Also, “the intentions housing policy…”; “Government agencies”; etc.

My friends, and my esteemed Sheldon Richman.

You missed my point entirely. I never indicted your piece for its controversial nature, rather for its naive, innocent promulgation.

I have allowed some time to go by since my last post to see how many interested persons would respond. Now, I shall put my money where my mouth is, with regards to citations, documentations and referencing hard evidence (what is referred to in the industry as “hard copy”).

As I stated in the conclusion of my last post to this blog, I agree with your conclusions. However, I have undertaken to validate them with demonstrably factual citations. Consider:

The Obama administration has clearly undertaken a systemic economic approach to destroy America. This assertion is corroborated and further amplified by James Simpson, who first posited the strategy in an September 28, 2008 article in the online edition of AMERCIAN THINKER (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/barack_obama_and_the_strategy.html). Mr. Simpson’s premise was [then - as it is now] simple: Tell me who you hang out with, and I’ll tell you who you are. Mr. Simpson’s astonishing research has uncovered that Obama is in fact implenting a socialist policy first written about in the radical magazine known as The Nation. The article was published on May 2, 1966 and laid out what is now known as the “Cloward-Piven Strategy.” The plan calls for the destruction of capitalism in America by swelling the welfare rolls to the point of collapsing our economy. The omni-beneficwent Federal governemnt would then swoop in and implement socialism by nationalizing many if not all of our private institutions.

Cloward and Piven, a pair of Marxist professors at Columbia University, studied Saul Alinsky, as has Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.If we were to do the same, that is to study and understand the Cloward-Piven strategy, the rules of Saul Alinsky and their cultural Marxist worldview, thenwe will have found the blueprint and specifications for the socialist regime presently being undertaken today in America.

I thank you once again my friends,

Wilbur Lam

The statement about the intentions housing policy should not be a revelation to you. Government agencies have been proclaiming their intention to change the outcome of the housing market for years. Every so often an administration heralded some new program to make housing more affordable. It happened as recently as 2003 with HUD’s no-down-payment program. I am not revealing any secrets here.

Fannie and Freddie were exercises in social engineering. See above. Why is a footnote needed? The point is explained in detail.

What is controversial about saying the policymakers used political means to direct capital into housing and finance? Did they not do this in the name of spreading home ownership? Were huge fortunes not made as a result? And why do I need to document the obvious point that all government programs ultimately rest on the power to tax, which is the power to coerce?

“They were set up—intentionally;”

“The collapse of Fannie and Freddie is government social engineering;”

“Dressed up as promotion of the American Dream through home ownership, the planners used political means—ultimately, the threat to imprison uncooperative taxpayers—to channel wealth to the construction, real-estate, and financial industries;”

Needless to say, although I may agree with your conclusion, I would need more reality based evidence to agree with your foundational premise.

Remember: Document. Cite. Foornote.

Your friend,

Wilbur Lam