Smoking-Gun Document Ties Government Policy To The Housing Crisis

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis

By PAUL SPERRY, FOR INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 04:38 PM ET

View Enlarged Image

President Obama says the Occupy Wall Street protests show a "broad-based frustration" among Americans with the financial sector, which continues to kick against regulatory reforms three years after the financial crisis.

"You're seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to fight efforts to crack down on the abusive practices that got us into this in the first place," he complained earlier this month.

But what if government encouraged, even invented, those "abusive practices"?

[Read more ]

They haven’t learned yet!  If you want the complete story, I urge you to get a copy of

Open Letter To The Director Of The Society For Professional Journalists

Open Letter To The Director Of The Society For Professional Journalists

The Society for Professional Journalists (SPJ) has decided to recommend that newsrooms refrain from using the terms “illegal immigrant” and "illegal alien.”

Here's my reaction and response to the Director of the Society for Professional Journalists.

Dear Mr. Skeel:

So, the Society for Professional Journalists (SPJ) has decided to recommend that newsrooms refrain from using the terms “illegal immigrant”and illegal alien.” The SPJ claims concern that “only courts can decide when a person has committed an illegal act.” More likely, the SPJ has buckled to political pressure from the special interest groups of  illegal aliens.

Ensuring that judgment does not bleed into news reporting is a worthy goal for all free press, but shaping words to fit politically correct molds is simply another form of bias. Substituting the term “illegal alien” with“undocumented immigrant” or “worker” in order to placate powerful lobbies interjects opinion itself and surrenders the language to drive an agenda.

Journalistic guidelines dictate that disclosing a subject’s personal information – including immigration status – is not always integral to the story. But when it is, readers deserve clarity, not obfuscation.

The SPJ recommends using “undocumented workers.” The problem with that term is that with a few keystrokes, the illegality – the breaking of the law – is magically erased. “Illegal” disappears and with it, so too does regard for the rule of law. The SPJ claims that using the term “illegal”” presumes guilt but seems just fine ignoring guilt when reporting even on broad classes of aliens who brazenly self-identify as residing in the U.S. illegally. You can’t have it both ways folks. The addition of the word“undocumented” suggests that those who have violated U.S. immigration laws are simply inconvenienced by not having the proper papers. But many illegal aliens do have documentation – it just doesn’t happen to rightfully belong to them. Finally, the term “workers” implies that all are gainfully employed, which many are not. But for the record, the seven million illegal aliens who do work are employed illegally and occupying jobs that rightfully belong to Americans.

The alternative use of “undocumented immigrants” is just as empty. These aren’t immigrants and this isn’t immigration. America is suffering from a policy of chaos and a flood of 12 million lawbreakers. Swapping the term “alien” for “immigrant” when referring to those who have broken the law is offensive to many legal immigrants. The distinction between legal and illegal is important. Coming to the Unites States the right way is a badge of honor for most immigrants.

There is no getting around it. The term “illegal alien” is the most legally precise, descriptive term in the lexicon. It delineates between one of only two possible categories; one either has legal status to be on U.S. soil or one is residing here illegally.  “Illegal” means prohibited by law. Yes, entry without inspection into the U.S. is prohibited. And “alien” is a term that refers to a person who is not a citizen of the country. The term is well defined in 8 U.S.C. Section 1101. It is used by legal professionals across the board including the United States Supreme Court. It’s ok to say “illegal alien.”

Use it, but use it correctly. Don’t say someone is an illegal alien without the facts. That’s unacceptable and you’ll wind up in court. If, based on due diligence, you have reason to believe the subject of a story is an illegal alien because credible sources have indicated he/she may be, use “alleged”illegal alien. But when the facts prove it and the circumstances are obvious, don’t be coy. For example, when referring to five hundred people at a rally holding “Illegal and Proud of It”signs, your readers will appreciate you reporting it accurately as a crowd largely composed of illegal aliens. Don’t water down stories about amnesty legislation for illegal aliens with references to “undocumented workers.” Why? Because amnesty legislation isn’t about giving needed documents, it’s about changing the law to erase the laws that were broken.

Why go through the fuss of changing the term “illegal alien” anyways? Altered to even the most preposterous euphemism, we all know what it means – a person is here when he/she is not supposed to be. Leave well enough alone and avoid the hollow substitutes because ultimately, it takes more effort to conceal the truth than to reveal it.

Whatever happened to unbiased reporting of the news?

A Citizen and Proud Of It
Wayne

Exposing Liberal Lies

Over the last several decades, the liberals (now calling themselves “progressives”) have become increasingly adept at spinning the issues and redefining perceptions to their advantage while conservatives have failed repeatedly to expose their liberal lies and distortions.  With the presidential election cycle now in full swing, I thought it appropriate to provide some hard facts in response to some of their claims.

This is the first in a planned series of “daylight” exposures I’ll be sending you from time to time over the next several months.  Feel free to discuss and share them with others and to delve deeper if any of them really perk your interest.  I’ll provide sources of reference.

With all the recent “OCCUPY” protests so much in the news, I thought the following might be appropriate:

Claim #1 – “Republicans are the party of the rich corporate special interests.”

Fact – In the 2008 presidential election cycle, the top 100 donors to the major political parties gave overwhelmingly to Democrats!

Contributors with greater than 50% of their total contributions donated to Dems	65		$202,073,569	$99,885,025
			65%	32%
Contributors with greater than 50% of their total contributions donated to Repubs	22		$ To Dems	$ To Repubs

All the numbers are for the 2008 election cycle and are based on data released by the FEC on July 13, 2009.

The short story - The organizations listed here were the biggest donors to federal candidates and political parties in the election cycle. The numbers combine all PAC, soft money (for the 2008 election cycle and before), and large ($200+) individual contributions made by the organization, its employees, officers and their immediate families. Subsidiaries and affiliates are also included in the totals. Not included is money spent independently on issue ads or donations to political party conventions, legal defense funds, presidential inaugurations or post-election recount funds.

The data is provided courtesy of The Center for Responsive Politics.

“Is Student-Loan Forgiveness Obama's Next Crisis

IBD Posted 10/26/2011 06:44 PM ET  [Read the full article]

Government: President Obama wants student loans to be more like student handouts. Too bad he hasn't learned one of the lessons of the 2008 mortgage crisis: Free money costs plenty.

The global financial crisis has its roots in the U.S. government's politicization of mortgages.

Now President Obama proposes applying the same mortgage mistakes to student loans.

On a day on which the College Board reported the cost of public colleges rose 8% — about twice the inflation rate — Obama unveiled a student loan forgiveness plan.

Under his plan, loan recipients would repay at just 10% of their income instead of the current 15%. And the government forgives what's left after 20 years.

But the latest Rasmussen survey found only 21% of Americans favor letting college loan recipients not have to pay the money back.

Could it be that the 66% majority opposed to student loan forgiveness have learned the mortgage crisis lesson to which Obama seems tone-deaf? Or that they think the younger generation might learn something their liberal college professors haven't taught — namely the morality of keeping their financial promises?

Wealth redistribution or generosity??  Guess again!  It’s all about the votes !!

Profits Are For People

Those of you who listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show may recognize the name of Walter Williams as he frequently takes over the EIB “Golden Microphone” when Rush takes time off.  He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, as well as a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian views.  He is also a frequent contributor to the Investor’s Business Daily with editorials and articles in the Issues and Insights section dating back to 2003.

His most recent viewpoint, Profits Are For People, appeared today (10/25/2011).  I heartily recommend it to anyone who does not understand the concept of PROFIT and the role it plays as an enabler of free enterprise and the American way of life.

For those who disagree or side with the folks who have recently made the news as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement and similar Occupy protests, allow me to encourage your consideration of residency in a socialist country where you’ll no doubt be far happier living off the industry and efforts of others, courtesy of their government.

HOLDER IN CONTEMPT?

Here's Some Background

Did he commit perjury?

President Clinton - August 17, 1998 – “It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.”

Eric Holder – May 2, 2011 – “. . . I probably learned about Fast and Furious over the last few weeks.”

I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “probably” and the phrase “last few weeks”.  Any way you cut it, he’s being evasive.  If that’s what you want from the nation’s leading law enforcement official, I suppose it’s OK.  Not in my opinion! 

See  IBD: HOLDER LIED-AGENTS DIED By Ruth King on July 27th, 2011

But that's consistent with both the Obama administration and Holder.  Notwithstanding Obama's no-lobbyiest rule, he made more than forty exceptions during his first year in office, one of which is Holder who was a registered lobbyist back in 2004 for Covington & Burling.  Holder's creds as a "cover up artist" are nothing new to anyone familiar with his work for Chiquita Brands International and his assistance to Illinois Governor and crook, Rod Blagojevich.

Given his track record and recent developments, it's no surprise to see articles like Indict Eric Holder - Posted in the IBD - 10/04/2011 06:59 PM ET.  Now he refuses to release documents which have been requested by Congressman Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee.  Let's hope Congressman Issa brings everyone involved in this coverup out into the light of day.

Solyndra Scandal & Events of Similar Color

Some background:

·         Solyndra’s All Too Predictable Collapse

o    Published: Daily Caller.com - 3:33 PM 09/01/2011 | Updated: 6:35 PM 09/04/2011

·         Solyndra - A few new facts. A few new questions

o    Blog posted 9/15/11

·         More 'Green' For Donor Energy

o    Posted in IBD - 09/29/2011 06:33 PM ET

·         Cracking Acorn

o    Posted in National Review Online - November 3, 2008 8:00 A.M.

During the primaries, the Obama presidential campaign paid $832,598 to ACORN affiliate CSI for get-out-the-vote activities.

Vote fraud is just one of (Acorn's) illegal practices

·         SEIU PAC Spent $27 Million Supporting Obama’s Election, FEC Filing Says

·         Evidence of an American Plutocracy: The Larry Summers Stor

By Matthew Skomarovsky • Jan 10, 2011 at 19:31 EST

“Much of the public has come to view the Obama Administration as the latest round in a quickening game of musical chairs, played by the same old politicians who owe their fortunes or their careers to the same financial institutions that destroyed the economy, each round further consolidating their unaccountable power, each round bringing fresh disillusionment.

See any "common threads" yet?Does the term "pay to play" strike any chords for you?