Eugenia Bambas Reports from the Great Palmetto State
Amherst: One out of Five Borrowers Could Lose Their Home
10/04/2010
By: Carrie Bay
If governmental policy on foreclosure prevention does not
change, 11.5 million borrowers are in danger of losing their homes,
according to the analysts at Amherst Securities Group LP.
The staggering figure put forth by the mortgage investment brokerage
equates to one out of every five borrowers – an astronomical 20 percent
default rate that Amherst says “politically cannot happen.”
The dire forecast should be a wake-up call to regulators and
government officials charged with plugging the nation’s foreclosure
tsunami, and the analysts at the New York-based firm say they do believe
“the government will attempt successive modification plans until
something works.”
But up to this point, the administration still hasn’t hit on a
successful equation. Reports on the progress of the Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP) seem to grow more disappointing with each month’s new dataset. Treasury’s August report showed that nearly half of all homeowners approved for trial HAMP mods have already fallen out of the program.
Amherst’s report warns that while recent industry data shows a drop
in the number of delinquent loans, this information is skewed. According
to the firm’s analysts, this so-called “improvement” simply reflects
large-scale modification activity. The study explains that modifications
are being flagged as “current” often with no cash flow from the
borrower.
The firm’s analysts say, the bottom line is that 20 out of every 100 U.S. first lien residential mortgages are already impaired:
Nine are seriously behind in their payments.
Six have been behind and are classified as what Amherst calls
“dirty current” because they have been modified. But the firm says these
loans are re-defaulting at an eye-popping rate of 50 percent.
Five are underwater by more than 20 percent of their current value and are defaulting at a 20 percent per-year-pace.
So how can the administration fix deficiencies in its loan
modification program and keep the mortgage default rate from hitting the
menacing 20 percent mark? Amherst analysts say the answer lies in
cutting borrowers’ principal balances.
They argue that the success rate on mortgage modifications can be
raised by making greater use of principal reductions. Amherst says this
approach would help to address the phenomenon of strategic default,
which is becoming increasingly acceptable among frustrated borrowers.
Policymakers must first recognize that the inclination to walk-away from
one’s mortgage has become an economic issue, not a moral one, according
to Amherst. In addition, the costs of default must be made explicit,
and the second lien issue must also be addressed.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these foreclosure-prevention
policy changes will be sufficient to address the housing crisis,
according to Amherst. The firm says additional government intervention
is needed to boost housing demand.
Amherst recommends that the government provide leverage for
investors to buy real estate, ideally through its federal housing
agencies – the Federal Housing Administration (FHA),
Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac. Currently, Fannie and Freddie credit
availability for investor properties is very limited, requiring large
down payments and pristine credit, while FHA is for owner-occupied homes only.
Amherst says just when the market needs to increase demand for
homes, demand is actually contracting due to credit availability issues.
The firm’s analysts say new financing channels should be opened up to
investors, noting that investors are currently purchasing a
disproportionate share of foreclosed properties for cash.
In addition, Amherst recommends increasing credit availability on prudent terms to borrowers with less than pristine credit.
The large numbers of borrowers who have defaulted or will default on
existing mortgages will, under present programs, be locked out of
owning a home for years, but the company’s analysts say this setback can
be addressed by re-qualifying borrowers who are in a home they can’t
afford into one that better fits their financial situation.
SCF UPDATE
Mike
Lee
Voices Early Opposition to Supreme Court Justice Nominee Elena Kagan
Mike Lee, candidate
for U.S. Senate in Utah, has come out as an early opponent of President
Obama's decision to nominate his Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, to fill
the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Kagan has
drawn fire early in the nomination process based on the fact that,
while serving as dean of Harvard Law School, she prohibited military
recruiters from conducting on-campus interviews at Harvard.
She
has
also been criticized based on her lack of judicial experience, limited
litigation experience, surprisingly short paper trail (despite having
spent most of her career in academia, she has published only six law
review articles), and apparent lack of respect for the First Amendment
(as Solicitor General, she signed her name to a brief in United
States v. Stevens [2010] making the disturbing argument that
"[w]hether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection
depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against
its societal costs").
Mike Lee stated: "Kagan's decision
to exclude military recruiters from the Harvard campus - especially at a
time when our military is fighting overseas - gives me great pause in
considering her for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the
land. Her lack of judicial experience," Lee continued, "makes it
difficult to ascertain how faithful she might be in independently and
impartially deciding cases that will come before her. And although many
have served on the Supreme Court without prior judicial service, Kagan's
professional track record falls short of establishing that she would
consistently respect the text and original understanding of the
Constitution."
Lee
added: "The Senate cannot
simply be a rubber stamp for President Obama's nominees; otherwise,
those nominees will become a rubber stamp for whatever course of action
the Obama administration decides to pursue."
About Mike Lee: Mike has spent
his career helping individuals and organizations get overreaching
government regulations and control out of their lives and businesses. A
lifetime student of the Constitution, he graduated from the Brigham
Young University Law School. Mike served as a
law clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah and later spent time as General Counsel to Governor Jon
Huntsman. Mike has twice served as a law clerk
to current Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. He first clerked for the
solidly conservative jurist at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, then was asked to return as a clerk during Justice Alito's
important first year on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mike's
understanding of the Constitution have made him
a valuable resource for individuals and organizations throughout the
country.
Senate
Conservatives Fund is a political action committee dedicated to electing
true conservatives to the United States Senate. SCF seeks to bring bold conservative leadership to
Washington by
supporting only the most rock-solid, conservative Senate candidates
nationwide.
Contributions to Senate Conservatives Fund are not
deductible as
charitable contributions. Not paid for at taxpayer expense. Contributions from
corporations or foreign
nationals lacking permanent resident status are not permitted. Federal
law requires Senate Conservatives Fund to
report the name, mailing address, occupation and employer for each
individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a
calendar year.
PAID FOR
BY SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND PAC NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR
CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE SENATECONSERVATIVES.COM
WASHINGTON — They are two of the smartest men of their generation, both
magna cum laude products of Harvard
Law School, both cerebral and charming and ambitious. They vaulted to
the highest offices in the land after just short stints at the next
level down, and each was seen initially as a conciliator only to lead on
the strength of his own majority.
Illustration by John Ritter, photographs by Luke
Sharrett/The New York Times (Obama), Carol Powers for The New York Times
(Roberts)
Pete Souza/The White House
DO-OVER The chief justice
readministering the oath of office to President Obama.
Many years after their campus days in Cambridge, Mass., President
Obama and Chief Justice John
G. Roberts Jr. have emerged as the intellectual gladiators in a
great struggle over the role of government in American society. In this
moment of churning uncertainty and ideological ferment, it is a struggle
that is already defining the selection of the next Supreme Court
justice and could easily help shape the course of the nation for years
to come.
Much more so than last year, when he made his first nomination to the
court, Mr. Obama has Chief Justice Roberts on his mind as he mulls his
second, according to Democrats close to the White House. For an activist
president, the chief justice has emerged clearly in recent months as a
potentially formidable obstacle, and Mr. Obama has signaled that he
plans to use the political arena and his appointment power to counter
the direction of the Roberts court.
“He’s very concerned about the activism of the court in recent terms,”
said Senator Patrick
J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, ticking
off a series of cases that angered liberals, most notably allowing
corporations to spend freely in election campaigns. “He wants to make
sure he puts somebody on there who is not going to take radical steps
like that.”
But the chief justice’s defenders said his rulings have simply upheld a
textual analysis of the Constitution and they cast Mr. Obama’s focus on
the court as opportunistic and ideological. “The president is willing to
attack the Supreme Court in a calculated political manner,” said
Shannen W. Coffin, a friend of Chief Justice Roberts’s and a former
counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Either way, the search for a replacement for the retiring Justice John
Paul Stevens is centered on finding a justice who will not just
replicate his liberal votes but also bring intellectual heft and powers
of persuasion to the court to win the swing vote of Justice Anthony
M. Kennedy, according to people close to the search who insisted on
anonymity to discuss it. While activists on the left often say they
want a liberal Antonin
Scalia, the fiery conservative justice, Mr. Obama is looking for a
liberal John Roberts, who can forge a five-vote majority rather than
write satisfying but ultimately meaningless dissents.
The urgency is greater this year since the Citizens United decision in
January, in which the Roberts court threw out precedents to rule that
corporations have First Amendment rights to spend money in election
campaigns. Advisers said the ruling crystallized for Mr. Obama just how
sweeping the chief justice was willing to be. Indeed, some around the
president suspect that Chief Justice Roberts, after moving
incrementally in his first few years on the bench, has taken a more
assertive approach since Mr. Obama took office.
Conflict between the executive and judicial branches, of course, traces
its roots to the early days of the republic. Thomas
Jefferson and John Marshall wrestled over states’ rights versus
federal power. Abraham
Lincoln and Roger B. Taney struggled over the extent of the
president’s wartime power. Theodore
Roosevelt, angry at the position taken by his own appointee, Oliver
Wendell Holmes Jr., snapped that “I could carve out of a banana a judge
with more backbone than that.”
And then, of course, there was Franklin
D. Roosevelt’s open war with the Supreme Court in the 1930s. After
it invalidated much of his New Deal program, Roosevelt mounted a frontal
assault by proposing to expand the court with new justices — all
appointed by him, of course — only to have the so-called court-packing
scheme backfire amid bipartisan opposition. Still, Roosevelt argued
that he had lost the battle but won the war, as turnover and evolving
positions led to a court more disposed to his measures.
By comparison, of course, the struggle between the current president and
chief justice so far has been quite tame. But it is conceivable that
legal challenges already filed against Mr. Obama’s health care program
could eventually wind up before the Roberts court; indeed, Justice Stephen
G. Breyer just last week told a House committee that he expected it
to within three or four years. And other signature Obama initiatives,
like federal regulation of carbon emissions by power plants, may
likewise be challenged all the way to the Roberts court.
“This is a very old argument in which they’re engaging,” said Jeff
Shesol, author of “Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme
Court.” “It never really goes away but it acquires a particular urgency
in times of economic distress.”
The relationship between Mr. Obama and Mr. Roberts, of course, has been
strained from the beginning. The two did not overlap at Harvard — Mr.
Roberts, 55, went there straight out of college and graduated in 1979,
while Mr. Obama, 48, worked as a community organizer first and graduated
in 1991. But they soaked in the debates that flavored the campus at the
time.
“Obama’s view of the court is by far the more prevalent view at Harvard
Law School, or at least it was when we were there,” said Bradford A.
Berenson, who studied with Mr. Obama and served as a White House lawyer
under President George W.
Bush. Mr. Roberts, he added, held the opposite view, even though it
was “very much in the minority” on campus.
When the two met in 2005 after Mr. Bush nominated Judge Roberts (then
on the United States Court of Appeals), Mr. Obama (then a United
States senator) pronounced himself impressed but voted against
confirmation.
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to
sit on the highest court in the land,” Mr. Obama said then. He added
that Judge Roberts told him “he doesn’t like bullies and has always
viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the
strong and the weak.” But after studying the record, Mr. Obama said, “he
has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong
in opposition to the weak.”
The two met up again on the day Mr. Obama was sworn into office. In an
embarrassing gaffe, the chief justice fumbled the order of words in the
oath of office, forcing a do-over the next day just to make sure no one
could question the legitimacy of the new president.
But it was the Citizens case that exposed the tension between the men
and their philosophies. Mr. Obama criticized the ruling repeatedly,
including during his State of the Union address, with Chief
Justice Roberts and other members of the court sitting in the chamber
quietly, and Justice Samuel
A. Alito Jr. mouthing, “Not true.”
The chief justice later said that he found the political atmosphere of
the event “very troubling” and that he was not sure justices should
attend.
Mr. Obama and his Democratic allies are preparing legislation to try to
counter the effects of Citizens United, and the president plans to make
the issue a theme on the stump heading into campaign season. He cited it
specifically the day Justice Stevens retired as an example of what he
did not want the next justice to support.
The debate between the men, by necessity, takes place in this way —
indirectly, and soon through the confirmation hearing of a new nominee.
Christopher Edley Jr., an Obama adviser and dean of the law school at
the University of California at Berkeley, said it was a
shame the two could not have at it one on one.
“Televise this chief justice and this president on stage at the Kennedy Center for three hours talking about
the role of government and the future of our polity,” Mr. Edley said.
“This historic clash of intellectual titans would be the most powerful
civics lesson since the Federalist Papers, and we could sure use it.”
March 27, 2010
Beware, America
David White America, tread carefully - or we may find by our own
unhappy experience that there is a natural and necessary progression
from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of Tyranny, and that
arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty
abused to licentiousness... [George Washington to
John Hancock -11 June 1783]
I know you are angry America, but hold it
together. Beware the next step. If we let ourselves become driven into
violence, we do so at our own peril. Anarchy is not a long lived
state, and the more comfortable and prosperous and nation is (and
America ranks first in the history of civilizations) , the faster the
adoption of a dictator to "restore order" and "provide security". Think
of those of your friends and neighbors who are oblivious to what is
happening right now, and if they do have an inkling will incorrectly
diagnose the cause. How long would they stand a disruption of society,
of their children being endangered, of their businesses and fortunes
being lost...before they would willingly adopt a tyrant.
Beware America...in the days
ahead, you'll be driven to more anger. Amnesty is on the horizon Other
attacks on your liberty are on the horizon. They will try to shut you
up and shut you down. You will be painted as extremists, called names,
beaten down. Those in power now, think that if they rattle the cage
hard enough, something is bound to break loose. But stand down, there
is a revolution coming...the bloodless revolution of November.
Beware America...do not grow
complacent. I know you are discouraged, but now is not the time to go
back to sleep. It is a time to once again try to awaken your friends
and neighbors. Their country is on fire and there is an arsonist loose.
Consider these words...I hope they haunt you.
"Still, if you will not fight
for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not
fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come
to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you
and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse
case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it
is better to perish than live as slaves." [Winston Churchill]
Beware America...tread carefully
now. The modus operandi of those in power is "Never let a crisis go to
waste". They are not constrained by conscience, and so have no qualm in
manufacturing the next crisis. Their prospects for November are bleak
(I'm sure they have read the tea leaves, just as you), they have
nothing to lose...and those with nothing to lose are the most dangerous.
Two Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of Oceanside, San Diego, California.
One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill. The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 300 miles per hour and climbing.
The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then it suddenly turned off.
Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet which was engaged in a low flying exercise near this, it's home base location.
Back at the California Highway Patrol Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the US Marine Corps Base Commander for shutting down his equipment.
The reply came back in true USMC style:
Dear Captain McMillan:
Thank you for your letter.
You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to, your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.
Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location. This would have had very unfortunate results for the two officers involved.
Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.
The pilot suggests your officers cover their mouths when cursing at them, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech.
Sergeant Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.
In conclusion, we are all just happy that the two highway patrol officers are still alive to talk about this incident.
Semper Fi
"KNOW YOUR ENEMY GUYS! HERE IS THEIR HANDBOOK. OBAMA, HILLARY, REID, FRANK, PELOSI, ETC. ALL USE IT. IT IS THEIR "BIBLE".
Rules for Radicals
By Saul Alinsky - 1971
Hillary Clinton's 1969Political Science Thesis ("There is Only the Fight") refers to an earlier version of Alinsky’s training manual. "In 1946,” she wrote, "Alinsky's first book, Reveille for Radicals, was published."
"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky
Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.... Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.
"Barack Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer." (By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)
Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to
the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Prologue
"The Revolutionary force today has two targets, moral as well as material. Its young protagonists are one moment reminiscent of the idealistic early Christians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' They have no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way to change our world. It is to this point that I have written this book."
1. The Purpose
In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace.... "Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.' This means revolution." p.3
"Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing." p.6
"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism." p.10
"An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing;everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...." pp.10-11
Notes on Saul Alinsky and Neo-Marxism:
Alinsky's tactics were based, not on Stalin's revolutionary violence, but on the Neo-Marxist strategies of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Communist. Relying on gradualism, infiltration and the dialectic process rather than a bloody revolution, Gramsci's transformational Marxism was so subtle that few even noticed the deliberate changes.
Like Alinsky, Mikhail Gorbachev followed Gramsci, not Lenin. In fact, Gramsci aroused Stalins's wrath by suggesting that Lenin's revolutionary plan wouldn't work in the West. Instead the primary assault would be on Biblical absolutes and Christian values, which must be crushed as a social force before the new face of Communism could rise and flourish. Malachi Martin gave us a progress report:
"By 1985, the influence of traditional Christian philosophy in the West was weak and negligible.... Gramsci's master strategy was now feasible. Humanly speaking, it was no longer too tall an order to strip large majorities of men and women in the West of those last vestiges that remained to them of Christianity's transcendent God."
2. Of Means and Ends [Forget moral or ethical considerations]
"The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody." p.24
"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be...." pp.25-26
"The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...." p.29
"The seventh rule... is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...." p.34
"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you will move quickly or slowly..." p.36
Notes: Apparently, Michelle Obamareferred to these words during her Democratic National Convention speech:
"She said, 'Barack stood up that day,' talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, 'and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about 'The world as it is' and 'The world as it should be…' And, 'All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do – that we have an obligation to, fight for the world as it should be."
Do you wonder who -- or whose values -- should determine what "the world... should be?"
4. The Education of the Organizer
"To the organizer, imagination... is the dynamism that starts and sustains him in his whole life of action as an organizer. It ignites and feeds the force that drives him to organize for change.... "The organizer knows that the real action is in the reaction of the opposition. To realistically appraise and anticipate the probable reactions of the enemy, he must be able to identify with them, too, in his imagination, and foresee their reactions to his actions.... "The organizers searching with a free and open mind void of certainty, hating dogma, finds laughter not just a way to maintain his sanity but also a key to understanding life."pp.74-75
"...the organizer must be able to split himself into two parts -- one part in the arena of action where he polarizes the issue to 100 to nothing, and helps to lead his forces into conflict, while the other part knows that when the time comes for negotiations that it really is only a 10 percent difference." p.78
"...the organizer is constantly creating new out of the old. He knows that all new ideas arise from conflict; [See Dialectic Process] that every time man as had a new idea it has been a challenge to the sacred ideas of the past and the present and inevitably a conflict has raged." p.79
5. Communication
[Notice the emphasis on conflict, dialogue, relationships, etc. Team "service" is essential to building strong relationships through "common involvements"]
"And so the guided questioning goes on without anyone losing face or being left out of the decision-making. Every weakness of every proposed tactic is probed by questions.... Is this manipulation? Certainly...." p.88
"One of the factors that changes what you can and can't communicate is relationships. There are sensitive areas that one does not touch until there is a strong personal relationship based on common involvements. Otherwise the other party turns off and literally does not hear....
"Conversely, if you have a good relationship, he is very receptive.... For example, I have always believed that birth control and abortion are personal rights to be exercised by the individual. If, in my early days when I organized... neighborhood in Chicago, which was 95 per cent Roman Catholic, I had tried to communicate this, even through the experience of the residents, whose economic plight was aggravated by large families, that would have been the end of my relationship with the community. That instant I would have been stamped as an enemy of the church and all communication would have ceased.
"Some years later, after establishing solid relationships, I was free to talk about anything.... By then the argument was no longer limited to such questions as, 'How much longer do you think the Catholic Church can hang on to this archaic notion and still survive?' ...the subject and nature of the discussion would have been unthinkable without that solid relationship."
pp.93-94
6. In the Beginning: The Process of Power
[Notice the compromise needed to build the power base. Yet, since pragmatism has eroded all values, it's simply a matter of ends justifying means. It's not unlike churches that attract members through the world's entertainment -- then continue to soften or hide Truth in order to keep them happy and lure more. ]
"From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues.... Until he has those means and power instruments, his 'tactics' are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor Unions, corner gangs, or as individuals."
"Change comes from power, and power comes from organization." p.113
"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116
"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises.... "The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict." p.117
"Process tells us how. Purpose tells us why. But in reality, it is academic to draw a line between them, they are part of a continuum.... Process is really purpose." p.122
7. Tactics
"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. ... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves." p.126
Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):
1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.
3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."
6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."
7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."
8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."
11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."
12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...
"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)
Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: "Known as the 'father of modern American radicalism,' Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. ... Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work."
"Alinsky's second chapter, called Of Means and Ends, craftily poses many difficult moral dilemmas, and his 'tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends' is: 'you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.' He doesn't ignore traditional moral standards or dismiss them as unnecessary. He is much more devious; he teaches his followers that 'Moral rationalization is indispensable at all times of action whether to justify the selection or the use of ends or means.'...
"The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were:
ego ("reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God"),
curiosity (raising "questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern"),
irreverence ("nothing is sacred"; the organizer "detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality"),
imagination ("the fuel for the force that keeps an organizer organizing"),
a sense of humor ("the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule"), and an
organized personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only "as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.'...
"'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'
Late Thursday, in an embarrassing glitch for Facebook that raised questions about privacy on the site, some users of the social-networking service began getting hundreds of personal messages that were not intended for them.
Late Thursday, in an embarrassing glitch for Facebook that raised questions about privacy on the site, some users of the social-networking service began getting hundreds of personal messages that were not intended for them.
A WSJ.com editor, Zach Seward, reported the apparent glitch after his Facebook inbox was flooded with messages ranging from the mundane to the truly private.
"I am sorry for letting my jealousy and worry get the best of me," read one of the e-mails.
Another, apparently talking about the application Love Farm, said, "just letting you know that if you would like me to plant seeds on your farm etc … I can only access it, if you steal/share one of my plants that are ready for harvest."
Even a copy of one couple's entire explicit chat session landed in Seward's account.
Some users noticed the glitch and either tried to resend the message or sent Seward notes such as "I'm sorry … I don't know why FB sent that last message to you, please disregard!"
The problem was the latest to cause concern about privacy on Facebook and other sites that allow people to share personal information over the web.
Along the way, the privacy policies of the sites came under fire, as have the sites' abilities to protect users' data. Facebook recently rolled out a new design of its inbox to make it more like Gmail's, but the most recent glitch could raise questions for users.
Seward, who received emails from about 100 people, said he was later temporarily unable to access his Facebook account.
Facebook removed all but two of the messages.
But like many Facebook users, Seward had these messages sent to his third-party email account, where they remain. He said he did not hear from Facebook regarding the glitch.
However a Facebook spokeswoman emailed the following response to Digits.
"During our regular code push yesterday evening, a bug caused some misrouting to a small number of users for a short period of time. Our engineers diagnosed the problem moments after it began and are working to get everything back in its rightful place. While they fix the issue, affected users will not be able to access the site."
The company said it was still investigating the problem and could not immediately respond to specific questions about the glitch.
It was unclear how many Facebook users were affected by the problem, but several Twitter users reported the glitch.
A user with the handle seantanu wrote, "Some bug: Facebook messages intended for others delivered to me today. 71 and counting," and colleen02127 wondered if her problem was a "facebook fail."
Silicon Alley Insider reported on the glitch Thursday and said it appeared to be affecting people who joined Facebook soon after the service started.
Seward, who joined as a Harvard freshman, was the 185th account on the site.
The proposal would require servicers to initiate contact with all borrowers who are 60 or more days behind on their mortgage payments and offer them access to the federal modification program. Only after the homeowner has been screened under the HAMP guidelines and it is determined that the loan cannot be saved, could foreclosure proceedings commence. The proposal would also halt any foreclosures already in process once a borrower has been accepted into the trial phase of the program.
The proposal was reviewed by lenders last week on a White House conference call and “prohibits referral to foreclosure until borrower is evaluated and found ineligible for HAMP or reasonable contact efforts have failed,” Bloomberg News reported, citing a Treasury Department document outlining the plan.
Some lenders have been voluntarily suspending foreclosure proceedings while they evaluate a homeowner’s eligibility for HAMP, but under the program’s current guidelines there is no requirement to do so, and a number of homeowner advocacy groups have submitted complaints to the administration that even borrowers who are making their trial payments are being hit with foreclosure litigation.
A Treasury spokesperson confirmed that a foreclosure ban is under consideration, but stressed that it is one of many ideas on the table and has not been approved yet.
Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director at the Amherst Securities Group who has been highly critical of the government’s modification program, told the New York Times that even if the proposal came to pass, it would
not be “a major change. We think there is a large public relations element to this,” she said.
As the Times noted, the government could use some favorable public relations for its modification program. Lawmakers have begun to openly express their disappointment with the program. On Thursday, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said matter-of-factly in a report, that by every practical measure, “HAMP has failed.”
Reps. Darrell Issa (R-California) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) called the program a misuse of taxpayer money, the Washington Post said. The program has been allocated $75 billion to pay incentives to servicers, investors, and borrowers for loan restructurings, but the paper says that so far only $15 million has been spent.
As of the end of January, 116,297 troubled mortgages had been permanently modified under HAMP. About 830,000 more were in the trial phase of the program. The administration’s goal is to help three to four million borrowers save their homes through the program by the end of 2012.
News of a draft document by the Treasury outlining additional changes to HAMP also circulated this week. Besides the proposed ban on foreclosures until after a HAMP review, the administration is also considering implementing a mandatory 30-day appeal period for borrowers that are denied a federal modification. Servicers would not be allowed to proceed with a foreclosure sale during this time.
The proposal would also require servicers to prove that they have made multiple attempts to contact delinquent borrowers both by phone and via written notices, and would require them to consider HAMP applications from homeowners that have already filed for bankruptcy.
Lenders have expressed concern that the proposed requirements would prolong foreclosure delays beyond the current 12 month timeline that it typically takes to resolve the loans that don’t qualify for a modification.
Earlier this month at the American Securitization Forum’s annual meeting, Seth Wheeler, a senior advisor at the Treasury Department, told mortgage bond investors and lenders that the administration is also considering revising HAMP’s net present value (NPV) model in order to incorporate more principal writedowns into the equation. The NPV test is applied to determine if the mortgage owner can recoup more money by restructuring the loan or by foreclosing.
Don't Use This New Stamp - Let USPS Know How You Feel
USPS 44-Cent Stamp Celebrates Muslim holidays Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha . If there is only ONE thing you forward today... let it be this!
REMEMBER to adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp, when you are purchasing your stamps at the post office.
All you have to say is "No thank you, I do not want that Muslim Stamp on my letters!" To use this stamp would be a slap in the face to all those AMERICANS who died at the hands of those whom this stamp honors.
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon !
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Military Barracks in Saudi Arabia !
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the American Embassies in Africa !
REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the USS COLE!
REMEMBER the MUSLIM attack on 9/11/2001 !
REMEMBER all the AMERICAN lives that were lost in those vicious MUSLIM attacks!
Pass this along to every Patriotic American that you know and get the word out! Honor the United States of America !
Don't Use This Stamp!
I'm not a Doctor but have studied psychology and sociology enough that I recognized him as a narcissistic psychopath and sociopathic liar very shortly after he came on the national scene. Too bad the masses didn't!!
Buffett: I Won't Be Hiring Soon Wednesday, 20 Jan 2010 09:03 AM
By: Greg Brown
Billionaire Warren Buffett, himself a major employer via subsidiaries of his Berkshire Hathaway holding company, doesn’t see any reason to hire back tens of thousands of workers at his own first until there is a clear sign of recovery.
Buffett doesn’t expect to hire "until orders start coming in,” he told CNBC in an interview. As for the consumer economy, he added, "you're not going to have people feeling good until jobs come back."
Berkshire units have jettisoned 25,000 in the last year and a half. Buffett also criticized Obama’s plan to tax banks to pay for the bailouts so far.
Banks "are cleaning up their own mess," and not necessarily making "obscene profits," he told the financial news network.
U.S. unemployment has stuck at 10 percent despite signs of life among some industries.
Some economists are predicting unemployment will stay above 8 percent for several years as the economy slowly emerges from the worst recession since the 1930s.
China’s loose monetary policy has largely kept the global economy afloat as the United States worked to revive its own frozen credit system.
Now there are signs that the Chinese are worried about a major bubble in housing and uncontrolled lending.
Its top bank regulator said on Wednesday that the country would trim credit in an attempt to slow expected 16 percent annualized growth there.
Unauthorized Biography of Obama Has Been Written - "Born To Lie"
Saturday, January 2, 2010 at 9:40am
Born To Lie...
"What if the first African-American president turned out to be African but not American? Is President Obama even an American citizen? This unanswered question could be put to rest by simply producing Obama's original birth certificate. However, because President Obama has sealed his personal records and refuses to release a certified copy of his original birth certificate, the question continues to be asked. Like all questions that are not properly answered, it will not go away.
In addition to the birth certificate question, there are numerous other issues of transparency and trust that have caused President Obama’s credibility with the American public to quickly wane. The authors of Born To Lie are not “birthers”—the label given by Obama’s supporters to any and all who question the validity of his citizenship. They are patriotic Americans with legitimate concerns who just want our President to tell the truth about his agenda of change.
About the Authors: Dr. David L. Goetsch spent more than 30 years as a college professor and administrator. He is also a business consultant and corporate trainer. He is the author of more than 60 books on personal success, professional development, organizational excellence, economic development, and politics including Palin Nation (published by White Hall Press). Four of his books are bestsellers and two have been translated into foreign languages (Korean, Indonesian, and Malaysian). Dr. Goetsch is a nationally-known speaker on the subjects of leadership, management, supervision, education, and global competitiveness.
Dr. Archie P. Jones is a teacher and librarian who has taught various subjects in Christian schools, and Political Science, American History, Literature and writing in several colleges and universities for more than 20 years. He is the author of eight monographs on Christianity and early American society, our early state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution. His dissertation, “Christianity in the Constitution: The Intended Meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and the Intended Role of Religion in American Life,” and two mini-books are devoted to recovering the truth about the First Amendment."
Paperback, 150 Pages
RETAIL $14.99 • SAVE 35%—ONLY $9.76! • ORDER NOW!
The Stimulus Hasn't Done What it Was Supposed To Do
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
By Brit Hume
One day after it came out that the administration had decided to stop trying to count the number of jobs created or saved by that $787 billion spending bill the president signed last year, the White House was back doing it again.
Christina Romer, the president's top economic adviser, announced Tuesday that the spending had resulted in 2 million jobs created or saved. Romer called that a, "truly stunning and important effect," adding that the spending, "had done exactly what we have anticipated it would do."
No it hasn't.
Romer herself said a year ago that the stimulus spending would hold the unemployment rate below eight percent. It's now at 10 and counting. More than 4 million jobs were lost last year. What's more, an analysis by the Associated Press has found that the outlays on roads, bridges and other infrastructure, had no discernible effect on local employment and had barely helped the construction industry.
The lesson here is a very old one: Government spending is a poor antidote to recession because the money has to be taxed or borrowed from one part of the economy to be spent in another. Not only that, it's slow medicine. Even Romer said in her glowing report that only about a third of the money had been spent.
On second thought, given the effect the spend-fest has had on the deficit, maybe that's the good news.
— Brit Hume is the senior political analyst for Fox News Channel.
Created: Wednesday, 04 November 2009 07:24 Author: News Reporter
An amnesty for illegal immigrants would be bound to encourage further illegal immigration, their present number has been seriously underestimated and the lifetime cost would be in the order of £130 billion even on that low estimate of numbers, says a report out today from think-tank Migrationwatch.
The report is in reply to a paper published by the London School of Economics on 16 June in response to a request from London's Mayor. Introducing the document, Boris Johnson claimed it proved that immigrants were "far from a financial burden". He added:
"This new Report has introduced some long overdue facts, hard evidence and academic rigour into a debate which has far too often been dominated by myth, anecdote and hearsay".
Clearly the Mayor had not read the Report which makes it clear that "It has to be emphasised that these are ball park estimates at best" (page 110) and that "many of the numbers that had been generated for this Report have required heroic assumptions" (page 113).
The Mayor also claimed that:
"So far from a financial burden, as some suggest, this new research has found an amnesty could be worth up to £3 billion a year to the country's economy".
What the Report actually says is:
"Neither the literature nor currently available UK data provides a quantitative basis from which one could at all reliably start to estimate the scale of effects on UK output which would be likely to follow from regularisation"(page 73).
The Report is, in fact, astonishingly thin on its claim of economic benefit - just two paragraphs in 125 pages. It goes on to take what is described as "an example". This gives, on the basis of four hypotheses, an expected increase in GDP of some £3 billion (page 73).
Migrationwatch have now examined this Report in detail and have found that:
(a) The LSE report fails to deal with the central difficulty that an amnesty would be likely to encourage further illegal immigration. It omits any consideration of the key precedent of Spain where three amnesties since 2000 have led to a doubling of numbers on each occasion. The experience of Italy is similar.
(b) The central estimate of 618,000 illegal immigrants in the UK, adopted by the LSE, is very low since it assumes that, of the roughly 10 million people granted a visa between 2001 and 2007, only 1 in 200 overstayed - despite the absence of exit checks. Furthermore, their calculations take no account of additional dependants who will become entitled to join those who have been granted an amnesty. Despite this, we have calculated the lifetime cost on the basis of their estimate of the numbers.
(c) The "ball park estimates" in the GLA report put the annual cost of legalisation at about £2.4 billion a year (page 104), partly off-set by receipts of £0.8 billion, giving a net cost of £1.6 billion a year. Assuming an average working life of 33 years (from an average of 35 to 68), gives a working life cost of £52 billion. However, this assumes that those legalised will earn an average of twice the minimum wage and it includes only minimal costs for health and education on the grounds that illegals already have access to them. Correcting for these points brings that total to £77 billion, as explained in Annex C to the paper.
(d) Furthermore, the GLA made no allowance at all for post-retirement costs - apparently on the grounds that they are many years off. Assuming just seven years of retirement, from age 68 to 75, the total of these costs would be of the order of £57 billion, comprising Pension Credit (£21 billion), Housing Benefit (£21 billion), and health costs (£15 billion).
(e) Only ball park estimates are possible, as the GLA recognise, but our estimate for the whole life cost to the tax payer would be of the order of £134 billion, compared to the working-life GLA estimate of about £52 billion. Obviously, government revenues and expenditure over such a long period would also involve huge sums but these amnesty costs are both significant and largely avoidable.
Commenting, Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migrationwatch UK, said
"If this matter was not so serious, Boris's comments on the GLA report could be taken as one of his jokes. Unfortunately it is very serious. An amnesty would be bound to encourage still further illegal immigration as other countries have found and the life-time cost would be astronomical even on the low estimate of numbers in the GLA report. The way forward is to bear down on rogue employers and use the fines imposed on them to remove illegal immigrants as they are detected. This would deter rather than encourage the exploitation of illegal workers who are undercutting British workers and, indeed, taking jobs from them. Fortunately, the public has more common sense than London’s Mayor; our last opinion poll on the subject showed that 70% were opposed to an amnesty for illegal workers."
Three strangers strike up a conversation in the passenger lounge in the Bozeman, Montana airport, while waiting for their respective flights.
One is an American Indian passing through from Lame Deer, another is a Cowboy on his way to Billings for a livestock show and the third passenger is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly arrived at Montana State University from the Middle East .
Their discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon, the two Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout, radical Muslim and the conversation falls into an uneasy lull.
The cowboy leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table, tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face, and lights a cigarette. The wind outside is blowing tumbleweeds around, and the old windsock is flapping; but still no plane comes.
Finally, the American Indian clears his throat and softly he speaks, "At one time here... my people were many... but sadly, now we are few."
The Muslim student raises an eyebrow and leans forward, "Once my people were few," he sneers, "and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?"
The cowboy removes his cigarette from his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson says in a smooth drawl, "I reckon that's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet, but I do believe it's a-comin'."
TUCSON, Arizona – A group of Hispanic lawmakers will present in the next few days an immigration reform bill before the U.S. Congress because, in the words of one, “now is the best time to act.”
“The bill could be presented as soon as the end of next week or by the end of October,” Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) told Efe by telephone from Washington.
October 11, 2009 Maria Leon Latin American Herald Tribune
“We can’t keep waiting, immigration reform can’t wait any longer,” he said.
Though he gave no details about the bill that is still being worked on, he said that one of the chief objectives is to find a way to legalize the almost 12 million undocumented immigrants estimated to live in the United States.
The measure, which has the support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and is being introduced by Illinois Democrat Luis Gutierrez, includes normalizing the status of thousands of undocumented students and a plan for legalizing agricultural workers.
It also contemplates a reform for detention centers and the procedures for processing undocumented immigrants.
Grijalva acknowledged that he still doesn’t know what will be required of a person to be able to enter the legalization program, but said that those who have complied with the law and paid their taxes will have that chance.
“The requirements are tough. People who have been found guilty of serious crimes such as murders, domestic violence and drug trafficking will be eliminated,” he said.
He said that the main objective of the bill will be to reunite families and that it will benefit people considered to be of “good moral character.”
“We want to get it going, because frankly if we wait for the leadership in Congress it’s not going to happen. If we wait for the administration, the reform won’t take place until 2010 or 2011. And if we get to the elections, nobody will want to deal with it at all,” Grijalva said.
“Instead of waiting, we want to say that the debate starts here, we’ve waited long enough,” he said.
To criticism that President Barack Obama has “forgotten” his campaign promise to present an immigration reform measure during his first year as president, the lawmaker said that he hopes the president will support this proposal.
“We gave all our support to the idea of hope in the presidential election, now we’re waiting for the response. We’ve reached the point where he (Obama) must also answer to the hopes we have,” Grijalva said.
He acknowledged that the fight will be difficult, above all against the strong opposition expected from the Republican side.
“What is important is to begin the debate – we don’t want the subject of immigration reform to be forgotten,” Grijalva said. EFE
And then, after receiving a middle-of-the-night taxpayer-funded bailout, it forked over $2 million to the ACORN Housing Corporation — which has had a long history of fraud and abuse that goes back years and years before the sting videos ever came in to being.
“Bank of America takes recent allegations made against Acorn and Acorn Housing Corporation employees very seriously,” the bank said in a statement.
Took ‘em long enough.
Congress needs to investigate all of ACORN’s partners in crime — not just the myriad affiliates under the ACORN flagship umbrella and its inextricably linked colleagues at the SEIU, but also its corporate collaborators who looked the other way for decades while the ACORN racketeering operation flourished.
When Obama abruptly dropped the Eastern European missile shield, the real motive became quickly visible. Buried in a Reuter's article was the following side note:
"Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia's government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world's largest private equity firms."
Dinakar Singh, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, TPG-Axon Capital, New York, NY; former Co-head, Principal Strategies Department, Goldman Sachs
Robert W. Lane, Board of Directors General Electric; Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Deere & Company, Moline, IL
Lord Simon of Highbury, Senior Adviser of Morgan Stanley Europe; Member of the House of Lords, Deputy Chairman of Unilever; Non-Executive Director of Suez Group; former Minister for Trade & Competitiveness in Europe; former Chairman of BP, London
General Electric's influence in the White House is second only to Goldman Sachs.
As noted in Obama: Trilateral Commission Endgame, members of the Trilateral Commission have thoroughly saturated the Obama administration -- 13 percent of the U.S. membership now hold critical positions, including,
Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner
Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice
National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones
Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon
Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker
Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair
Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell
Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg
State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass
State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross
State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke
Deputy Undersecretary of State for economic, energy and agricultural affairs, Robert Hormats
Note that Robert Hormats was vice-chairman of Goldman Sachs prior to his recent appointment. The economic development of Russia is part of his specific responsibilities.
The purpose of controlling the Executive Branch since the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, has been to create insider business deals for themselves, at the expense of everyone else. The fact that Eastern Europe will now be at the mercy of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Bear doesn't seem to bother the Trilaterals in the slightest.
Until this hegemony is exposed and broken up, there is zero percent chance of turning back Obama's Marxist destruction of America as we know it today.
EXAMINER: SONIC CANNONS DEPLOYED AGAINST TEA PARTY IN SAN DIEGO
September 17, 2009
Kimberly Dvorak writes in Examiner.com "The increasing frustration with politicians and overflow crowds attending August town halls led San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore to place military-type crowd control devices at two (San Diego) area town hall meetings.
Rep. Susan Davis-D Calif. and Rep. Darrell Issa-R Calif. held town halls that exceeded capacity (10,000+ total attendees) and prompted the Sheriff's Department to have Long-Range Acoustic Devices(LRADs) standing ready.
Both town halls took place without incident; however the use of the military device concerned San Diegians. The LRAD crowd control is primarily used in Iraq to control insurgents and can cause serious and lasting harm to humans.
According to the manufacture, American Technology Corporation, the LRAD provides "military personnel the capability to transition through the rules of engagement to determine a target's intent and also provides greater assurance that innocent lives on both sides of the device are not lost due to miscommunication."
DEHESA VALLEY GAZETTE comments
"Now, as regards the weapons system. Lrad is an offensive and defensive weapons system. It can disperse a crowd and it can kill. Turn the dial the wrong way and it can explode the vessels in your head. Ease back on the dial and it can cause enough discomfort to encourage folks to get out of range, pronto."
"As frightening as Gore buying the system and then deploying it on American soil is the fact, as it came out in the Saturday debate (the Sheriff candidates including the current Sheriff) , that folks assigned to operate the system didn't have a clue how to operate the system."
Public Advocate was there and has video. There's 100s of other videos online already.
STATEMENT FROM PUBLIC ADVOCATE PRESIDENT EUGENE DELGAUDIO
"This was a crowd of over 2 million based on direct on the ground observation at both the Obama Inauguration and at the September 12 event. Public Advocate volunteers walked around the U.S. Capitol at both events. There were groups of hundreds of thousands of marchers in the entire area for five blocks in every direction with the highest concentration for 4 hours along Pennslyvania Avenue and at the Capitol. From 10 a.m. to 2 p.m, there was an unbroken stream of people covering both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue from the U.S. Capitol to Freedom Plaza in addition to the area around the U.S. Capitol extending several blocks. The arrival of large crowds numbering in the hundreds of thousands did not stop for 4 hours," says Public Advocate president Eugene Delgaudio
Michele Maulkin gets into the technical methods estimating the crowd at the Obama Inauguration and uses the same methods for the Anti-Tax March September 12
National Park Service computation for past inaugurations posted at USA Today
THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE OWNER ... At least that's what my lawyer told me, but he was drinking pretty heavily at the time so...
COPYRIGHT HARDIN REPUBLIC, LLC 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. All Rights Reserved.
Mike Lee, candidate
for U.S. Senate in Utah, has come out as an early opponent of President
Obama's decision to nominate his Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, to fill
the Supreme Court seat of retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. Kagan has
drawn fire early in the nomination process based on the fact that,
while serving as dean of Harvard Law School, she prohibited military
recruiters from conducting on-campus interviews at Harvard. 
Mike Lee stated: "Kagan's decision
to exclude military recruiters from the Harvard campus - especially at a
time when our military is fighting overseas - gives me great pause in
considering her for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the
land. Her lack of judicial experience," Lee continued, "makes it
difficult to ascertain how faithful she might be in independently and
impartially deciding cases that will come before her. And although many
have served on the Supreme Court without prior judicial service, Kagan's
professional track record falls short of establishing that she would
consistently respect the text and original understanding of the
Constitution."
