Has Barack Obama violated the Federal Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951 [1994]) which...
...makes it a felony for a public official to extort property under color of office. Trading campaign contributions for promises of official actions or inactions are also prohibited under the act.
It sure looks like Barack Obama has extorted property under the color of office based on HAMP (home affordable mortgage program).
It is pretty clear to me that forcing homeowners to default on their mortgage before offering them a tax based government relief program is extortion, while using that same program to garner favorable public reaction by implying that the president is "helping people", when he is not, is a Hobbs Violation coming and going.
If there is a loophole in the Federal Hobbs Act, it might be that Barack Obama has extorted property for the benefit of others, rather than for himself, but, is that really a distinction with a difference? And, if any of the benefactors of extorted property make a political donation to Barack Obama, then the loop would be complete.
So just how has Barack Obama possibly violated the Federal Hobbs Act? Barack Obama and his administration offered a taxpayer funded program to economically struggling homeowners (HAMP), but for a homeowner to just attempt to apply for the program required that their home be put into Parallel Foreclosure.
Parallel Foreclosure basically means the banks have a justifiable reason to foreclose on your home and can begin processing all paperwork to kick you out of your home and resell it, while in the process leaving you financially devastated for years to come.
To apply for HAMP, a home owner MUST BE 3 TO 4 MONTHS behind in their mortgage payments. Ergo, Barack Obama and his administration are using taxpayer funds to lure homeowners into parallel foreclosure prior to any HAMP assistance being offered. It sure looks like the present administration is using taxpayer funds to extort property, and I believe this is a clear violation of the Federal Hobbs Act.
Some may argue, "but, the HAMP program had good intentions and you can't impeach a president for having good intentions". The key here is the good intentions are simply the sound bites that we heard that promoted HAMP as a good intention. There can be no good intention when to access a government program you have to agree to give up your home, especially when the purpose of the program was to SAVE your home from foreclosure.
I have believed for the past few months that Barack Obama has committed an impeachable act, but I did not know about the Federal Hobbs Act. I just learned about the Federal Hobbs act after googling the term "quid pro quo". I just felt that the HAMP program was a quid pro quo, and I was curious if that violated the law in anyway.
George Bush Sr. referenced quid pro quo during his time in office to deny that "quid pro quo" occurred in regards to arms being exchanged for other benefits. I don't recall if it involved the release of hostages or if it was some other benefit that Bush was denying had taken place.
So suddenly I see the Federal Hobbs Act listed under a definition of Quid Pro Quo, and the very definition of the Federal Hobbs Act is exactly what Barack Obama has done wrong. I knew that HAMP was wrong, and that the initiators of the HAMP act must be held accountable, but now I can attach a legal, rule of law definition to it, the Federal Hobbs Act of 1951 and 1994.
