed to the destabilization of South Africa.

Obama left Occidental for Columbia University in NYC and majored in political science with a specialty in international relations. He worked for Business International Corp, then NY Public Interest Group. Obama left for Chicago in 1985 to become Director of Developing Communities Project, a Catholic Church based, community organizing non-profit, akin to ACORN (Association for Community Organizing Reform Now).

Obama cultivated community organizing connections with ACORN, for which he worked, in housing, mortagage and banking access, and voter registration drives. Obama maintained his Chicago community organizing connections.

After he left for Harvard Law School in 1988, Obama worked summers for Chicago law firms. Recruited by Judson Miner, Obama returned to Chicago in 1991 to work in civil rights at the 13-member civil rights law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill, and Galland, until 2004, when Obama entered Illinois politics. Obama also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School during this time. Obama's law license became inactive in 2002.

At Miner, Obama mainly researched, wrote, and "worked behind the scenes" in black lawsuits. In 1991 Obama represented community organizers and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries to increase black and ethnic poitical influence based on the 1990 Census. In 1992 Obama worked for IL (Illinois) Project Vote, registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered AfroAmericans. In 1995 Obama sued on behalf of ACORN in the Motor Voters case against the State of Illinois for failing to implement federal law to make voter registration easier. Obama left this case to run for State Representative in Illinois.

Recently, ACORN employees and associates have "whisleblown" on Project Vote funding. ACORN felt pressured to use nonpartisan funds obtained from government through the efforts of Obama et.al. to bring in the vote for Obama and Democratic Party candidates. Missouri and Nevada ACORN are under investigation for voter fraud. ACORN has lost funding for these and other irregularities.

However, ACORN and related community organizers continue to receive money through the Obama/Holder Department of Justice, in federal and state lawsuit settlement and "settlement-plus" special funds.

Ironically, Obama may have caught himself in his own snare, in later Obama-sponsored legislation: the 2006 Coburn-Obama Transparency Act (S-2590), its 2008 sequel Strengthening Transparency & Accountability in Federal Spending, and the Deceptive Practices & Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections.

(More on the Department of Justice lawsusit "settlement-plus" packages in the next blog in this series.)

Photograph from The Washington Post, the Obama vs. McCain Campaign, May 18, 2008.
Other references www.Wikipedia.com, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, Boston (Globe).com, The Washington Examiner.

Contact mary for the monthlynotesstaff at mkrause381@gmail.com or mkrause54@yahoo.com for a copy of this blog or other blogs in the monthlynotes series.

2: Social Security Retirement: What is Social Security Disability?

Social Security Disability is meant only for contributing workers disabled due to accident, injury, or illness which occurs "on the job". A worker can seek evaluation for "early retirement" if that worker cannot return to do that job. For example, a worker who sustained a back injury lifting who cannot return to that job because of the severity of that injury may be able to receive Social Security disability payments.

Social Security Disability was not intended to be a general welfare fund. "Welfare State" politicicans have been borrowing from or against Social Security Retirement funds for general welfare recipient payments for congenital "disabilities" (like cerebral palsy) and other forms of mental retardation and developmental problems in infants, children, or young adults (like premature infant neurological syndromes or dyslexia) who obviously have not been workers contributing to the retirement fund.

Misuse of the term "social security" to gain access to funds in welfare fraud and "entitlements" takes money from workers who "pay-in", depletes the fund, and brings negative attention to this "pay-in" retirement fund.

In this time of high unemployment, social security retirement funds should be used as "early retirement" monies for contributing workers. This would alleviate some of the unemployment hardship the fund was created to prevent. This is particularly true for older workers who have more difficulty finding stable jobs.

Stable jobs are not as highly valued by "Business" and "Finance" in this economy as in the past. During this period of relative de-industrialization at home, while exporting factories and labor to third world countries, America is "growing" an investment growth economy which devalues employment. Wages and salaries for jobs are considered an unnecessary business expense, a loss of profit for owners and investors. How to maintain an economy which maintains possibilities for employment and income for its citizens is a focus for debate involving and going beyond the Social Security Retirement fund issues.

How to fund general welfare is another problem to be solved. This question should not be avoided by borrowing from a retirement fund. This avoidance has already caused a crisis for the Social Security Retirement fund.


(Return to http://monthlynotesthree.blogspot.com for the first blog in this series, to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com and http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com on www.google.com for other US blogs on issues of general interest by the monthlynotesstaff. Email mary at mkrause381@gmail.com for a copy of this blog or to make additional comments.)

1: Social Security Retirement: Why is a "Pay-in" Called an Entitlement?

Almost 75 years ago, the Social Security Retirement system was created in the The Social Security Act of 1935 by then U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Congress. A part of the New Deal legislation, the "pay-in" or contributory retirement system arose from the Great Depression of the 1930s. The retirement system was established to prevent hardship due to loss of jobs and business closings for future working people, particularly older employees and those injured on the job.

Many plans were proposed to alleviate hardship in the 1930s, including a Hollywood "Ham and Eggs" plan to dole out $30 to each elderly person each Thursday. Dr. Frances Townsend proposed $200 per month to non-working elderly. "Kingfish" Huey Long, former governor and senator of Louisiana, promoted a "Share the Wealth" pension of $30 per month for those over 60 years old earning less than $1,000 per year and with no more than $10,000 in assets.

The first Social Security check was mailed to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont in 1940 at the end of the Depression. While the intention was prevention of future hardship due to unemployment during a later depression, the fund also created a source of revenue for the government.

Social Security Retirement actually is a tax, paid by both employee and employer, to the Federal government with each work paycheck. In 2000, the tax was 6.2% of salaries up to $76,200. Those who earn more than $76,200 are expected to establish private retirement accounts, individually or through their employers. Independent Contractor "employees" also are expected to provide for their own retirement

Social Security "pay-out" is described as an annuity type system. The government pays retired workers from the time of retirement until the worker-beneficiary and certain dependents are no longer living. The retirement age has been increased to extend the years of "pay-in" and lengthen the time to initial "pay-out" for workers who contribute to the retirement system. This of course makes work a necessity for older workers without other retirement savings.

Younger working contributors "pay-in" as older workers leave the workforce and get their "pay-out". Government statisticians note that originally 25 workers "paid in" for each retiree "pay-out", but by 2002 only 3.25 workers "paid-in" per retiree. This may be significant for the future of the fund. Could this reflect other trends in employment and retirement, increases in workers funding their retirements outside of the social security system or choosing not to contribute, for example, more independent contractor "employees", more early retired work-injury disabled, high unemployment and shifts to welfare from the workforce?

The ruckus over Social Security as a "burdensome entitlement" program is disturbing to older workers who have paid in and await their retirement, particularly with current higher unemployment rates. The seeds of this misunderstanding of the "pay-in" retirement fund as "entitlement" can be found in the language of the original act.

The expressed intention of the Act to provide for the "general welfare by establishing a system of old-age benefits, and by enabling the several states to make more adequate provision for aged," describes the retirement fund for aging workers. However, the 2009 revision extends the Social Security Act beyond contributory pension fund to include "blind persons, dependents and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue, and for other purposes".

This general welfare fund language extends the "pay-in" pension fund beyond its "pay-out" pension purpose. These are the "entitlement" issues which clearly overextend the fund into phenomenal amounts the fund could not possibly pay-out per worker pay in.

The worker who "pays in" is "entitled" to the pension fund "pay out". It is frightening to think Congress would attempt to base a enormous general welfare fund of non-contributory benefits on the per paycheck pension "pay ins" of workers participating in a retirement fund.

The Social Security Act no longer is easily accessible on government information online. The Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson "Thomas" legislative online search index did not include "Social Security Act of 1935", "Social Security Act", "Social Security Administration" as successful search terms as of July 31, 2010.

(The ad above by the Social Security Board, 1935, Library of Congress, and other historical facts, are found in JW Markham "Social Security Act of 1935" in Major Acts of Congress, Vol 3, BK Landsberg, Editor, Macmillan, NY, 2004.)

See http:monthlynotes.blogspot.com on www.google.com for this and other blogs by monthlynotesstaff.email mkrause381@gmail.com for a copy of this blog or to comment.

5: Race for the Funds? Commentary on What Are Not Civil Rights?

(This is the fifth mini-blog in the series of commentaries related to
1: Race for the Funds?

5: What Are Not Civil Rights?

Equally important in the discussion of what are civil rights is what is not.
Civil Rights are not mineral rights, water rights, rights which pertain to control over something, or someone.

There is a misperception among people from Third World and other countries with histories of socialist or communist dictatorships that civil rights of person A means "rights over" person B, that is, to control person B.

This attitude is common among people from not only the Middle East and Africa, but also among people from Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics. There are constant references to who is "in power", "regimes", reflecting experience with dictatorships rather politicians of political parties, leaders elected to serve time-limited terms in democratic countries like the USA. The use of the Russian term "czar" as in "drug czar" in American politics for the past few decades has not helped correct this misunderstanding.

The concept of rulers rather than leaders also is common in China, with histories of ruling dynasties, in the South Asian countries China influences, for example, North and South VietNam, North and South Korea. The concept of power of one group over another also is compelling in highly stratified ethnic societies like Japan and very obviously so in the "caste" structures of India.

It is difficult for people from these more authoritarian, stratified societies to understand the American pluralistic system of leadership determined by majority numbers of voters from two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats.

(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.comfor Blogs 1-5 of "Can Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?"

4: Race for the Funds? Commentary on Reverse Racism.

(This is the fourth in a mini-blog series on the issues raised in
1: Race for the Funds?)

(4) What is Reverse Racism?
Reverse racism is racism or discrimination against whites by people of color.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s white California farm workers complained of reverse racism. The farm workers were concerned because they were losing their jobs to another group of people of color, Hispanics.

At that time, many white Americans found it difficult to understand how a minority population could create a significant employment problem for white Americans. Apparently, even these relatively low paying agricultural seasonal jobs were not plentiful. Hispanic migrant farm workers grabbed the attention and sympathy of many white Americans as they organized unions to improve their job conditions.

How have people of color found so many lawyers and so much financial support for their causes? Many of the issues seem to be the usual workplace issues about working conditions, pay, and promotions.

Perhaps lawyers found it easier to win settlements, and the court found it harder to deny arguments when pointing to a client with such an obvious characteristic as race, black or brown skin color. Maybe racial profiling works for the client in these cases.

The whole issue of the winning color "race card" and "race-based" lawsuits and settlements seems preposterous to many Americans of European descent. There are lots of different and diverse white people in America. There are often tensions and prejudices against people from certain other countries, ethnic, religious, or cultural backgrounds. But people usually try to resolve it or find other opportunities or bring lawsuits on general law issues. Do you know of any lawsuits between opposing British, Irish, German, Italian, French, Polish, or other European Americans or against the US government by any of these groups on job, housing, financial, or other issues?

(Return to http://monthlynotes.blogspot.com for Blogs 1-5 of "Can Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?")

3: Race for the Funds? Commentary on Racism

(This is the third in a new mini-blog series on the issues raised in
1: Race for the Funds?)

(2) Racism can be anti-white done by blacks as well as anti-black done by whites.

What has been termed "reverse racism" is anti-white discrimination done by blacks.

This is what Shirley Sherrod admitted to in her videotaped National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) speech. Ms. Sherrod said she could not give the "white farmer", who presented to her agricultural office for assistance in preventing his farm foreclosure, "the full force" of her assistance. Ms. Sherrod stated she became more concerned when the white farmer called again 6 months later complaining that he had received a foreclosure notice, that the attorney she referred him to, whom he had been paying for 6 months, had not helped prevent this.

Shirley Sherrod's comments were revealed by Internet Breibart TV, biggovernment.com, bloggers and news commentators in political forums debating racism within the NAACP and other issues. These commentators were labelled "right wing", to diminish the importance of the discussion of these issues.

Subsequently, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) accepted or requested Ms. Sherrod's resignation as a high profile State of Georgia Rural Development Director overseeing a $2.1 billion dollar budget.

The CNN team who interviewed Ms. Sherrod ignored the anti-white racist statements freely made by Ms. Sherrod, and did not ask Ms. Sherrod about these statements. CNN reversed the racial issue, depicted Ms. Sherrod as "martyred", and implied she was the victim of racial discrimination. Then a flurry of media activity ensued, chastising the "right wingers" and publicizing Ms. Sherrod's implied or explicit demands for apologies from the USDA, Obama Administration, and Breibart et.al.

CNN asked Ms. Sherrod if she planned a lawsuit, exacerbating the hypersensitivity around claims brought by blacks against whites and the U.S. government, courts, and financial settlements. As a news organization, CNN missed the opportunity to discuss the issue of reverse racism and discrimination against whites.

(Return to monthlynotes.blogspot.comfor Blogs 1-5 of "Can Credit Consumers Survive the Credit Reporting Industry?")