Monday, February 13, 2012

Establishment Candidates will never Prosecute

Posted by BH 5:30 pm 2-13

Establishment Candidates will never Prosecute….nor will they ever even tell you the truth.  Here is the TRUTH:
From the Libertarian Presidential Debate, 2/11/2012 in Orlando Florida:

Now why does someone like Gary Johnson, who knows damn well that these frauds occurred and more — need I remind you that on 10-18-2008 I spent an hour interviewing Governor Johnson on Blogtalk – make a statement like this?
I spent the entire hour in that interview attempting to get anything out of him that sounded like “stop the looting and start prosecuting” — and failed.
The disturbing part of why these politicians are all, on the left and right, running the “banks didn’t commit any crimes” meme repeatedly and publicly, to the point that I wondered if Gary Johnson was actually Barack Obama up there on the podium Saturday afternoon wearing a mask as he spoke those words, is more sinister — and at the same time simpler.
Let’s assume for a moment the most-likely outcome — Gary Johnson, whether the Libertarian Candidate or not, fails to win the Presidency.
He’d like his political career to continue.  Maybe he’d like to be a governor somewhere else.  Maybe he’d like to be a Senator.
Well, if you condemn the banks for their crimes, and promise to prosecute them, exactly how will you fund future deficit spending when those very same banks are the ones you need in order to bring debt offerings to the market?
 by genesis
What are the odds that any of these institutions will ever, under any circumstances and irrespective of what they do, face a criminal indictment that could result in the revocation of their US banking license? These firms are the ones that make possible both deficit spending and rollover of existing debt that is outstanding from the Federal Government.  Without them unless deficit spending ceases immediately the Federal Government collapses in a literal hour.
You want to know where the corruption really lies? 
It’s right there.
Consider the local police chief who is a heroin addict.  Will he ever bust his dealer?  Nope.  He might bust some other competing dealer, but he will never arrest the one who is supplying him, nor anyone in the chain of either the money or the drugs that feeds that individual.  Never, so long as he’s a drug addict and remains in office, will that person go to prison.
You want to stop this?  Then you must stop the deficit spending — right here, right now, permanently, with no exceptions, ifs, ands or buts.
If you don’t you’re going to be serially robbed, abused, financially raped, spindled and mutilated by financial institutions and it does not matter if their conduct is illegal or not — not one damn thing will ever be done about it by so-called “law enforcement.”
The same applies to the States.  Why didn’t Alabama and Jefferson County go after the financial institutions and charge them with Racketeering in regard to the sewer derivative deals?  After all the predicate felony was proved — county officials and others were not just charged they were convicted of bribery and other associated crimes, which means that anyone or any institution that was involved in that scheme — who provided the funds, who made an outsized profit, who had to be aware and did nothing (making a monstrously-larger than reasonable amount of money on these “ordinary and customary” deals simply can’t be defended) could have easily been charged under RICO!
But if they were, then Alabama’s — and Jefferson County’s — ability to access the bond markets via these very same institutions in the future would have instantly ceased.
As a result a half-million citizens in Jefferson County not only were robbed once they continue to be robbed every month with water and sewer bills that have gone up 400% — and will rise even more.
There is nothing Libertarian about turning a blind eye to fraud.  Gary Johnson has no claim to run under the pledge that all Libertarian Party members are required to affirm by oath – a pledge I had to sign in order to be a delegate and sit for EC election this last weekend (an election I won, incidentally, by 2 votes.)
This problem is nothing new.  The Rule of Law is something that all of the political parties claim to honor in some form or fashion.  Unfortunately it is also something they honor in the breach rather than the observance, as they are all drug-addled hobos who are far more interested in their next mainline shot of credit heroin — an addiction that is destroying our nation — than the truth, justice, or liberty.

Discussion (registration required to post)

SCANDAL: The Middle Class is Funding Programs it Hates ?

Posted by BH 5:19 pm 2-13

Monday, February 13, 2012 5:13 PM

Mollie Hemingway, Ed.
The New York Times has an expose that suggests government programs need to be expanded to meet the needs of the middle class even while the middle class recipients say they hate these programs. Written a different way, one could say that this story shows the damage of creating dependence on the government.
It begins with the story of Ki Gulbranson, who owns a logo apparel shop and deals jewelry on the side. He makes $39,000 and supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. And yet, he takes the earned-income tax credit, signed his children up for taxpayer-funded meals at school and saw his mother's hip replaced via Medicare!
"There is little poverty here in Chisago County, northeast of Minneapolis, where cheap housing for commuters is gradually replacing farmland. But Mr. Gulbranson and many other residents who describe themselves as self-sufficient members of the American middle class and as opponents of government largess are drawing more deeply on that government with each passing year.
"Dozens of benefits programs provided an average of $6,583 for each man, woman and child in the county in 2009, a 69 percent increase from 2000 after adjusting for inflation. In Chisago, and across the nation, the government now provides almost $1 in benefits for every $4 in other income.
"Older people get most of the benefits, primarily through Social Security and Medicare, but aid for the rest of the population has increased about as quickly through programs for the disabled, the unemployed, veterans and children.
"The government safety net was created to keep Americans from abject poverty, but the poorest households no longer receive a majority of government benefits. A secondary mission has gradually become primary: maintaining the middle class from childhood through retirement. The share of benefits flowing to the least affluent households, the bottom fifth, has declined from 54 percent in 1979 to 36 percent in 2007, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis published last year."
Note the chart that accompanies the story, above. It shows that the proportion of entitlement programs going to the poor has dropped as it's increased to other sectors. In other words, taxpayers are giving money to the federal government, which then takes a huge chunk out for waste, inefficiency, fraud and overhead, and then returns some of it back to the middle classes.
And the New York Times can't figure out why some average Joes would have a problem with this?

American Catholicism's Pact With the Devil - An essay by Paul A Rahe

Posted by BH 3:54 pm 2-13
From Dave Hollenbeck Senior Editor 

There are comments after the essay -To read, click on link above

Paul A. Rahe

American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil


by Paul A. Rahe

Paul A. Rahe · Feb. 10 at 5:21pm
You have to hand it to Barack Obama. He has unmasked in the most thoroughgoing way the despotic propensities of the administrative entitlements state and of the Democratic Party. And now he has done something similar to the hierarchy of the American Catholic Church. At the prospect that institutions associated with the Catholic Church would be required to offer to their employees health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients, the bishops, priests, and nuns scream bloody murder. But they raise no objection at all to the fact that Catholic employers and corporations, large and small, owned wholly or partially by Roman Catholics will be required to do the same. The freedom of the church as an institution to distance itself from that which its doctrines decry as morally wrong is considered sacrosanct. The liberty of its members – not to mention the liberty belonging to the adherents of other Christian sects, to Jews, Muslims, and non-believers – to do the same they are perfectly willing to sacrifice.
This inattention to the liberties of others is doubly scandalous (and I use this poignant term in full knowledge of its meaning within the Catholic tradition) – for there was a time when the Catholic hierarchy knew better. There was a time when Roman Catholicism was the great defender not only of its own liberty but of that of others. There was a time when the prelates recognized that the liberty of the church to govern itself in light of its guiding principles was inseparable from the liberty of other corporate bodies and institutions to do the same.
I do not mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church was in the more distant past a staunch defender of religious liberty. That it was not. Within its sphere, the Church demanded full authority. It is only in recent years that Rome has come to be fully appreciative of the larger principle.
I mean that, in the course of defending its autonomy against the secular power, the Roman Catholic Church asserted the liberty of other corporate bodies and even, in some measure, the liberty of individuals. To see what I have in mind one need only examine Magna Cartawhich begins with King John’s pledge that
the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever.
Only after making this promise, does the King go on to say, “We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.” It is in this context that he affirms that “no scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid.” It is in this context that he pledges that “the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.” It is in this document that he promises that “no freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land” and that “to no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”
One will not find such a document in eastern Christendom or in the sphere where Sunni Islam is prevalent. It is peculiar to Western Christendom – and it was made possible by the fact that, Christian West, church and state were not co-extensive and none of the various secular powers was able to exert its authority over the church. There was within each political community in the Christian West an imperium in imperio – a power independent of the state that had no desire to replace the state but was fiercely resistant to its own subordination and aware that it could not hope to retain its traditional liberties if it did not lend a hand in defending the traditional liberties of others.
I am not arguing that the Church fostered limited government in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period. In principle, the government that it fostered was unlimited in its scope. I am arguing, however, that the Church worked assiduously to hem in the authority of the Christian kings and that its success in this endeavor provided the foundation for the emergence of a parliamentary order. Indeed, I would go further. It was the Church that promoted the principles underpinning the emergence of parliaments. It did so by fostering the species of government that had emerged within the church itself. Given that the Church in the West made clerical celibacy one of its principal practices (whether it was honored in the breach or not), the hereditary principle could play no role in its governance. Inevitably, it resorted to elections. Monks elected abbots, the canons of cathedrals elected bishops, the college of cardinals elected the Pope.
The principle articulated in canon law  — the only law common to all of Western Europe — to explain why these practices were proper was lifted from the Roman law dealing with the governance of waterways: “Quod omnes tangit,” it read, “ab omnibus tractari debeat: That which touches all should be dealt with by all.” In pagan antiquity, this meant that those upstream could not take all of the water and that those downstream had a say in its allocation. It was this principle that the clergymen who served as royal administrators insinuated into the laws of the kingdoms and petty republics of Europe. It was used to justify communal self-government. It was used to justify the calling of parliaments. And it was used to justify the provisions for self-governance contained within the corporate charters issued to cities, boroughs, and, in time, colonies. On the eve of the American Revolution, you will find it cited by John Dickinson in The Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer.
The quod omnes tangit principle was not the foundation of modern liberty, but it was its antecedent. And had there been no such antecedent, had kings not been hemmed in by the Church and its allies in this fashion, I very much doubt that there ever would have been a regime of limited government. In fact, had there not been a distinction both in theory and in fact between the secular and the spiritual authority, limited government would have been inconceivable.
The Reformation weakened the Church. In Protestant lands, it tended to strengthen the secular power and to promote a monarchical absolutism unknown to the Middle Ages. Lutheranism and Anglicanism were, in effect, Caesaro-Papist. In Catholic lands, it caused the spiritual power to shelter itself behind the secular power and become, in many cases, an appendage of that power. But the Reformation and the religious strife to which it gave rise also posed to the secular power an almost insuperable problem – how to secure peace and domestic tranquility in a world marked by sectarian competition. Limited government – i. e., a government limited in its scope – was the solution ultimately found, and John Locke was its proponent.
In the nascent American republic, this principle was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well – for the government’s scope was limited also in other ways. There were other amendments that made up what we now call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.
This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot. In the 1930s, the majority of the  bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins – a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent – Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post. And they welcomed Social Security – which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well-being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They did not stop to think.
In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.
At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlements state. At no point have its members evidenced any concern for sustaining limited government and protecting the rights of individuals. It did not cross the minds of these prelates that the liberty of conscience which they had grown to cherish is part of a larger package – that the paternalistic state, which recognizes no legitimate limits on its power and scope, that they had embraced would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate whom it chose to teach its doctrines and how, more generally, it would conduct its affairs.
I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.
I do not mean to say that I would prefer that the bishops, nuns, and priests sit down and shut up. Barack Obama has once again done the friends of liberty a favor by forcing the friends of the administrative entitlements state to contemplate what they have wrought. Whether those brought up on the heresy that public provision is akin to charity will prove capable of thinking through what they have done remains unclear. But there is now a chance that this will take place, and there was a time – long ago, to be sure, but for an institution with the longevity possessed by the Catholic Church long ago was just yesterday – when the Church played an honorable role in hemming in the authority of magistrates and in promoting not only its own liberty as an institution but that of others similarly intent on managing their own affairs as individuals and as members of subpolitical communities.
In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:
Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.
This statement, which came to be taken as authoritative throughout the American Church, proved, as Joseph Sobran observed seven years ago, “to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything,” he added, "it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion – that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle.” In practice, this meant that, insofar as anyone pressed the case against Roe v. Wade, it was the laity.
I was reared a Catholic, wandered out of the Church, and stumbled back in more than thirteen years ago. I have been a regular attendee at mass since that time. I travel a great deal and frequently find myself in a diocese not my own. In these years, I have heard sermons articulating the case against abortion thrice – once in Louisiana at a mass said by the retired Archbishop there; once at the cathedral in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and two weeks ago in our parish in Hillsdale, Michigan. The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.
And there is more. I have not once in those years heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, and I have not once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.
There is another dimension to the failure of the American Church in the face of the sexual revolution. As, by now, everyone knows, in the 1980s, when Cardinal Bernadin was the chief leader of the American Church and the man most closely consulted when the Vatican selected its bishops, it became evident to the American prelates that they had a problem – that, in many a diocese, there were priests of a homoerotic orientation who were sexual predators – pederasts inclined to take advantage of young boys. They could have faced up to the problem at that time; they could have turned in the malefactors to the secular authorities; they could have prevented their further contact with the young. Instead, almost certainly at the instigation of Cardinal Bernadin, they opted for another policy. They hushed everything up, sent the priests off for psychological counseling, and reassigned them to other parishes or even dioceses – where they continued to prey on young boys. In the same period, a number of the seminaries in which young men were trained for the priesthood became, in effect, brothels – and nothing was done about any of this until the newspapers broke the story and the lawsuits began.
There is, I would suggest, a connection between the heretical doctrine propagated by Cardinal Bernadin in the Gannon Lecture and the difficulties that the American Church now faces. Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlements state will sooner or later become its victims.
Earlier today, Barack Obama offered the hierarchy “a compromise.” Under its terms, insurance companies offering healthcare coverage will be required to provide contraception and abortifacients, but this will not be mentioned in the contracts signed by those who run Catholic institutions. This “compromise” is, of course, a farce. It embodies a distinction where there is, in fact, no difference. It is a snare and a delusion, and I am confident that the Catholic Left, which is still dominant within the Church, will embrace it – for it would allow the bishops, priests, and nuns to save face while, in fact, paying for the contraception and abortifacients that the insurance companies will be required to provide. As if on cue, Sister Carol Keehan, a prominent Obamacare supporter who heads the Catholic Health Association, immediately issued a statement in which she announced that she is “pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.”
Perhaps, however, Barack Obama has shaken some members of the hierarchy from their dogmatic slumber. Perhaps, a few of them – or among younger priests some of their likely successors – have begun to recognize the logic inherent in the development of the administrative entitlements state. The proponents of Obamacare, with some consistency, pointed to Canada and to France as models. As anyone who has attended mass in Montreal or Paris can testify, the Church in both of these places is filled with empty pews. There is, in fact, not a single country in the social democratic sphere where either the Catholic Church or a Protestant Church is anything but moribund. This is by no means fortuitous. When entitlements stand in for charity and the Social Gospel is preached in place of the Word of God, heaven on earth becomes the end, and Christianity goes by the boards.
It took a terrible scandal and a host of lawsuits to get the American Church to rid itself of the pederast priests and clean up its seminaries. Perhaps the tyrannical ambitions of Barack Obama will occasion a rethinking of the social-justice agenda. The ball is now in the court of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who has welcomed the President's gesture without indicating whether it is adequate. Upon reflection, he can accept the fig leaf that President Obama has offered him. Or he can put Sister Keehan and her supporters in their place and fight. If he wants to regain an iota of the moral authority that the Church possessed before 1973, he will do the latter. The hour is late. Next time, the masters of the administrative entitlements state won’t even bother to offer the hierarchy a fig leaf. They know servility when they see it.
UPDATE: Friday night, shortly after I posted this piece, as Anne Coletta pointed out in Comment 5 below, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a carefully worded statement critical of the fig leaf President Obama offered them. In the meantime, the Rev. John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, applauded "the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties."

Media Maters for America Coordinating New Super Pac to Help President Obama

Posted by BH 3:03 pm 2-13

From Fox News

The head of Media Matters for America -- now out coordinating a new super PAC to help President Obama get reelected -- is operating his nonprofit organization in close coordination with the Obama White House, a new investigative report out Monday says.
David Brock, according to the Daily Caller, has collected a $250,000 annual salary for his work at MMFA, which includes daily screeds against Fox News Channel and other media outlets that allow conservative perspectives in their reporting. 
Brock's group, founded in 2004, is spending $20 million this year in a campaign to influence news coverage that sheds a positive image on the current administration as well as progressives and lawmakers in Congress. 
And the campaign is going well, according to a former employee who told the DC that "virtually all the mainstream media" has used Media Matters' research.
"We were pretty much writing their prime time," the ex-employee was quoted saying of MSNBC.
Brock is also the head of American Bridge 21st Century, the political action committee that he has boasted would become a rival to Karl Rove's American Crossroads GPS. 
Last week, the Obama reelection team dropped its objections to the use of super PACs, saying that the organizations are needed to compete against groups that are supporting Republican candidates. 
American Bridge 21st Century and Media Matters share many of the same donors, according to Roll Call, which reported on Monday that the PAC raised $3.7 million from fewer than 50 individual donors and unions last year. Its sister nonprofit group, American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, raised an additional $2.7 million last year, and gave $223,000 of that money, which is not required to be reported, to the super PAC.
Roll Call added that Media Matters, which is classified as a nonprofit organization, raised $13.2 million in 2010, up from $6.7 million the year before, as reported in its most recent IRS filings.
While MMFA raises millions, the DC reports that the organization is in "regular contact with political operatives" in the Obama administration like senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, whom MMFA President Eric Burns and Brock met with in June 2010 at the White House. 
The DC also claims Media Matters held weekly strategy calls with former White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki and other groups like the Center for American Progress. Psaki left the administration in October 2011. 
Speaking at University of Pennsylvania last week, well-known Israel supporter and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz reportedly warned the press about MMFA's operations.
"I have, and let me tell you, Max Blumenthal and Media Matters will be singlehandedly responsible for (Obama) losing this election," he is reported saying. The Democrats "cannot win the election and keep this affiliation with them."
It reported that Media Matters is also part of the Common Purpose Project, which meets weekly nearby the White House and is often attended by a representative from the Obama White House.
Media Matters is well-known for several campaigns against broadcasters and commentators. It is credited with getting Don Imus fired from his morning show on CNBC for a comment he made about the Rutgers' women's basketball team. Brock played a central role in that effort, the DC reports. 
It also launched the "Drop Dobbs" campaign against then-CNN host Lou Dobbs, who now has a show on the Fox Business Network, over Dobbs' commentaries against illegal immigration. 
"Media Matters produced and was prepared to run an advertisement against Ford Motor Company on Spanish language stations in Houston, San Antonio and other cities targeting its top selling product, pick-up trucks, in its top truck buying markets," an internal memo obtained by the DC reveals. Ford dropped its advertising from Dobbs' program before that happened. 
The group is also responsible for the pressure placed on advertisers on Glenn Beck's former show on Fox News Channel. The DC reports that Media Matters worked with Color of Change, co-founded by former White House green jobs czar Van Jones. MMFA gave Color of Change's parent company $200,000 for a "campaign to expose Glenn Beck's racist rhetoric."
At the same time, Media Matters was working closely with MSNBC president Phil Griffin as well as with bloggers, reporters at the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, the Huffington Post, Politico and Washington Post reporter Greg Sargent, among others, to write Media Matters-directed stories, the DC reported. 
"If you can't get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent's always game," a source reportedly with firsthand knowledge told the DC.
While commanding considerable influence in Washington media and political corners, the DC report describes Brock as "volatile," "erratic" and struggling with mania, a mental illness that manifests itself in grandiose behavior. He has reportedly admitted to drug use, specifically cocaine, and has previously discussed entering the psych ward at Sibley Hospital in Northwest Washington.
Those troubles may be the cause of what is perceived as paranoia on Brock's part, according to the DC, which reported that Brock maintained a phalange of bodyguards. 
"He had more security than a Third World dictator," a Media Matters employee told the DC.
The need for personal security, including an assistant who carried a concealed weapon in Washington, D.C., despite very strict gun laws in the city, left Brock "terrified" that he would anger George Soros, a big source of funding for MMFA and a gun control advocate, a source told the Daily Caller.

HELLO JOE FROM BOCA RATON From the Michael Savage Show ?

Posted by BH 10:39 am 2-13
Presented by Robert Firth, FZ Writer
Bob Lives in Boca Raton but He's Smart !

Halftime in America

Posted by DV 10:06 am 2-13
From Dan Vincent, Editor FZN 
In Humor, Truth Halftime in America: Remy Chrysler Ad Parody
Half Time In America, and We Are Behind, Bad !


Posted by DV 9:58 am 2-13
From Dan Vincent, Editor
From Dan Vincent, Vegas


How to Save Health Insurance ? Ask your Car Insurance Dr. Milton Wolf

Posted by BH 9:44 am 2-13
From Dr. Milton Wolf Blog

Monday, February 13, 2012

How to save health insurance? Ask your car insurance agent.

Saving Health Insurance ?

by Milton Wolf 

I read loads of great columns, but every once in a while one comes along that makes me jealous that I didn't write it myself. John H. Cochranes' The Real Trouble with the Birth-Control Mandate is the perfect example. I've been in interview after interview, in speech after speech that health insurance needs to replicate the success of car insurance.
Milton Wolf (Doc)
I put “insurance” in quotes for a reason. Insurance is supposed to mean a contract, by which a company pays for large, unanticipated expenses in return for a premium: expenses like your house burning down, your car getting stolen or a big medical bill.

Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses. There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn’t add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn’t charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste. You’d have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you’d end up spending more.

How did we get to this point? It all leads back to the elephant in the room: the tax deductibility of employer-provided group insurance.

If your employer pays you $100 less in salary and buys $100 of group insurance for you, you don’t pay taxes on that amount. Hence, the more insurance costs and covers, the less in taxes you seem to pay. (Even that savings is an illusion: The government still needs money and raises overall tax rates to make up the difference.)
Do yourself a favor and read it all. And remind yourself this: Your car insurance will never lock you into a job you don't love and if your car insurance company doesn't treat you right, you can replace them in 15 minutes.

Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012

Posted by BH 8:51am 2-13


Posted by BH 8:17 am 2-13

Mortgage Settlement Will Plunge Real Estate Values

13 February 2012 No Comment
By Greg Hunter’s 
It is official.  State and federal governments have condoned forgery, perjury and fraud in what’s been called the “robo-signing” foreclosure debacle.  Last week, the five biggest banks in America signed on to a $26 billion deal that, basically, lets them off with a slap on the wrist for fraudulently foreclosing on homes in the last few years.  I am not going to go on and on about how unfair and unjust this deal was or how the rule of law has been thrown down the stairs.  I am going to focus on the fallout of this morally corrupt deal.    
There is $700 billion in negative home equity with nearly half (11 million) of all houses underwater.  Meaning, more is owed on the mortgage than the home is worth.  This settlement may help a few folks, but it is a drop in an ocean of debt.  Now that the deal is done, look for the pace of foreclosures to pick up speed and home values to take another cliff dive.  If you thought the negative equity problem was at the bottom–forget it.  The plunge in real estate prices is far from over, and it’s not going to turn positive anytime soon.  Consider the latest Case-Shiller report where year-over-year declines in home values averaged 3.7% nationwide.  This is despite 30-year mortgage rates at or below 4% and a big slowdown in foreclosures because federal and state governments were negotiating a deal for the past 16 months. 
Banks are desperate for cash, and they are going to unlock all they can as fast as they can.  After all, people can’t live in a house forever without paying.  The banks are not going to enter a new age of morality when they just got a “get out of jail free” card from prosecutors.  Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi wrote last week, “The only acceptable foreclosure deal had to bring about a complete end to robosigning and the other similar corrupt practices that grew up around it (like for instance gutter service, the practice of process servers simply signing affidavits saying they delivered summonses, instead of really doing it).  But this deal not only doesn’t end robosigning, it officially makes getting caught for it inexpensive.”  (Click here for the complete Taibbi post.) 
The Obama administration said, last week, this deal will be good for “struggling homeowners.”  It will be good if you are a speculator looking for a deal, but it won’t help out homeowners who have equity and pay their mortgage on time.  Last week, a Bloomberg report said, “A surge of home seizures may drive down values, at least for a while, in a fragile market. The number of new foreclosure filings fell 34 percent last year, according to RealtyTrac, resulting in a backlog that now may flood the market with low- cost properties. About 1 million foreclosures will be completed this year, up 25 percent from 2011, according to the firm.”  (Click here for the complete Bloomberg story.)   
The new flood of foreclosures will depress prices, and more and more people will figure out they are sunk and will stop paying for a submerging investment.  I say the fall will not be temporary.  Declining prices will be the prevailing trend, especially when interest rates begin to rise.  Mortgage interest rates cannot remain at these cut-rate levels forever and won’t.  The Huffington Post reported last week, “. . . Amherst Securities Laurie Goodman noted that with our current housing trajectory, we can expect up to 10 million more defaulted mortgages over the next decade. These foreclosures impacts housing values, reduce consumer purchases, and costs municipalities money.”  (Click here for the complete Huffington Post article.)    
Housing prices are headed down.  Most people cannot fathom year after year of declining prices. But, that’s what’s coming, and I see nothing that will stop the slide.  Not only does this deal hammer home prices but pension funds and mutual funds that invested in mortgage-backed securities.  Small investors and homeowners everywhere are stuck on the same bus staring down a steep hill, and this so-called “robo-signing” settlement just cut the brake lines.

Posted by a Retired Vet who now Works as a Truck Driver

Posted by BH 8:13am 2-13

Barack The Benevolent
By Guest Blogger Dave Carter
(A contributing writer for
Dave is a military retiree and currently works as a long haul truck driver)

Day by day, measure by measure, edict by edict, directive by directive, we are losing our country.  Immersed in the collectivist waters of academia, Good King Barack continues to inflict his benevolent vision upon the country regardless of the consent of the governed, the will of their elected representatives, or the Constitution he took an oath to uphold.  Neither proper respect nor the rule of law constrains a man who takes it upon himself to decide when the Senate shall be in recess for purposes of unconstitutional appointments, which laws he will or will not execute, what private contracts and services he will or will not order private citizens to purchase, and what freedom of religion he will or will not allow people of faith to practice.  For a guy who believes in a right to privacy, he sure meddles in our private lives a lot.

His latest mandate, forcing religious organizations to purchase health insurance plans that include contraceptives and abortifacients in violation of the central tenets of their faith, was merely the latest in a series of assaults against the moral and legal foundations of the country he seeks to “fundamentally transform.”   Faced with heavy opposition from people of faith across the political spectrum, President Obama Friday announced a “compromise” wherein he will require insurance companies to pay for these “preventive health services.”   Does your copy of the Constitution authorize the President to order insurance companies to provide free contraceptive and abortifacients?   I can’t seem to find it in my copy. And is it really a compromise to shift an unauthorized command from one entity, such as the church, to another?
Meanwhile, Mrs. Good King Barack visited Little Rock Air Force Base, on Thursday, where she announced a revamping of the items that will be served at military dining halls.  There will be whole grains, fruits, veggies, lean meats, low-fat dairy products and more in dining halls, vending machines, snack bars and, “…any other places where military families purchase food,” said the First Lady.  So when the troops finish their PT in the morning, they can munch on some foliage like a rabbit.
Can someone please get the Obamas on another His and Hers Jet Flight to Martha’s Vineyard?  Their vacations cost a lot less of our freedom than their time on the job.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...