General discussion of US politics

  We live in a society of law and I am calling psychiatrists CRIMINAL.
Why don’t they do something to me in a LEGAL sense because they are
criminals and they can only resort to criminal means since mental
illness is a SCAM! Do you understand what I am trying to say?  I know
for a fact that mental illness is a scam that I am willing to put my
LIFE on the line. Why don’t psychiatrists put their LIFE on the line
since they believe mental illness is real? Because I have offered proof
that mental illness is a SCAM and they have been caught! They have no
confidence in their scam anymore and act like a little boy who hides
with his hands in his ears ignoring what someone is telling him hoping
that it will all go away. But as people with conscience we have to teach
the child right from wrong because people should not be rewarded being a
CRIMINAL.

–
www.destroypsychiatry.org

  I will pay the person who can get the head of psychiatry to challenge me
$5000 in cash(US currency) if a deal is struck.
(Have the individual respond to this posting and provide full contact
and background information and Cc to d…@destroypsychiatry.org. I want
the BEST psychiatrist so there will not be an excuse when the psychiatry
industry LOSES.)

This is more than a fair offer for the task involved.
Still no taker?

What is head of psychiatry?  It can be from academic institutions,
hospital, etc:
Here are some examples:
Jay Burke, MD, MPH
Chairman and Chief, Dept. of Psychiatry, Cambridge Health Alliance
Professor and Department Head of Psychiatry at Cambridge,
Harvard Medical School

Charles F. Zorumski, MD
Head of the Department of Psychiatry
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis

Steven L. Dubovsky, M.D., professor of psychiatry and medicine
chair of the Department of Psychiatry in the University at Buffalo
School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

(**The requirement of being head of psychiatry may be dropped in the
future since these individuals do not seem to have the confidence to
challenge me. The purpose of the challenge is to prove that
schizophrenia is a created illness since no medication will be used to
cure the patient. I want to end the mental illness scam not the psych
industry. I care about those made mentally ill not the psych industry.
The FBI has a medical fraud unit, why haven’t the FBI destroyed the
psych industry completely, is the task too difficult? Yet, the FBI
doesn’t seem to have an issue about me challenging the psych scam
industry as this is all in the open. Does the FBI need this much help?
This can cause a panic in the psych industry that for so long lied to
the world. Companies like Pfizer should no longer be allowed to
sell schizophrenia medication. What other drugs that Pfizer sells that
is also made for a false illness?**)

–
www.destroypsychiatry.org

___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________

Let us put an end to schizophrenia. I challenge any head of psychiatry
to go against me on this illness.
To make it interesting lets put our life on the line. If I lose, you own
my life; if you lose, I own your
life and do with it as I want. What do you have to lose if you believe
this illness requires medication.
In a control experiment using (Self-Protection+T-Room) where the patient
will not be required to take any medication.
Respond to this in an open forum if you want to take the challenge.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 02:44:47 +0200, abelard <abela…@abelard.org>
wrote:

- — -

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/30/cargo-plane-bombs-explode…
>"Both of the devices, one discovered in the hold of a plane that
>landed at East Midlands airport after flying from Cologne, the other
>on a plane in Dubai, were described as "extremely professional" by
>intelligence officials."
>…
>"The target of the device may have been an aircraft and, had it
>detonated, the aircraft could have been brought down,"  theresa
>may….

>’may have’?

>is this the reality??

>"Both of the devices, one discovered in the hold of a plane that
>landed at East Midlands airport after flying from Cologne, the other
>on a plane in Dubai, were described as "extremely professional" by
>intelligence officials."

>where’s the ‘extremely professional’?
>where’s the ‘may have’??

>regards

–
web site at www.abelard.org – news comment service, logic, economics
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
————————————————————————— —–
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that    []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing      []    trust actions not words
                    only when it’s funny — roger rabbit
————————————————————————— —–

Most elections are about particular policies, particular scandals or
particular personalities. But these issues don’t mean as much this
year– not because they are not important, but because this election
is a crossroads election, one that can decide what path this country
will take for many years to come.

Runaway "stimulus" spending, high unemployment and ObamaCare are all
legitimate and important issues. It is just that freedom and survival
are more important.

For all its sweeping and scary provisions, ObamaCare is not nearly as
important as the way it was passed. If legislation can become laws
passed without either the public or the Congress knowing what is in
those laws, then the fundamental principle of a free, self-governing
people is completely undermined.

Some members of Congress who voted for ObamaCare, and who are now
telling us that they realize this legislation has flaws which they
intend to correct, are missing the point.

The very reason for holding hearings on pending legislation, listening
to witnesses on all sides of the issue, and having Congressional
debates that will be reported and commented on in the media, is so
that problems can be explored and alternatives considered before the
legislation is voted into law.

Rushing ObamaCare into law too fast for anyone to have read it served
no other purpose than to prevent this very process from taking place.
The rush to pass this law that would not take effect until after the
next two elections simply cut the voters out of the loop– and that is
painfully close to ruling by decree.

Other actions and proposals by this administration likewise represent
moves in the direction of arbitrary rule, worthy of a banana republic,
with only a mocking facade of freedom.

These include threats against people who simply choose to express
opinions counter to administration policy, such as a warning to an
insurance company that there would be "zero tolerance" for
"misinformation" when the insurance company said that ObamaCare would
create costs that force up premiums.

Zero tolerance for the right of free speech guaranteed by the
Constitution?

This warning comes from an administration with arbitrary powers that
can impose ruinous costs on a given business.

Those who are constantly telling us that our economic problems are
caused by not enough "regulation" never distinguish between regulation
which simply enforces known rules, as contrasted with regulation that
gives arbitrary powers to the government to force others to knuckle
under to demands that have nothing to do with the ostensible purposes
of the regulation.

As more businesses reveal that they are considering no longer buying
health insurance for their employees, as a result of higher costs
resulting from ObamaCare legislation, the administration has announced
that it can grant waivers that reduce these costs.

But the power to grant waivers is the power to withhold waivers– an
arbitrary power that can impose millions of dollars in costs on
businesses that the administration doesn’t like.

Recent proposals from the Obama administration to force disclosure of
the names of people who sponsor election ads would likewise open all
who disagree with Obama to retaliation by the government itself, as
well as by community activists and others.

History tells us where giving government one arbitrary power after
another leads. It is like going into a Venus fly-trap, which is easy
to enter and nearly impossible to get out of.

The headstrong, know-it-all willfulness of this administration, which
threatens our freedom at home, also threatens our survival in the
international jungle, because Obama seems determined to do nothing
that will stop Iran from going nuclear.

The Obama administration goes through all sorts of charades at the
U.N. and signs international agreements on sanctions that have been
watered down to the point where they are not about to bring Iran’s
nuclear weapons program to a halt. The purpose is not to stop Iran but
to stop the American people from realizing what Obama is doing or not
doing.

We have a strange man in the White House. This election is a
crossroads, because either his power will be curbed by depriving him
of his huge Congressional majorities or he will continue on a road
that jeopardizes both our freedom and our survival.

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2010/10/29/a_crossroads_e…

http://www.tsowell.com

When Obama was elected, no one knew anything about him, they just wanted to
give a black man a chance. Then afterwards, we found out:

That he was brought up by socialist parents, who were anti-colonialists and
saw the United States as a colonial power. His grandfather was tortured by
the british in Kenya, solidifying his ideology. They saw the United States
as oppressors and exploiters of the poor around the world.

Mentored by an avowed Communist, Frank Marshall Davis.

Attended a marxist black liberation theology church for over 20 years,
which sees the United States as an oppressor, and would wage class warfare
against people who have money, to redistribute their wealth around the
world, to those who "have not".

Surrounded himself with marxist socialists in the white house, people who
admire Hugo Chavez, Mao ( who was responsible for the deaths of 70 million
Chinese ), Fidel Castro and Che Guevera.

Has attended DSA – Democratic Socialists of America events and meetings.

Is associated with people like Van Jones, and funded by people like george
Soros and a multitude of other socialists/ marxists bent on redistribution
of wealth, collapsing the United States using the Cloward & Piven Strategy,
and globalizing our country, using the Constitution as toilet paper along
the way.

These things lead to poverty, misery, loss of freedom and eventually deadly
totalitarian governments, like in North Korea.

This is not "theory", there is now a vast body of open proof!

The Democrats are no longer a party of any moderation, they have been
devoured by these people. They are now, for all intents and purposes, the
Democratic Socialists.

On the other side we have the Tea Party movement, which believes in

    * Fiscal Responsibility
    * Constitutionally Limited Government
    * Free Markets
    * Smaller government
    * Individual rights vs forced-collectivist mob rule

        Things which lead to freedom and economic prosperity

So the choice is now yours America. You can vote for Democratic Socialists
or for Tea Party endorsed freedom loving fellow Americans who want to take
back our country from the socialists who are bent on collapsing and
globalizing it, reducing all of our incomes to poverty levels.

Please do the right thing and kick ALL the Democratic Socialists out this
Tuesday!

Dont let our history of being one of the world’s most free and prosperous
nations perish in this onslaught of socialism!

Vote for all Tea Party endorsed candidates this Tuesday!

Return us to small government, fiscal responsibility, freedome and
prosperity!

Take back our country and our Constitution!

I aint been working in 2 years cause of that stupid Obama and Pelosi and
what they did to our economy but when John Boehner and the boys take the
helm from the libdems they’re gonna get me off the streets and employed.
  Go Repubs!

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/who-wrote-the-naacp-racist-tea-party-
report/

Who Wrote the NAACP Racist Tea Party Report?

Two weeks before a potentially game-changing midterm election, the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has given its
endorsement to a report labeling the tea party as a self-preserving
movement of racist bigots. It s no wonder given the fact that NAACP s
political agenda conflicts with the vast majority of the tea party platform
of smaller government and reduced spending.

With Wednesday s release of the report, however, the news media is once
again dropping the ball, not only by not pointing out the NAACP s obvious
conflict of interest with the tea party movement, but in failing to do
their due diligence in reporting on where the report comes from and why it
was written.

The Washington Post reports that the NAACP-endorsed Tea Party Nationalism
was put together by the Institute for Research and Education on Human
Rights, but doesn t report further on who the IREHR is. Politico reports
that the NAACP commissioned Leonard Zeskind and Devin Burghart to write
the study, but makes no mention of who Zeskind or Burghart are other than
noting their association with the Institute.

The IREHR is a group with long-held dreams for social and economic
justice, who condemn the so-called Christian right, paleo-conservatism,
and other far-right movements for their symbiotic relationship[s] with
nativism and white nationalism.

Call me crazy, but I think this group may have had a specific agenda in
mind before they set out to paint the tea party movement as uh nativists
and gee, white nationalists.

But who are Zeskind and Burghart, the two authors the NAACP commissioned
to write the report? The New York Times reports that Zeskind, a lifetime
member of the NAACP, has written extensively on white nationalism, a
serious understatement. Zeskind s career has revolved around an obsession
of the abyss of mayhem and murder America faces at the hands of white
nationalists. He has worked to establish himself as an expert on
extremist groups various media outlets routinely rely on for comment, but
few have bothered to expose his own extremist past.

Laird Wilcox, a civil rights activists who is known for examining
extremists on the right and left ends of the political spectrum, has
previously had Zeskind on his radar. Like many notable modern liberals,
Zeskind reportedly got his start working with the Sojourner Truth
Organization (STO) where his primary role was motivating the working
classes to make a revolution. The STO s role model: Soviet dictator Josef
Stalin, whose iron discipline the STO idolized.

Leonard Zeskind

In a 1978 article he wrote for the group s journal, Urgent Tasks, named
after V.I. Lenin. Zeskind wrote about Workplace Struggles in Kansas City
and discussed the value of a grassroots school of communism that would
destroy the marketplace, not sell at it. In a 1980 article for the same
publication, Zeskind denounced the American military as a tool of U.S.
Imperialism.

A 1981 City Magazine profile of Zeskind, author Bruce Rodgers described him
as elusive and near hysterical and paranoid. Further, the STO was
described as a group which surfaced on occasion to distract and intimidate
non-violent groups working for social change.

According to reports, Zeskind spent the 1980s as a member of one pro-
Stalinist group who worked to provoke the Ku Klux Klan and stir up racial
tensions between blacks and whites. In 1986, this National Anti-Klan
Network changed its name to a more benevolent-sounding Center for
Democratic Renewal. In 1989, with Soviet communism on the way out, Zeskind
told the Jewish Chronicle that he was never the kind of Marxist-Leninist
that they think of and claimed his Stalinist ideology was no longer a
defining feature of my politics.

At the same time, the CDR and other leftist groups were busy re-branding
themselves as well. According to Wilcox, rather than present socialism or
Marxism-Leninism as their goal at the time, they chose to change tactics
and piggy-back it onto anti-racism which is far more popular.

At the same time, Zeskind s co-author, Burghart, expanded his work studying
white nationalism to include condemning anti-illegal immigration groups
like the Minutemen on the country s southern border, claiming the group was
not patrolling the border to enforce American immigration laws, but only to
prevent non-whites from entering. According to Burghart, the Minutemen
represented Klan-style border patrol.

Devin Burghart (photo: TPM)

While working for the Center for New Community, Burghart participated in
programs of the Center for Democratic Values, the think-tank arm of the
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).

Zeskind and Burghart began working cooperatively at the IREHR and have
written in the past about birthers but only now insist the label belongs
slapped on the tea party.

During the summer, Zeskind and Burghart turned their focus toward the tea
party. On July 11, Zeskind delivered a presentation to the NAACP s National
Convention specifically addressing the dire threat of the tea party
(emphases mine):

    The Tea Parties are a little bit like a poison apple with three layers.
At their center is a hard-core group of over 220,000 enrolled members of
five national factions, and hundreds of thousands more that we have not yet
counted but are signed up only with their local Tea Parties. At the next
level is a larger less defined group of a couple of million activists who
go to meetings, buy the literature and attend the many local and national
protests. And finally there are the Tea Party sympathizers. These are
people who say they agree with what they believe are the Tea Parties goal.
These rank at about 16% to 18% of voters, depending on which organization
is doing the polling. That would mean somewhere between 17 million and 19
million adult American voters count themselves as Tea Party supporters.

    This is an overwhelmingly white and solidly middle class slice of the
population, slightly older and less troubled financially than the rest of
us. Please, remember this point when some political pundit or the other
tells you these are economically strapped Americans hitting out at
scapegoats. These are not populists of any stripe. These are ultra-
nationalists (or super patriots) who are defending their special pale-
skinned privileges and power.

    Now much of the media attention has been focused on FreedomWorks Tea
Party, because it is headquartered in the DC area, and because Dick Armey
was a big deal Republican. There are some who mistakenly speculate that
this is an Astroturf phenomenon, that is a fake grassroots thing conjured
up solely by Republican money and party officials.

    But it is a real grass roots problem for us, and Dick Armey s
FreedomWorks Tea Party is not one of the larger Tea Party groups. ResistNet
and Tea Party Patriots are actually the largest of the six national
factions.

    The Tea Parties are not just about taxes and budgets. They are against
everything we are for, beginning with President Barack Obama.

The IREHR also convened a July meeting in London during which, as Burghart
notes, the growing momentum of the tea party was discussed on an
international scale (emphases mine):

    From the reaction of the audiences during my recent Searchlight-
sponsored speaking tour of the United Kingdom, July 17-21, it appears that
there is a high level of interest and concern about the influence of the
Tea Parties on the political scene here in the United States.

    The tour began in London at a Labour Friends of Searchlight conference.
Early in the day, highly-regarded Labour MP John Cruddas encouraged the
crowd to learn from one another, and declared that Labour must create a
party rooted in a culture of organizing. Continuing the organizing thread,
I used my keynote speech to discuss the organizing techniques utilized by
the Right in the United States. From the Christian Coalition to the Tea
Parties, the Right has adapted new organizing techniques to stymie
progressive change.

    At each of these events, the vast majority of the attendees responded
that they closely followed American politics and were concerned about the
rise of the Tea Parties. In my presentations, I discussed the birth of the
Tea Party movement, and the size, scope, and ideology of the national
factions.

    Back in London for the final event of the tour, we held a public
meeting to discuss the Tea Party phenomenon in the council chambers of
Unison Britain s biggest public sector trade union. At the end of my
presentation, there was tremendous interest in hearing about efforts to
counter the rapid growth of the Tea Parties. We discussed the resolution
passed by the NAACP condemning racism in the Tea Parties, and the NAACP
delegates who held up Hope Not Hate signs on the convention floor.

An old Stalinist standby for undermining opposition is ritual defamation,
as Wilcox has noted, to call people names in the hope of defaming,
discrediting, stigmatizing or neutralizing them. From decrypted Venona
files, we now know that the KGB routinely used race to divide people and
British author Mark Shields has observed how the Soviets hoped to weaken
internal cohesion of the United States and undermine its international
reputation by inciting race hatred.

Are today s liberals taking a page out of the old Soviet playbook? It would
seem that way, as many on the left have decided the best way to undermine
the influence of the tea party is to paint it as racist, nationalist and
…

"Major Debacle" <major-deba…@obama.takes.it.up.the.butt> wrote in message

news:9a169d05cae142f11739b0945448832b@msgid.frell.theremailer.net…

> He’s so stupid, he can’t even fake intelligence using a
> teleprompter.

"Monkey see, monkey do!"  ;-)

Burning Down The House: BARNEY FRANK CAUSED ECONOMIC CRISES

=–> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=related <–=

Shocking Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam

=–> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs <–=

You would be hard pressed to find a politician who is less frank than
Congressman Barney Frank.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2384
http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Barney_Frank

Even in an occupation where truth and candor are often lacking,
Congressman Frank is in a class by himself when it comes to rewriting
history in creative ways. Moreover, he has a lot of history to rewrite
in his re-election campaign this year.

No one contributed more to the policies behind the housing boom and
bust, which led to the economic disaster we are now in, than
Congressman Barney Frank.

His powerful position on the House of Representatives’ Committee on
Financial Services gave him leverage to force through legislation and
policies which pressured banks and other lenders to grant mortgage
loans to people who would not qualify under the standards which had
long prevailed, and had long made mortgage loans among the safest
investments around.

All this was done in the name of promoting more home-ownership among
people who had neither the income nor the credit history that would
meet traditional mortgage lending standards.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

To those who warned of the risks in the new policies,

=–> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM <–=

Congressman Frank replied in 2003 that critics "exaggerate a threat of
safety" and "conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to
the Treasury, which I do not see." Far from being reluctant to promote
risky practices, Barney Frank said, "I want to roll the dice a little
bit more in this situation."

With the federal regulators leaning on banks to make more loans to
people who did not meet traditional qualifications — the "underserved
population" in political Newspeak — and quotas being given to Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more of these riskier mortgages from the
original lenders, critics pointed out the dangers in these pressures
to meet arbitrary home ownership goals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=184743
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid=5197
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid=5196

But Barney Frank counter-attacked against these critics.

In 2004 he said: "I believe that we, as the Federal Government, have
probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the
goals of affordable housing." He went further: "I would like to get
Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing."

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were crucial to these schemes to force
lenders to lend to those whom politicians wanted them to lend to,
rather than to those who were most likely to pay them back. So it is
no surprise that Barney Frank was very protective towards these two
government-sponsored enterprises that were buying up mortgages that
banks were willing to make under political pressure, but were often
unwilling to keep.

The risks which banks were passing on to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
were ultimately risks to the taxpayers. Although there was no formal
guarantee to these enterprises, everybody knew that the federal
government would always bail them out, if necessary, to keep them from
failing. Everybody except Barney Frank.

"There is no guarantee," according Congressman Frank in 2003, "there
is no explicit guarantee, there is no implicit guarantee, there is no
wink-and-nod guarantee." Barney Frank is a master of rhetoric, who
does not let the facts cramp his style.

Fast forward now to 2008, after the risky mortgages had led to huge
numbers of defaults, dragging down Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the
financial markets in general — and with them the whole economy.

Barney Frank was all over the media, pointing the finger of blame at
everybody else. When financial analyst Maria Bartiromo asked
Congressman Frank who was responsible for the financial crisis, he
said, "right-wing Republicans." It so happens that conservatives were
the loudest critics who had warned for years against the policies that
Barney Frank pushed, but why let facts get in the way?

Ms. Bartiromo did not just accept whatever Barney Frank said. She
said: "With all due respect, congressman, I saw videotapes of you
saying in the past: ‘Oh, let’s open up the lending. The housing market
is fine.’" His reply? "No, you didn’t see any such tapes."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/27324124/CNBC_EXCLUSIVE_CNBC_TRANSCRIPT_CNBC_S…

"I did. I saw them on TV," she said. But Barney Frank did not budge.
He understood that a good offense is the best defense. He also
understands that rewriting history this election year is his best bet
for keeping his long political career alive.

Among long-time politicians who are being seriously challenged for the
first time this election year, Congressman Barney Frank of
Massachusetts best epitomizes the cynical ruthlessness which hides
behind their lofty rhetoric.

Having been a key figure in promoting the risky mortgage lending
practices imposed by the federal government on lenders, and on Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these risky mortgages from the lenders,
Barney Frank blamed the resulting collapse of financial markets and
the economy on everybody except Barney Frank.

In February 2009, as chairman of the House Financial Services
Committee, Congressman Frank summoned the heads of some of the biggest
banks in the country before his committee. In the words of the Los
Angeles Times, these bankers "endured hours of hectoring" by
"indignant lawmakers" on that committee.

These bankers were in no position to talk back to members of this
committee, much less point out how committee members — including
Chairman Barney Frank — had themselves promoted laws and policies
responsible for the current economic disaster.

This is a committee with the power to promote legislation detrimental
to this heavily regulated industry. That in turn gives the committee
the power to force others to sit there and take it, when they are
demonized on nationwide TV.

Congressman Barney Frank has never hesitated to use his power
ruthlessly. On one occasion, he threatened bankers with summoning them
before his committee and forcing them to reveal their home addresses
— which would of course put their spouses and children at the mercy
of any kooks that might come along.

Meanwhile, Congressman Frank could piously invoke "social justice" in
defense of similarly ruthless community activist groups like ACORN
[ http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6968 ] or
National People’s Action, which had in fact besieged the homes not
only of bankers but also of public officials who dared to oppose their
agendas. In Barney Frank’s words, these groups were simply people who
"cared about equity" and who were just "trying very hard to preserve
some equity and some social justice."

But the harassment and shakedown activities of such groups were
perhaps best captured by the words of a leader of one of these groups,
who addressed her followers by saying: "We want it. They’ve got it.
Let’s go get it."

These were not just idle words. The dirty little secret that few in
the media seem to want to discuss is that community activists,
including Jesse Jackson, have over the years extracted literally
billions of dollars from financial institutions, as the price of peace
and of not challenging these institutions in hearings before federal
regulators, as these groups are empowered to do under the Community
Reinvestment Act.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=809

Much of this money has been extracted in the form of risky mortgage
loans of the sort that have been at the center of the housing boom and
bust, and its repercussions in financial markets and in the economy as
a whole.

Among others who have been at the heart of the risky lending behind
the financial meltdown are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whom
Congressman Barney Frank has also championed and protected. When
federal regulators uncovered irregularities in Fannie Mae’s
accounting, and in 2004 issued what Barron’s magazine called "a
blistering 211-page report," Barney Frank lashed out — not at Fannie
Mae, but at the regulators who uncovered Fannie Mae’s misdeeds. He
said "a leadership change" in the regulatory agency was "overdue."

Politicians who say we need more regulation almost never mean
regulation in the sense of impartially enforcing explicit rules, such
as the accounting rules that Fannie Mae was violating to cover up its
own risks. They mean regulation with arbitrary powers, such as those
under the Community Reinvestment Act, which enable regulators to carry
out the agendas that politicians give them.

When Congressman Jim Leach tried to get stronger regulation of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac back in 1992, and when President George W. Bush
did so in 2004, Barney Frank opposed them.

=–> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM <–=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=related

A reining in of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be a reining in of
Barney Frank’s power. But he can’t stop the voters from reining in his
power, unless he can once more get by this election year with pious
rhetoric to conceal his cynical actions

http://www.tsowell.com
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/the_liberal_housing_crash.html