Foreclosure Propaganda Continues

Last evening while browsing the internet, I came upon an article that was written addressing the foreclosure situation, and listed the top ten states with the highest foreclosure rates for February.

This article was written by a site know as "24/7 Wall Street" which took a few positions that seemed rather self-serving to Wall Street, to say the least.

It represented that "nine of the top 11 states with the highest foreclosures" were judicial foreclosures states, because of the amount of time it takes for the banks to foreclosure with the complexities involved.

Contrary to most of the reports in the mainstream media listing the states with the highest foreclosure rates thus far after this five year federal and state taking of American's properties, which lists Nevada, California, Arizona, Georgia, Utah and Florida as highest (the majority of which are non-judicial foreclosure states), 24/7 Wall Street's list was as follows:

Florida
New Jersey
Illinois
Nevada
New York

Why the discrepancy, and spins on judicial vs. non-judicial foreclosures?

I can only assume 24/7 Wall Street has an agenda, that is certain.

It is no surprise that Nevada is on both lists. The loss of jobs in the gaming industry, particularly, has resulted in many Americans living in that state to lose their homes when they were unable to keep making those payments.

Vegas is hurting, since in a bad economy few people have much money for entertainment or gaming. And the glitz of Vegas is somewhat off putting to many Americans to begin with.

Florida either.

Since many of the retirees have seen their Social Security payments cut or those cost of living increases delayed. And with many also in the tourism industry, another hard hit during this recession, high foreclosures would only stand to reason.

But it is rather doubtful that the new figures have anything to do with judicial foreclosures states having higher rates.

Simply that those states are now catching up due to the still joblessness of many Americans, high cost of housing there, and fact that since there is a longer foreclosure process and time between serving notice and the banks taking of the home, five years later those states would be catching up to the non-judicial foreclosure states, such as Arizona, Nevada, California and Georgia, that for the past five years have led the lists.

At least with a judicial foreclosure, an American homeowner would have the fundamental right to request a jury determination under our Constitution, if he has any investment or equity in that home whatsoever.

And place his case before his fellow Americans.

Not so in those unconstitutional non-judicial foreclosure states.

And guess who will be the largest beneficiary of the recent settlement Mr. Obama announced over the mortgage mess and foreclosure abuse which has transpired the past five years?

The states.

That's right.

It was the states that actually "settled" with those banks - of course, after being fully aware, I'm sure, of the illegal lending practices which were going on in their states for literally decades.

Of course, mortgages backed or underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in this "settlement."

The feds have indemnified themselves it appears, since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were, after all, created by Congress.

What corruption.

And definitely appears the American people aren't buying.

Either this latest settlement, and that piddly $2,000 the states also negotiated for their now homeless citizens.

The market isn't rallying in any fundamental way.

Unless those states plan to sell those homes to all the foreigners and immigrants they continue to request under those state resolutions to take also those "jobs Americans don't want."

You know, all those Canadians buying winter homes in the Sunbelt states at bargain basement prices, or East Indians, Mexicans or South Americans under those free trade agreements and visa waivers...

The Obama Solution: Lenders As Landlords

This past week there was a news report released by the mainstream media that Barack Obama has arrived at a solution to "solve" the mortgage crisis and foreclosure mess, especially in the hardest hit states of Arizona and Florida, by turning Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the mortgagee on a great many of those properties, into landlords.

It was also reported that input into this proposal by the public would be accepted until September.

Instead of actually addressing the true problems and just why the housing market isn't rebounding with the public expressing their free market dissatisfaction with the manner in which most of those properties are sold, with overly restrictive terms and conditions on those loans, and at usurous rates at that, the Obama Administration's agenda appears to be to corner the market on private land and home ownership in this country.

Or shift those properties over to all those investment groups so that all land is eventually "corporately" owned, and "managed".




The greed of the banks and the foreclosure industry at this point is truly incredible.

And make no mistake about it, in both Arizona and Florida the foreclosure industry is very big business, and both states have a very long and illustrous history of land and real estate fraud.

Just imagine all those LLCs and limited partnerships of doctors, lawyers and other high income individuals who will eventually purchase those bargain basement mortgages on entire developments if this "suggestion" becomes law.

Gone will be all private land ownership in this country eventually, as has been the agenda it appears with the progressive agendas of placing management companies and lawyers in charge already of large developments under those covenants already sold with homes in which "homeowners associations" throughout the nation have become the norm. Where the freedom to even paint your home the color you wish, or make improvements now involves a "corporate" or "committee" decision of your neighbors, or the non-owner management companies.

I wonder, just why are Americans turned off at this point with purchasing a property only to find out they truly have no "ownership" rights to speak of in any manner whatsoever.

And just why was this "announcement" buried by most news readers and reporters, when it has such monumental impact with respect to its "legality?"

And all appearances to the contrary, the Democratic Party is clearly as "corporately" focused as Mr. Romney's definition of "people," only this time fundamental private property rights and ownership rights are the targets to this Administration.

Placing them now under banker's control as the "landlords."

So THIS is where all that stimulus money will eventually be spent? Purchasing all the land and homes of Americans also now affected by failed governmental policies who have lost their jobs, and will now be losing their homes to the banker landlords?

When many of those banks who offered those Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae loans are controlled by foreigners through their stock ownership?

Outrageous.


If you agree that this is outside the intent for private property ownership, with banks not as lenders but as landlords, contact the Federal Housing Financial Administration at FHFAinfo@FHFA.gov.

Senate Celebrates While Constitution Burns

(Edited and Revised)

It was announced by the AP today that Senate Democrats are ready to hand Barack Obama his "victorious" health care deform bill on Christmas Eve - the bill that was concocted mostly by consulting with the industry "stakeholders," such as the global insurers, AARP trade affiliated vendors marketing to senior citizens, and the AMA who now can potentially refuse treatment to any and all Americans that do not have some health care coverage, or use now this bogus measure to deny life saving treatments to many if their federally sanctioned plans do not so provide.

While, of course, providing free emergency treatment to illegal immigrants and foreigners under separate legislation that was enacted under the Reagan Administration after the first amnesty bill was passed, and through various trade agreements, especially with Mexico and Canada.

And, of course, even the government has its own escape clause in such instances. It is called the Federal Tort Claim Act, which only provides for compensation in such event for actual losses or damages, not punitive awards in any manner whatsoever for deaths or injuries which occur in which even those now "governmentally approved" plans provide.

So go try to get a lawyer in order to help you redress a federally sanctioned plan that has denied you coverage and watch the lawyers squirm, or quote you an hourly rate that would have you bankrupted within a week at their hourly rates which now at over $300 to $400 per hour (how many times is THAT over the minimum wage), and in some states throughout the nation, that rate won't even get you a few hours of legal research or status reports by their secretaries or paralegals, the profit margins on that profession are now so stratrospheric.

My main question has been, due to the length of this bill at over 2,000 pages of legalese which proves it was written by lawyers, for lawyers most of all, - just where has the ACLU, that organization dedicated to supposedly protecting American's civil rights and the Bill of Rights, been during this entire fiasco which has been ongoing since last summer?

The organization that was behind the "death by dehydration" of Teri Schiavo, as a "right to choose," whether or not medical treatment should be extended at all to the disabled if not responsive - even in the event where rehabilitation had been denied such individual even though covered by insurance provision, and who was clearly still breathing independently without any mechanical assistance whatsoever?

I mean, it would appear that in their silence now for six long months, their stances in the Teri Schiavo matter clearly were nothing more than empty rhetoric, and legal smoke and mirrors.

Where is the protection of the Constitutional rights for Americans to not be denied "life, liberty or property" without "due process" of law - since health care insurance is a product, and Congress really has no authority whatsoever to "mandate" that Americans must purchase a product or be "fined" and "sanctioned" by Uncle Sam if not in compliance.

Especially without a Constitutional Amendment granting such authority outside their enumerated powers and duties. If anything, this is a "state" matter and not a federal one in any manner whatsoever.

And one in which every single state in the nation already has existing plans in order to cover the very individuals that this bill presumes to include - the indigent, or those that are clearly denied coverage or cannot afford to provide it given their economic circumstances.

Although much has been made mention of the inclusion of the small regulatory function (their legal duty in such a matter, if any, over corporate concerns affecting the citizenry) of mandating that insurers cannot deny coverage for those with pre-existing medical conditions - in any the summaries I have read there is nowhere any federal regulatory agency charged with oversight, nor fines imposed on insurers that do not comply.

Nor is their language or any control over just how much it will cost, once again, for those that DO have pre-existing conditions.

The trick has been in the auto insurance mandatory laws due to states that have included such language for their state residents, simply to charge such an outrageous price for the coverage that only about 2% of the population could afford it.

Or the state's then collect more taxes from the general public in order to so provide those SR-22 policies that the state's then get a share in.

Yes, this is the bill that will "keep on giving" to the industries and financial sectors, at the cost once again of the American people resulting in lower and lower economic circumstances for most, and steadily continuing to wipe out the middle class in the process.

So it is clear that truthfully both parties have merged into the "global socialist party" and both work for their corporate benefactors.

With simply a small change in which major benefactor they are attempting to feed at the American public's ultimate expense.

And our Constitution be damned.

What's Not Being Disclosed On Obamacare

Interesting in all the debates now on the mainstream media that some rather pertinent facts and observations have also been kept from the public in all the brouhaha surrounding Obama's and Congress's plans for health care reform.

At the present time, there is already a socialized health care program for seniors at the federal level called Medicare. At the state levels there is also now health care plans that are funded for the indigent, those that have been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, dependent children of the working poor, and even illegal immigrants for emergency care services (which are used to visit hospital emergency rooms for cases of the flu, and result in six hour waits for lawful Americans in many hospitals now throughout the country).

In effect, we already have health care insurance and provision for all Americans at some level or another. There is also self-insurance for the wealthy, and those that choose to self-insure for regular doctor visits but simply carry catastrophic care.

Right now, all of these programs are funded by the citizens at either the federal or state levels, with the states then required to provide matching sums with respect to some of these programs (except the one for the illegals, which is picked up at the federal level, which is why so many of those local initiatives denying such services to the illegals are really quite ludicrous since those services and costs are federal laws, not local, and the health care industry know that).

It appears what this truly is is simply another way to centralize more and more power in Washington, increase our federal deficit then in the process for the benefit of the European bankers that rape the American people for their services in printing our currency, and Wall Street once again for the health care sector.

And, of course, the politicians for their future careers.

What also has been left unsaid is that the costs for these programs will now come out of every American's paychecks through their corporate employers, and as with social security, leaves the door open then for future legislation then involving "matching sums" from those employers for those benefits.

And the fact is, since the federal government cannot mandate that health care providers accept lower cost insurance or a government plan for any patients that they treat, can result in paying for years into this program and then when needing care not be able to find a health care provider that accepts these plans. Right now due to the low payment levels involved, there are many providers that do not accept new Medicare patients.

And while many of them do accept new patients for childbirth, most OB-GYNs won't accept them for surgical reasons otherwise. Since to do so would mean they have "committed" to that patients future care and then cannot deny them treatment when the costs of their treatment or specific needs outweighs the amounts the state or local plans are willing to pay.

Ethically, once a doctor accepts you as a patient, he cannot deny then future treatment. Thus, why so many doctors have now posted signs indicating that they will not accept future Medicare patients.

So you may be paying for this "universal" plan in taxation, yet then be unable to use it for your elder care needs when you may truly need it if there are not enough doctors in your local community that are willing to take on new patients.

And since the next generation of Americans is far fewer than the previous baby boomer generation was, this scenario has more basis in fact, than fiction.

So continue to believe the spins, America, but what the government wants in this legislation is merely to centralize more of the power in Washington, and more access to the fruits of your labor through their corporate "state actor" entities, since special interests wrote this legislation, after all, and that is who both Congress and Mr. Obama have been hard at work consulting.

Hoping that the older generation doesn't connnect that the AARP is the largest provider of supplemental plans, and speaks for the industries and trade groups that market through them, not at advocates for seniors at all. Nor does the AMA speak for most doctors either, simply their own also supplemental plans and trade groups. Nor the unions, just in order to get more for the corporate health care provider under their banner who also sell "supplemental" plans to their members. And with the government as the primary provider in these instances and then fall guy for denied treatment without any recourse for Big Daddy's refusal other than petitioning the very entity that refused the treatment to begin with, a great way for those supplemental carriers who give kickbacks to those organizations a way to reap massive revenue without ever having to pay out on any claims.

That's why the "corporate" interests have been meeting with Congress all summer behind those closed doors.

Just to make sure their "interests" and wallets were covered. Not yours.

Jobless Rate Shows Minor Decline: Happy Days Are Here Again?

For Any And All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:


It was reported in the mainstream media today that the jobless rate had a minor decline the month of July, the first such decline since August of 2008, with the Obama Administration then taking credit and predicting this was a "strong indication" that perhaps the jobless rates and unemployment would begin to correct after the losses which have occured this past few years.

The jobless rate according to the Department of Labor is hovering at about 9%. I would say those figures would be low, since it doesn't take into consideration those individuals who have lost their small businesses during this economic tsunami (who are not eligible to collect unemployment) nor those whose benefits have expired and are still not working with little likelihood that their situations will change anytime in the near future in their former lines of work. Also July is a big vacation month for many, and vacation pay can and is lower than workweek pay in many instances and also many are now working as temporary help for any overflow. Temporary labor needs are higher now in seasonal industries such as retailing and the needed temporary "back to school" workers specifically hired for short term employment needs.

After all, Obama himself laid off literally thousands in Detroit with the prediction that those jobs would not be coming back. So what is an ex-autoworker really to do that has spent his entire life on a production line what with the outsourcing that has occurred that has eroded our industrial base here at home to less than half it was during the Industrial Revolution which, along with our agricultural base, kept this country a major economic power for well over 150 years?

Mr. Obama and this Administration's focus is on green jobs and science based technology. In other words, promoting Silicon Valley most of all and the large public utility companies. But these measures have been tried before, in the late 1960's and 1970's and it actually was the environmentalists and such that actually prevented new energy sources from being developed and utilized during the last gasoline crisis when prices went from less than 30 cents per gallon to well over $1.00. The largest price increase since the automobile was invented by Henry Ford.

The wind tunnels and turbine energy sources were banned since none of those liberals wanted those ugly towers in their communities. Nuclear power was developed as an alternative source of energy with promises to local communities that cleaner nuclear energy would result in lower energy costs for all. What then happened after all those bond elections and federal grant and ratepayer's monies were spent to build those nuclear power plants?

Those public utility companies were then privatized by the local governments for added revenue in sales taxes, and the rate payers utility bills did not go down - they went up in order to provide for the investors dividends and other capital gains on their investment.

Thus, the costs of energy now in Phoenix who has the largest, Palo Verde Generating Station, less than 50 miles from the metro area have exploded due to its privatization and lack of any true regulation anymore by the state in the costs it now passes on to the ratepayers for their investors' profit.

And now has stooped so low as to recently institute a rate increase based upon an "inspection" done by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Agency (instituted after both the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island disasters) supposedly calling for some expensive repairs that were then passed off once again to the rate payers for the fines and costs of bringing the plant now into compliance (although this plant is actually much newer than some on the East Coast which was finished in 1988, and thus was built after those disasters and included upgraded safety precautions and measures during its construction).

After work on Palo Verde was finished, Arizona unemployment also climbed considerably since it had started also on the science and technology bandwagon as the home of Hughes, Honeywell, and other government contractors, and its reliance on its historic sustainable industries - copper, cattle, cotton and citrus - fell by the wayside in furtherance of those objectives, and as a state marketing itself mostly to retirees for their early retirement years. In the process, the climate which had made the state a haven for those with respiratory diseases and afflictions, ended up driving out more than it brought in insofar as permanent or long term residents, which has contributed to the urban sprawl and transient nature for the majority of those that call Arizona a "temporary," at best home.

Now it is also one of the states facing the largest number of unemployed and homeless due to the mortgage foreclosure mess, since along with many of those new and "transient" residents came also the East Coast, Western and Midwest real estate speculators and land fraud "get rich quick" artists.

The focus now of the state has swung to the Obama agendas in the health care sector specifically, although at this point most of the retirees that do end up retiring in Arizona usually when their health begins to truly fail end up moving back to their homes of origin in order to be closer to extended family members.

But I digress except to make a point.

Since a good portion of the population is not at all gifted in the field of science and technology naturally, no matter how much the focus of our state and private universities and money is poured into them in order to facilitate this agenda, just where is Washington planning to "outsource" our agricultural base for all the land that is going to be needed for these wind towers, nuclear generating plants, and new "green" manufacturing plants anyway?

Are they planning on turning Kansas and Nebraska into one huge wind turbine, or nuclear generating station in order to meet the entire Northern Hemisphere's future energy needs? And the State of Texas or New Mexico into one huge solar panel for those in the Southern?

We already have the technology, but the people were not at all impressed with the technology that came along with that technology, after all, in the 1970's.

So what does Mr. Obama and this Administration think has changed since that time, other than the fact that due to those same environmentalists our petroleum reserves and offshore wells have been literally hamstrung by regulatory codes and laws on limits of production, atmospheric or environmental particulates that have been so broad based that Nebraska's farmers are fined during planting seasons for excess particulates, and we are now in wars and buying more and more foreign oil due to a segment of the population that is never satisfied no matter what "alternative" fuels or greener technology is proposed.

Including, from Mr. Obama's positions during the election campaign, himself as one of those liberal leaning wackos for whatever reason, Wall Street or his base.

So other than placing all Americans health care records on a national database and invading their rights to privacy over their most personal property and information, their very own physical health, and passing a stimulus for Wall Street again at the American public's expense fining now those power plants or setting up galactic bidding wars for Wall Street's benefit without removing the environmental restrictions which have gotten us into this mess to begin with, just where are all those now laid off GM workers and the other now unemployed going to find their own job stimulus for jobs in which they are qualified since it is clear they would also not meet the criteria for the loans now being offered up by those banks and lenders for educational purposes due to either their age, or their financial prospects and ability to repay?

I suppose what I am really saying here is that I'd put the cork back on that champagne if I were you.

Obama's Energy Czar: Socializing Paint Colors Throughout The Globe

The liberal lefty loonies have done it again in the U.S., and amazed that the state of our nation has now come to this.

According to Yahoo News and several other news sources, at a recent symposium held in London by 20 pre-eminent Nobel laureates and attended by the Prince of Wales, Barack Obama's new energy czar, Steven Chu, made his contribution to the global warming non-phenomena now sweeping the globe in order to "stimulate" the economies of the science and technology fields:

Mr. Chu recommends that all roofs be painted energy-reflective white.

In the article he further states that making roads and roofs a paler color would have the effect of taking every car off the road for 11 years.

I wonder if he ever worked for DuPont?

As a former Arizona resident, I can unequivocally state that painting roofs white might not be a bad idea given the sweltering summers in that desert climate. However, due to the desert dust storms and monsoons, those roofs would be brown, gray or even black within a few seasons. Not to mention the extra-strength prescription Ray-Bans you would need during the summer in order not to suffer the equivalent of snow blindness.

I wonder if these noted laureates took into consideration that with all those white roofs, would it not increase the heat also that would be reflected back toward the sun, potentially burning out that star well before its time and leaving this planet then in total darkness?

Maybe that topic is for the next global summit.

I wonder what the carbon footprints for those attending the meeting, and whether they flew by prop or British Airways non-stop jumbo jet? With the state of our technology as it is now, you would think twenty scientists could meet via telecom or satellite communications, and spare the rest of the world that excess carbon.

At least the White House and Capitol are in compliance, but it appears socializing exterior roofing is now also not even beyond the reach of these global politicians and world leaders at this point.

Mixed Messages: Obama Speaks At Notre Dame, Protestors Escorted Out

Recently Barack Obama presented another one of his speeches to the graduating class of Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana - a private Catholic University.

Since the announcement of Mr. Obama's handpicked universities for his appearances, there had been much controversy and debate with respect to his choice of Notre Dame due to his clear advocacy and support for unrestricted access to abortions in this country, even going so far as to oppose an Illinois bill attempting to ban the heinous late term "partial birth" abortion practice within that state prior to his election to the Senate, which did come up during the election campaign a few times and which he never convincingly explained.

This practice has also been known due to its brutal method, to cause trauma and injury to the woman in the process, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld its ban due to both the timing and the method which is then used, and the risks to the mother.

The Catholic Church, of course, takes exception to this position as in violation of their church teachings on the sanctity of human life.

There was much build up reported in the mainstream media in this country, with some in the academic community vocalizing their objections, and others apparently more interested in the press that such a visit would entail for the university who attempted to downplay the conflict.

Its hard to fault some at the school, since they were in a "no win" political situation. Although if ever there was a time for the head of the university to take a stand for his Church's teachings, you would think this would have been one of them in order to set that example for those graduating seniors. But does appear that there was some force preventing him from doing so.

Perhaps this was the point all along.

It truly was interesting in light of Mr. Obama's positions that he would choose Notre Dame to begin with, and sort of makes one wonder what his true agenda actually was all about.

There are literally thousands of college campuses in this country, and it did appear there was a method to his madness in that of the three universities selected - Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona; Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana; and the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland - one was a public university, another a private religious institution, and the third a military academy.

According to the local South Bend newspaper, the final event was pulled off without a hitch. The reason being, of course, that as soon as some of the more vocal members of the student body decided to use their freedom of speech, they were summarily escorted from the auditorium by the security detail assigned for the event.

Interestingly, the piece from the local paper also summarized the gist of the message Mr. Obama had chosen for those graduating seniors. The final paragraph of which quoted Mr. Obama's final instruction and message:

"In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated," he said. "Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse."

Based upon the treatment of those in the audience who were "unafraid to speak their minds when their values were at stake," and their subsequent ejection from the event, I hope I'm not the only one that caught the hypocricy there.

Although Notre Dame is a private university, it receives much in the way of public funding in grant monies from the American taxpayers, and is not at all truly privately funded at all. And most of those private funds also come from members of the Catholic community.

I wonder who spoke at Mr. Obama's graduation ceremony from Harvard as one who was schooled and would gather passed his Constitutional law classes?

Mikhail Gorbechev?

http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090518/News01/905189969/1011/News

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

House Passes "New and Improved" Hate Crimes Legislation

On April 29, 2009 the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League was victorious again in complicating unnecessarily civil rights actions in this country with respect to criminal tort actions, and the House passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009.

The Bill was passed by a vote of 248-175, with 18 Democrats voting against the Bill, and 17 Republicans voting for. Which, in and of itself, demonstrates that there was much politicking and backroom wheeling and dealing with members of the House concerned about their re-elections affecting some of those votes. The Bill now goes on to the Senate.

This piece of legislation expands the Hate Crimes legislation passed several years ago to include crimes connected with gender and other biases. It also affords the ACLU and other civil rights legal organizations an "economic stimulus" and bigger pool of clients for their taxpayer paid legal fees for civil rights cases.

And also increases the tax burden in expanding government in order to provide the sums in order to enforce this new law at the local level in providing for a surveillance detail to the tune of 10 million over the course of the next two years.

Since there is already provisions for equality in criminal actions based upon the actual crime committed, such as stalking, harassment, assault, and bodily injury or property damage, it does appear that our Congress continues to expand its reach even though it appears with the current U.S. economy and ongoing war it has more than enough on its plate already.

Since there are grant monies involved, it will also strain local law enforcement personnel, even with the added sums, and take them away from pursing the property and violent crimes that are actually committed and increasing in most states across the nation. Local law enforcement and the states actually know what crimes their particular states and local communities actually have the most trouble with, and each state's needs inherently different in that respect. Now we again will have political arrests for state budgetary needs and revenue, and the also more federally funded actions for outrageous fee awards and lawyers welfare needs potentially for any and all crimes against ever increasing protected classes when all taken together in total are now the majority of Americans.

The crimes which most often occur in the border states, for example, in drug related crimes and property theft will once again be shoved aside - since we all know that all federal grant monies come with strings and performance standards attached. Such as the now low level DUI and social drinking enforcement actions.

Since there are already state and local laws for each and every criminal action which occurs irrespective of race, sex, gender, etc., shouldn't the motivation for any such crimes be left for a jury to decide as a fact matter, and the punishment for provable intentional biased-based criminal activities be up to them depending on the evidence presented at the actual trial?

Why is the federal government involved in handing out and dictating the punishments now for state criminal actions, in direct violation of our Constitution and outside their jurisdiction?

Now the federal government is involved in dictating local police actions and priorities. Just when will it end?

What will be next, a law providing extra penalties for telling blonde jokes at the water cooler, or male menopause jokes at the local gym?

I don't mean to make light of this, but it does appear that Congress does have greater priorities at this time, and also the fact that these laws simply seem redundant and really should be left to state and local authorities, and the jurors as "crimes against the state."

The power of the jury and voice of the people continues to be whittled away due to a great many of these recent interferences by federal officials in what the founders provided were state and local criminal matters under both Bush with the social drinking taxs and laws, and now Obama in state and local civil and criminal matters at an ever-increasing rate.

The Downside To Government Provided Health Care: Not Just More Taxes

Last week Barack Obama called leaders of the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies and labor organizations for a pow-wow regarding one of his fundamental quests as stated during his campaign: health care reform.

Although these three industries are not in any way directly tied to patient care and delivery, it appears Mr. Obama is playing diplomat with this issue and appeaser with these industry leeches in order that they don't lose a piece of their pie under any anticipated governmental program.

Under Obama's plan, it is estimated that approximately 119 million Americans would shift from private insurance to the governmental plan, putting America on the path toward a completely government run socialized health care system. This, of course, would not sit well with the private insurance carriers who would stand to not only lose business, but their very shirts and the jobs of many who are currently hawking those policies to private businesses and individuals.

The pharmaceutical industry, of course, is quite concerned because under any government plan generics and other effective lower cost drugs (think penicillin and cheaper antibiotics) on which there isn't as much profit would most likely be the preferred and "authorized" treatment with Uncle Sam picking up the tab.

Many of those drug company representatives peddling their "new and improved" wares to doctors would also lose their jobs in the process, and a few of those free bonus trips, and the physicans and health care providers a few holiday gifts.

The unions earned their seat at the appeasement table due to the fact that any government plan would impact Big Labor and their own health care plans which have their administrative mark ups also built in which would, most likely, be negotiated away during the next collective bargaining session.

Mr. Obama during his campaigns assured the American people that the governmental plan he was proposing would simply be an "alternate," with Americans then able to make a choice between the government plan or retaining their own private carriers.

What was left unsaid, however, is that most private insurance is not bought by individuals in this country, but by their Big Business employers. Employers who have shareholders to answer to, and are now facing economic woes of their own throughout many major industries due to this Washington precipitated economic meltdown.

Just how long do you think those employers will keep those group plans once the government plan undercuts them?

What also was left unsaid is that the Obama plan also intends to parent America's children and youth, and mandate that parents must insure their children and themselves, and also feed Washington in providing fines and fees for non-compliance.

In other words, another non-consensual tax in the making that, if Medicare and Medicaid are any indication, will be used for other "discretionary" purposes and be an unaccountable bottomless pit of taxation.

I look for this scenario to go one of two ways:

(1) Mr. Obama will continue in his role as appeaser to all with the exception of Joe Citizen, and will attempt to placate the union bosses and fat cat pharmaceutical executives and insurers by cutting back his legislation to be a bare bones "emergency treatment" policy, with the intent not to totally "socialize" health care in this country but afford Americans then to visit their local insurance agent and sign up for supplemental coverage.

Sort of like Plan A or B supplements for the seniors, only privately obtained. And those supplemental plans will be also subject to increasing costs based upon claims as with the plans now offered, with the government plan as "primary," which will not kick in unless and until you have used the government benefits first, with the insurance industry then able to use the government as the scapegoat for denied treatments.

(2) Or Mr. Obama and Congress in the fine print of the bill will enter into public/private partnerships with the major insurance carriers in this country, and Big Labor privileges of adding in their profit and cut into the government contracts to the amounts which will be required to be withheld from employee/union member paychecks as "administration" fees, with the pharmaceutical industry perhaps being afforded longer patent rights for new medications retroactively and sums for promised grants for future research costs, especially since the embryonic stem cell bill now has been accorded them for their future profits also.

(NOTE: the patent for the original outrageously expensive drugs for AIDS which are used by and large still today expire in 2017, since litigation over ownership rights for the drugs began almost immediately after its "discovery" and have extended the patents on them already an additional 10 years since the patents don't begin until ownership is established, with two companies now sharing those profits since the case was subsequently settled in the early 90's).

The lives of Americans, and especially the large baby boomer generation, are now being bargained for between the insurers, pharmaceutical industries, and big labor.

And I wonder just what recourse will be included for citizens if denied treatment, or if there are any delays or negligence in the care received by government employed physicians and hospitals? What kind of shell game then might Americans face in attempting to redress those grievances between the bureaucrats, insurers, big labor and pharmaceutical companies playing "Whose on first?"

Another take:

http://www.getbetterhealth.com/tag/galen-institute

Gee, I wonder if in this instance as in others whether following our Constitution might be a better idea, and break up the "associations" of these large industries in order to facilitate a truly free market once again, and get Big Labor out of the insurance and health care business which they had no right to enter into in the first place.

Maybe simply beginning to perform their Constitutional function in regulating and overseeing both the type of plans sold at either federal or state levels depending on carrier customer base and home office location.

For accountability, then funding a centralized complaint department for the American citizens to utilize which might be a better useage of those stimulus monies instead of what is going to become another Lawyers Employment Act in its violation of citizens privacy rights with that concocted national health care database for citizens medical information for the feeder industries and states nefarious purposes in the interest of "public unsafety."

I foresee such a bureaucratic administrative nightmare in the end will result in eventually putting small business physicians and software providers out of work, and ultimately increase costs due to government fees and costs which will be tacked on to the patients bills in order utilize that huge mistake-in-the-making system to store and transfer patient records, even if the correct records get transferred. Just imagine the potential lawsuits for unauthorized, misused or incorrect information.

Maybe what we need to do here is step back a moment and look at the legal and "long view."

What a novel idea.

Obama To Speak At ASU, Notre Dame and U.S. Naval Academy

It was announced recently that Barack Obama has scheduled appearances within the next two weeks at three major U.S. universities in order to speak at their commencement exercises. Arizona State University, a large Southwestern public college; Notre Dame, a private Catholic university; and the U.S. Naval Academy, a military academy.

Let's examine the three universities hand picked and selected out of the literally thousands of graduations which will occur this month throughout the nation:

Arizona State University is located in Tempe, Arizona and is the largest public university in the nation. It also just so happens to be a state that is and has been facing severe economic crisis due to both the housing and foreclosure crisis, and also the illegal immigrant situation and drug cartel wars which have erupted on the American Southwestern border.

It has been announced that despite the fact that over 74% of the American people are opposed to any amnesty of the estimated over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, primarily from Mexico, that Mr. Obama, Ms. Pelosi and Congress are geared up to push and pass such legislation over the American citizens objections.

And in spite of the failure of the Bush Administration in the last McCain/Kennedy amnesty attempt in 2006 in a move to extend such privileges to foreigners who entered this country illegally, for which as in its provisions again as "undocumented," and here using counterfeit IDs, includes no really viable method of screening these individuals for any prior criminal activity either in this country or their former country of origin.

These workers have displaced literally thousands of U.S. workers, many legal Mexican-Americans, in both the construction and tourism industry in the border states, states which rely heavily on those industries and are facing increasing joblessness and homelessness as a result.

Iraq war veterans working on the reconstruction in Iraq are returning home now to find many of their jobs also now "outsourced" to foreign workers. Some of those same students graduating in the technology fields will find even limited success due to the degree of outsourcing in the technology fields which have occurred progressively under the Bush and prior administrations.

Arizona also has the highest property theft and drug related crime rate in the nation due to the continuing open border situation from both the auto theft rings, and drug cartel operations which have impacted both the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas substantially since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 1980's.

The second college selection, the University of Notre Dame, also appears politically motivated. As a Catholic university which teaches also religion classes, Mr. Obama's positions on both abortion and stem cell research resulted in petitions being circulated at the university requesting that the "invitation" be withdrawn and was signed by over 11,000 students.

Although as a Catholic university, the Pope and church also have come out in support of Mr. Obama's illegal immigrant positions due to the fact that the majority of those illegal immigrants are of the Catholic faith.

In fact, the Pope in his last visit to this country used the opportunity to address the situation with his Church members with respect to Catholic church teachings, although with respect to border security, a separate but somewhat related issue due to the negative impact it has had on border residents, the Pope himself has a fortress surrounding Vatican City separating his country from Italy.

Border fencing and true security for those living in the border states, however, are not part and parcel of the intended legislation from all reports now coming out of Washington. Increased domestic screenings on American citizens, however, have increased at unprecedent levels instead rather than securing and limiting U.S. international ports of entry in placing global commerce and Big Business concerns over the lawful citizens rights to basic domestic and national security.

Due to this Constitutional federal negligence, the borders states are now hardest hit but the ramifications of which has been spreading at a rapid pace throughout the country due directly to those open borders.

With increasing American unrest with the progression and increases in troop levels for the Middle East war in direct opposition to Mr. Obama's stated positions while running as a candidate, the choice of the U.S. Naval Academy as the third selected university also appears to be a public relations appearance in order to gain further support from those graduates for the ongoing conflicts which are now occurring and continuing with increases and shuffling of troop levels.

The Anti-Bush appears to be needing some future military support, and the Naval Academy graduates will most likely be involved in the continuing conflict and eventually stationed within the Middle East who are obligated to serve in the military in some capacity upon their graduations.

And to this writer using America's children for governmental agendas due to the political climate with many Americans now questioning some of Mr. Obama's policies since gaining office in the war, stimulus, bailouts and his positions on illegal immigration and border security in spite of a lack of genuine citizen support for any of those recent measures or stated intentions, appears to be the lowest of the low in political posturing and public relations propaganda.

Cap-And-Trade: Costs To Average Americans

Barack Obama is holding closed door meetings this week in order to push one of his major initiatives in order to fight "global warming."

The "Cap-and-Trade" legislation he hopes to pass as soon as possible.

The George Marshall Institute studied the proposals as now outlined by House Democrats supporting Mr. Obama's agenda. Below are the taxes which would most likely result if this legislation comes to fruition.

Don't forget, this was one of the two candidates served up to the American people last election that held himself out as one who was concerned with the tax burdens now on the average "Joe the Plumber" Americans:

"The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.

Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015. As an illustration, gasoline would suffer a 16 cent price increase per gallon at the low end of the estimates to a $2.58 penalty at the high end (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon)."

So, again, as with the mortgage and financial crisis, we are not addressing the problems in a positive or meaningful way, simply either throwing money at the problems at the taxpayers expense, or passing the costs of corporate America's freewheeling ways on to the American public and socializing both the debts, and the "fines," in the way of new taxes on the public in general.

CNN and the mainstream media have been also promoting these measures for several weeks.

CNN is owned by General Electric, which would stand to gain enormous profits if such taxes were instituted both indirectly and directly.

These taxes would erase the recent reduction in the income tax rates for Americans making less than $250,000 per year.

It would also hit the average farmer in the Midwest, agricultural and mining communities the hardest. Rural America.

Why not simply give tax incentives and protections for those corporations that invest a portion of their profits in clean energy alternatives instead? Especially those investing in nuclear, wind and solar power.

These measures are so broad that farmers in the Midwest already under outrageous EPA particulate standards, now will also be slammed with fines and fees for greenhouse gases from their equipment in addition during both planting and harvesting time. It hamstrings our entire agricultural industry base in its provisions.

Only liberal Democrat-Globalists would find a way in order to actually tax now the air we breathe.

Maybe Mr. Obama, Ms. Clinton, Pelosi and Napolitano could start setting good examples by retiring Air Force One and cut their personal and business travel now in this high tech age of faxes, computers and satellite communications. Just how many trips are necessary in order to evaluate the Southwestern border issue?

Those steps would reduce the greenhouse gases emitted currently from Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska all combined.

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=636

Congress Introduces "CyberSecurity Act of 2009"

For free speech and privacy activists it appears that the Patriot Act was not enough. Nor the Patriot Act II signed into law shortly after newly elected Barack Obama was sworn into office hiding the provisions of a National Health Care database of citizen's health care records to be created by the government violating privacy rights at taxpayer's expense.

Now there is a move by Congress to grant powers to the President to regulate and control internet access. This "hope" and "change" is getting worse by the day. In it's current form, it appears the powers given are fairly broad in an effort to protect America's infrastructure in times of "crisis." However, the definition of a "crisis" is left to the sole discretion of the President.

Senate bills No. 773 and 778 (The "Cybersecurity Act of 2009) introduced by Senator Jay Rockfeller D-W.V. creates a new government agency (expanding government jobs and taxpayer expense once again) entitled the Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor which would be accountabl directly to the president whose main publicized function would be in defending the U.S. from "cyber attack."

The purpose of the bill as stated in its draft form is as follows:

"To ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communicatons,

to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes,

to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cyber security defenses against disruption,

AND FOR OTHER PUPOSES."

In the working draft of the legislation recently obtained by an Internet privacy group, the plan also grants the Secretary of Commerce access to all internet service providers which can in any way be deemed to be critical to the nation's infrastructure and defense "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access."

This measure as defended by Mr. Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, co-sponsors of the bills, is meant to give the Secretary of Commerce discretion to protect American's banking and health records in order to shut down those providers the President designates in the event of a "cyber attack."

The problems most in the cyber industry have brought up most often in response to these proposals is the lack of a clear definition of just what are the "critical infrastructure" networks, and the lack of any accountability of the President or the Secretary of Commerce given such powers and simply left at their sole discretion.

And the potential for access of the government, of course, to citizens private records in violation of the Constitution's "search and seizure" provisions.

The bills have been read twice on the floor, and have now been referred to Committee.

AIG: The Sanctity Of Contracts?

Recently "Break the Matrix" and Fox aired a segment from Judge Andrew Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" program with respect to the recent actions of Andrew Cuomo, Governor of New York, over the AIG executive bonuses and his actions visiting the executive's homes and demanding that these executives return those bonuses. Judge Napolitano was outraged, and relied on the Constitutional provisions with respect to contracts on the bonus issue.

I have just one problem with that. Contracts in bankruptcy or restructuring actions have never been ruled as "inviolate" when individuals are seeking bankruptcy protection, nor corporations, through the federal court system.

In fact, many contracts are set aside in such procedures depending on the assets, and future obligations are also scrutinized carefully since it is the trustee and court's job to protect the creditors primarily in getting the debts satisfied in whole or in part through whatever assets remain of the debtor and distributed accordingly at the time of filing. What can be protected by the debtor is also set by state and federal statute in order not to knock the legs totally out from under the debtor.

Also, the timing of execution of those contracts is also examined carefully, since there is a time frame prior to bankruptcy which must be met before that contract can be held valid in order to also protect the creditors - many a debtor has attempted to transfer assets using contracts in avoid their inclusion in the bankruptcy action which may be entered into when it appears bankruptcy is inevitable as an protection and avoidance tactic. How do I know this? I have had both friends and family members who have had to file bankruptcy both personally, and for their small businesses. I also worked as a contract law paralegal for many years.

Below is a copy of my letter to the Judge after viewing this segment:

Dear Judge Napolitano:

I just finished watching another interview on Fox regarding the AIG bonuses and Geithner's actions.

I am very, very confused as to where you are actually coming from.

Mr. Geithner, with respect to AIG at this point, since he was unlawfully transferred the trusteeship for this in effect bankruptcy action of a "global" corporation by Congress when they had no Constitutional authority to do so for this "restructuring" outside the federal court's jurisdiction, is in essence acting as trustee for the stockholders and shareholders and the American people.

Contracts are not inviolate under our Constitution nor under the common law and existing case law. As a matter of fact, many, many contracts are "set aside" for various reasons, especially in bankruptcy actions depending on just when those contracts were executed, whether they are "excessive" in their terms, and depending on the assets of the person or business claiming bankruptcy.

Corporations are not "persons" they are "property." They can be bought and sold. In a normal bankruptcy for an individual, all of their assets are up for grabs in order to satisfy the debts - which would include also any future obligations.

You can "contract" for a hit man, but that doesn't make that contract valid.

So just why does the media and the media representatives continue with all this smoke and mirrors with respect to the validity of this entire "bankruptcy," not to mention those bonuses - for a global corporation outside Constitutional authority to begin with?