They laugh at his jokes.
They say he's the smartest guy in Congress.
And 90% of them agree with him politically.
Small wonder the havoc Barney Frank wreaks on the economy gets so little attention.
America has its share of problems,
to be sure.
But one of the most pernicious is the bias that permeates the media.
We've been saying this for years,
noting how it leads to half-covered issues, an ill-informed populace
and wretched legislation that dogs us for decades.
has it been as pervasive as now.
Yes, the fact that the media are head over heels for our new president
has made the favoritism more obvious.
When a major TV network like ABC,
whose employees gave 80 times as much in financial contributions
to Obama's presidential campaign as they gave to his opponent's,
lets the president commandeer its news programming
to tout a plan to take over the health care industry,
it's hard not to notice.
But it goes much deeper than Barack Obama.
It also involves Rep. Frank and other politicians
who are in large part responsible for the financial meltdown
that led to the economic disaster from which we continue to suffer.
How we got into this,
the worst economic fix since the Great Depression,
is the most monumental question of our time.
Yet despite the information that we and other non-mainstream media have put out, people still haven't connected the dots.
This was driven home again last week,
when it was disclosed that Frank,
who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee,
wants standards for mortgages on new condominiums to be relaxed.
Seems the rules have been tightened
to limit the exposure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
the two government-sponsored agencies that buy most of the mortgages in America. Frank reportedly believes they're "too onerous."
Frank's suggestion has gotten little press.
Where it has been covered, little has been made of the fact that the congressman
was a key backer of the lax rules that prevailed i
n the Fannie- and Freddie-backed subprime loan fiasco
that sank the U.S. housing market and global financial markets.
As we said last week,
Frank stood "athwart nearly all efforts to reform (Freddie and Fannie)
until it was too late."
Rather than run down that list again,
we refer readers to Thomas Sowell's latest book,
"The Housing Boom and Bust."
One of America's best economists and thinkers,
Sowell in 148 pages chronicles this economic catastrophe f
rom the passage in 1977 of the Community Reinvestment Act,
which directed regulators to encourage financial institutions to "meet the credit needs of the local communities."
It goes through the 1990s, when the CRA was revised to
pressure banks into relaxing lending standards for low-income borrowers and
push Fannie and Freddie to buy subprime loans and subprime securities to meet "affirmative action" quotas.
Sowell's book also covers the efforts by Frank and others this decade to defend the tottering system and block moves to head off disaster.
Of the many comments by Frank
that Sowell quotes is this from 2003:
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have played a very useful role
in helping make housing more affordable.
(Critics) exaggerate a threat of safety" and "conjure up the possibility
of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see."
the U.S. Treasury has been forced to bail out
the financial system and two major car companies to the tune of $700 billion
As for Fannie and Freddie, they're in government receivership after adding $238 billion to the nation's debt to bolster their shaky finances.
Yet back in 2003, Sowell notes,
Frank was arguing that the federal government had "probably done too little rather than too much to push (Fannie and Freddie) to meet the goals of affordable housing."
Sowell quoting Frank:
"I would like Fannie and Freddie more deeply into helping low-income housing and possibly moving into something that is more explicitly a subsidy.
I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation."
Now Frank is back at the craps table,
pushing for another relaxation of Fannie and Freddie loan standards.
Yet the media, which seem oblivious to the history of the housing meltdown, apparently see no connection.
The same media,
by the way, were just as passive Tuesday when Acorn,
the "community group" that Obama once served as legal counsel,
held demonstrations at the offices in 15 cities of four mortgage lenders that haven't signed on
to the president's voluntary
"Making Home Affordable" foreclosure-avoidance program.
Such demonstrations wouldn't be that newsworthy
if it weren't for the fact that Acorn also played a key role
in the subprime mortgage crisis by strong-arming banks into making loans
they shouldn't have.
Here it's trying to intimidate lenders once again.
Once again, the media apparently see nothing of note.
Until they make the connection,
the public at large will never realize it was Big Government,
with its horribly conceived and executed programs,
that created the mess in which we find ourselves.
And it'll be the public at large that will continue to suffer the devastation
of future programs —
whether they target housing, banking, energy or health care.
THE PRICE OF MEDIA MALPRACTICE
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
June 30, 2009
BARRY SOETORO aka BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.
This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).
He is not eligible
because he was not born of
BOTH OF WHOM WERE UNITED STATES CITIZENS
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources.
However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.
Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:
His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.
HERE IS THE QUESTION WHICH EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN SHOULD BE ASKING HIS OR HER CONGRESSMAN AND SENATORS
“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”
- Leo Rugiens