President Obama has nominated former Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense. Because of his stated positions on Israel, Iran, and the state of our military, we believe that Hagel is the wrong candidate for Secretary of Defense.
I have signed a petition calling for the rejection of Chuck Hagel by the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
To learn more about this vital national security and foreign policy issue, and to sign the petition, please click here:
http://www.lcaction.cc/670/petition.asp?PID=38403334&NID=1
Thank you for joining this me in this critical campaign!
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
My Friend Barry....A Newly Published Poet!
My longtime, best friend of over 14 years, has finally became a published poet! I'm so very happy for him, and would love to share his success here for all of you to see! His poem, that he wrote for me, is the very first entry of the e-book below. Please take time and read it. Just click on the title to go download it! I have a big feeling that this is just the first of much more wonderful, beautiful writings that we will see from him!
CONGRATS my dearest friend and WTG!!!
Rating: Not yet rated. Published: Feb. 13, 2013
Words: 29,445 (approximate)
Language: English
ISBN: 9781301762682
Description
Stories and poems from the Steampunk.com Saint Valentine's Day Short Short Competition
CONGRATS my dearest friend and WTG!!!
A Steampunk Valentine
By Steampunk.com
Rating: Not yet rated. Published: Feb. 13, 2013
Words: 29,445 (approximate)
Language: English
ISBN: 9781301762682
Description
Stories and poems from the Steampunk.com Saint Valentine's Day Short Short Competition
Friday, February 15, 2013
More Liberal Lies....Bangor Daily News Told A BIG One!
Following a NY newspaper's lead (The Journal News), the Bangor Daily News asked, through a FOAA (Freedom of Access Act) request to police agencies throughout the state (of Maine), for their lists of concealed weapon holders. This request caused outrage throughout the Maine legislature and caused a bill to address the public ease of acquiring these lists to be drawn up and be brought to the legislature as an emergency bill.
Now, I have several questions. The first being, why would anyone at the BDN think it'd be good to follow the lead of that NY newspaper to request this list after all the outrage direct to that paper for putting people's lives at risk from the nutjobs and criminal elements out there and really think that this would be a good idea? If they believe so, then maybe we Mainers should really consider boycotting BDN and tell them in no uncertain terms that we believe their job is to report the news, not create it!
And the next set of questions are...after all the outrage shown by Mainers about this request by the BDN and they reported to the AP that "it never intended to publish the names"....do they really think we Mainers are that dumb and gullible to believe that outrageous lie? If they weren't going to publish the names, then what WERE they going to do with it? Why would a NEWSPAPER, who gathers information to report on, gather the names of concealed weapon holders and just sit on that info? What would they want that kind of information for if not to report it? The obvious reason is the simple and logical one, because they fully planned on publishing the names, just as The Journal News did. They just didn't count on the fierce, independent nature of us Mainers to come out as fast and furious as it did! Well BDN, NOW you know! Even though it seems that Maine prefers to be vastly a liberal voting state, it doesn't mean that we also believe in the fascist belief of gun ownership, which is ...that there shouldn't be any for us common folk! You have shown your true colors BDN....and it sure isn't red, white & blue!!!!
Now, I have several questions. The first being, why would anyone at the BDN think it'd be good to follow the lead of that NY newspaper to request this list after all the outrage direct to that paper for putting people's lives at risk from the nutjobs and criminal elements out there and really think that this would be a good idea? If they believe so, then maybe we Mainers should really consider boycotting BDN and tell them in no uncertain terms that we believe their job is to report the news, not create it!
And the next set of questions are...after all the outrage shown by Mainers about this request by the BDN and they reported to the AP that "it never intended to publish the names"....do they really think we Mainers are that dumb and gullible to believe that outrageous lie? If they weren't going to publish the names, then what WERE they going to do with it? Why would a NEWSPAPER, who gathers information to report on, gather the names of concealed weapon holders and just sit on that info? What would they want that kind of information for if not to report it? The obvious reason is the simple and logical one, because they fully planned on publishing the names, just as The Journal News did. They just didn't count on the fierce, independent nature of us Mainers to come out as fast and furious as it did! Well BDN, NOW you know! Even though it seems that Maine prefers to be vastly a liberal voting state, it doesn't mean that we also believe in the fascist belief of gun ownership, which is ...that there shouldn't be any for us common folk! You have shown your true colors BDN....and it sure isn't red, white & blue!!!!
But NOBODY Is Trying To Take Away Your Guns!
Well, isn't this interesting? When can you tell a politician is lying? When his/her lips are moving!!
Every liberal politician up to and including the president, has said...we're not trying to take away your guns, just trying to solve gun violence and save our children! What BULLCHIPS!!! Look at what the state of Missouri democrats are trying to pass! Think the liberals elsewhere aren't thinking or trying the same thing? Then you truly do have your butt up your rearend!
In part this states:
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
Monday, February 11, 2013
The State Is Using Our Children To Spy On Us!
In the high school in Arlington, Tennessee, students were given a questionnaire in which they were asked if their parents owned guns; it also asked for the student’s opinion on the legalization of marijuana, abortion and what their religion was.
Now, if it's illegal for a potential employer to ask about your religion or political affiliations, then why is it legal for school administrators to ask students theirs? And how is it the school's business whether the students' family owns guns?
The answer is....it isn't legal nor any of their business! And the lame excuse the school administrators gave for doing this and spying on the privacy rights of their students and their families? The questionnaire was drawn up by advance placement psychology students and they conducted the surveys in several classes. Hmmmm....seems to me that the adults should know that this was NOT a legal or right thing to do and not let the students conduct the survey! Exactly who are supposed to be the knowledgeable TEACHERS in this system anyways??? Apparently, not the school administrators in Arlington, Tennessee!!
Now, if it's illegal for a potential employer to ask about your religion or political affiliations, then why is it legal for school administrators to ask students theirs? And how is it the school's business whether the students' family owns guns?
The answer is....it isn't legal nor any of their business! And the lame excuse the school administrators gave for doing this and spying on the privacy rights of their students and their families? The questionnaire was drawn up by advance placement psychology students and they conducted the surveys in several classes. Hmmmm....seems to me that the adults should know that this was NOT a legal or right thing to do and not let the students conduct the survey! Exactly who are supposed to be the knowledgeable TEACHERS in this system anyways??? Apparently, not the school administrators in Arlington, Tennessee!!
Another Reason For The 2nd Amendment
This report shows exactly WHY our INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms stated in the 2nd Amendment is so very important to not be infringed upon by anyone, expecially our government!
Obama's Citizen Hit List
And NOW everybody sees exactly what I pointed out in my post "WANTED FOR STATE SANCTIONED MURDER" on 10/08/11 and the experts say it's a severe reason for the impeachment of Obama!
Read what WND reporter Chelsea Shilling wrote about this:
What the experts say …
Read what WND reporter Chelsea Shilling wrote about this:
Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’
In 2010, Obama ordered the assassination of a radical American-born Muslim cleric who became an avowed member of al-Qaida’s affiliate in Yemen. Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a drone strike in September 2011, along with naturalized U.S. citizen and al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan. Awlaki’s 16-year-old American-born son, Abdulrahman, was killed in a similar strike two weeks earlier.
While there is little argument that Awlaki was involved in terrorist activity, the Obama administration failed to provide due process to the U.S. citizens targeted for the use of deadly force. Awlaki had reportedly communicated by email with Maj. Nadal Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. He had also been tied to the so-called “underwear bomber” who attempted to blow up a Detroit-bound plane with plastic explosives sewn into his undergarments on Dec. 25, 2009. The FBI suspected Awlaki had purchased airplane tickets for three of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers before the terrorist attacks.
Anwar al-Awlaki
However, Awlaki was born in New Mexico, and his son was born in Denver, Colo. There has been no reported evidence that Awlaki ever renounced his U.S. citizenship. In fact, Rep. Charles Dent, R-Penn., introduced a 2010 resolution in the U.S. House to strip Awlaki of his citizenship, but the legislation never made it out of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
Awlaki spent years in the U.S. as an imam and a Muslim chaplain at George Washington University before moving to Yemen. He had been in U.S. custody twice and released before he was killed by the drone strike. Awlaki was detained in 2002 at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City for passport fraud. A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that he had been released by the FBI. He was also held for at least eight months in 2006 and 2007 and subsequently released.
In 2002, Awlaki reportedly led Muslim prayers on Capitol Hill.
Anwar al-Alwlaki's son, 16
He also reportedly dined at the Pentagon as part of the U.S. military’s outreach to the Muslim community just months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
In 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the U.S. government on behalf of Awlaki’s father, challenging the federal government’s authority to conduct “targeted killings” of U.S. citizens who are not in an armed conflict zone. A federal district court dismissed the case in 2011.
In January this year, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan ruled that the Obama administration is not required to provide legal justification for its targeting killings to the public.
So how does the Obama administration determine who’s a terrorist for the purpose of compiling its hit list?
Samir Kahn
A confidential Justice Department “white paper,” which is not an official legal memo, was released just last week to NBC News. It states that the U.S. government can order targeted killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force.”
In response to the memo, a bipartisan letter from 11 top-ranking senators to President Obama stated, “It’s vitally important for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive interprets the limits and boundaries of this particular authority.” The senators asked Obama for “any and all legal opinions” that clarify the basis of his perceived power to “deliberately kill American citizens.”
Judge Andrew Napolitano warned, “This 16-page white paper was written so vaguely that the logic from it could actually be extrapolated to permit the president to kill Americans here in the United States.”
Napolitano noted that Obama also violated another federal statute: “When the president ramps up the war on terror or decides to move into another area or use the CIA to engage people, whether to arrest them or to kill them, he’s required to tell the Senate and House intelligence committees ahead of time and get their consent. He apparently didn’t do that, and so [Congress is] burned by this.”
What the experts say …
“Some people argue, ‘Well, he’s only killing terrorists,’” Fein told WND. “Oh really? How do you know? There’s no accountability. Was Mr. al-Alwaki’s son, a 16-year-old teenager having dinner, a terrorist? So whenever the president says someone’s a terrorist, are they convicted? If the president says conservatives are terrorists, is he going to kill them?
Fein argued that the killings were “tantamount to murder.”
“We know at a minimum there have been three, but perhaps many more. We’re just guessing. You can’t have democracy and the rule of law if you never get to know what the facts are and you just have to accept what the government says they are. If you don’t have a trial, that’s the definition of tyranny.”
Because there was so much evidence against Alwaki, critics argue a conviction could have been easily obtained by the Obama administration.
“It isn’t like they didn’t have evidence,” Fein said. “They had confession, admission against interest. Any of them might plead guilty. Only an uncivilized, savage people convict people without trial and sentence them to the gulag. That’s what we read about in the Soviet Union under Stalin and Khrushchev and Brezhnev. That’s what we read about in China under Mao. Is that what we want to be?”
Fein also blasted the fact that the Obama administration’s justification for the killing remained confidential until now.
“There’s a huge, strong legal case here, absolutely,” he said. “I worked in the Office of Legal Counsel. I worked on impeachment of Nixon. The idea that I would write a secret memo on something that’s an impeachable offense would be insane. A legal rationale now becomes classified because it would tell the enemy what constitutional theory you’re using justify this killing? You’ve got to be kidding!”
Fisher agreed with Fein: “There are no possible grounds for ever keeping legal reasoning secret. If a legal memo has sources and methods, just strike it out and the reasoning must be made public. If you’re not willing to give your reasoning, I’d ask, what’s going on? It’s probably that your reasons are not very good.”
Titus told WND, “It’s quite remarkable that Congress has basically abandoned this issue to the president, primarily by not addressing the issue in the National Defense Authorization Act not only in 2012 but also in 2013, where it basically gives the president carte blanche to detain any person that he suspects to be guilty of aiding people involved in terrorism. The fact that Congress won’t take a stand on that indicates that it wouldn’t intervene in the president’s use of drones to assassinate people he suspects are actively engaged in acts of terrorism even inside the United States.
“Basically, Obama is claiming the right to be the prosecutor on the grounds that the whole world is a war zone. I think it’s an impeachable offense because he’s neither using the civilian courts nor is he bringing them before our military courts. What the president has done is simply defined the whole world as a battleground.”
Upon reviewing the recently released “white paper,” Titus and attorney William J. Olson wrote, “Now, we can see why the Department of Justice has been so reluctant to share the basis for its legal analysis. It is deeply flawed – based on a perverse view of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
“Additionally, the white paper completely ignores the procedural protections expressly provided in the Constitution’s Third Article that were specifically designed to prohibit the president from taking the law into his own hands, serving as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.”
READ MORE OF THIS EXCELLENT ARTICLE FOR MORE REASONS FOR IMPEACHMENT HERE!
Sunday, February 10, 2013
The British Are Coming - The British Are Coming - AGAIN!
I watched the interview between Piers Morgan and Ted Nugent and just wanted to strangle Morgan! First, what in the blue blazers is Morgan doing sticking his friggin blimey British nose into us Americans' second amendment right to bear arms? What does HE know about it? Except for the fact that a very well armed American citizenry beat his country's a$$ in 1776? Ahhhh... there might be the answer! Couldn't beat us then, but help take away our guns now, there might be a way to possibly take it back? Well Mr. Morgan, once again, a British citizen under estimates us Americans and our love for freedom!
(Note: It has come to my attention and it seems that a few Brits have missed the satire in my title and text above about the British trying to come back and take over America! I do NOT actually believe this, as I know that the Brits learned their lesson well the FIRST time they tried and are not stupid enough to try again!!!! So RELAX Brits, it's just SATIRE! Read the rest of this article below for the meat of the subject!!!!)
And I would love to debate this with you! As knowledgeable as Mr. Nugent is, he just didn't have some facts to answer back some of your so called, figures. Well, I do! Here goes.
Your point about America having the highest gun ownership rate per capita (88 per 100) with Yemen being second (55 per 100) and that Mr. Nugent couldn't possibly say that it's safer having lots of guns due to the unstableness and crime happening in Yemen, is not giving the full picture because of the following reasons:
1) The following countries who are 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th in high gun ownership per capita do NOT have the same troubles as Yemen...they are Switzerland (46 per 100), Finland (45 per 100), Cyprus (36 per 100), Saudi Arabia (35 per 100) and Iraq (34 per 100) according to a small arms survey compiled in 2007.
2) You managed to leave out a very important piece of information regarding to the fact that even though there is a high rate of gun ownership here in America, when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the United States doesn’t even make the top 25. According to figures collected by the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime through its annual crime survey, 9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm homicide in the most recent year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm homicides per 100,000 population, only the 27th highest rate in the world.
3) It is interesting to note that not only does the United States have a relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has only the 46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest ownership rate, is 63rd on the list.
“The most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence,” writes CNS News commentator Stephen Gutowski. “In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.”
But in light of the ownership and homicide figures, he observes: “More guns do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.”
And therein lies your problem and lack of validity to your argument Mr. Morgan. The vast majority of gun owners here in America are law abiding and responsible owners with their firearms! And yes, it's very important to us to have our citizens armed, cause it keeps other countries from invading us because they know it's impossible to fight a whole country of armed citizens (as Britain found out!!)! But you will NEVER get this, EVER! Because after all, you're British, and have absolutely NO bloody clue as to how important it is to remain armed to keep from having a tyrannical government from abusing its citizens!
You can keep saying... God save the Queen....
we'll keep our guns and say... God save America (which means its PEOPLE) ...TYVM!!!
********************************
UPDATE:
I put the link to this post on Piers Morgan Tonight FB page, and even though Mr. Morgan has of yet responded (I really never thought he would anyways cause we all know it's not HIM who is smart enough to know any of this info, but members of his staff who do!), there were a couple of unknowledgeable Brits who decided to put their tuppence worth in, which I now include here:
- Andy Fidler typical hysteria.
- Pete Bromley Paranoia - Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself. (e.g. "Everyone is out to get me.").
- Debby Reagan LOL...you seem to miss the SATIRE!!! I don't really believe that the British are coming Andy & Pete...it was a 'tongue in cheek' comment to show that Piers has no business sticking his nose into whether or not us Americans should have our right to have our firearms not being infringed upon! And you seem to miss the point that Piers argument about gun control being an effective way to curb crimes committed with guns is totally wrong! Get past the satire of my post's title (which it seems neither of you understood!) and read the facts within the article that proves Pier's assertion wrong! GEESH!
- Pete Bromley Yes I've missed the satire because you are wrong!
- Debby Reagan Apparently not, as figures don't lie! And these are facts stated by others other than Americans! And if Piers can state part of these facts and be right...then the other facts of the same report that he conveniently left out must, by logic, be correct too!
- Terrylewis Sherry Debby , they don't get it. THey chime in on everything, saying we are paranoid yet they are here every single day in another countries business because they are scared. They have to know whats going on, every moment.
- Pete Bromley No Terry lewis, its not that, it's because it's fun. And by the way the web page is called 'Piers Morgan Tonight' and not 'Piers Morgan Tonight and only Yanks can comment!'16 hours ago · Like · 1
- Debby Reagan Ok Pete, let me state what Terrylewis was meaning in plain ENGLISH for you to understand! You say I'm wrong, but don't point out WHERE I'm wrong. There is no meaningful, knowledgeable response to my statement.
Am I wrong in the facts I stated?
Am I wrong about us Americans' second amendment right?
Am I wrong that Piers only took one wee bit of fact from a report that shored up his skewed viewpoint and conveniently left out the rest that destroyed it?
Am I wrong that some of you Brits have absolutely no clue as to the importance of our gun ownership to us and how we take it very seriously and guard it very jealously?
Am I wrong in saying that more guns do not, in most cases (especially here in America), necessarily equate to more gun violence?
If so to any of the forementioned questions, then explain how I am wrong, and give actual facts to back up your reasoning, not just by saying I'm wrong, or spouting out insults or psychological babble which has nothing to do with my facts (and everything to do with the missed satire on your end!). Then maybe we here in America will think that just maybe, there might be some intelligent life there in Brittain after all!!
Friday, February 8, 2013
Resistance to NDAA Kidnapping Powers is our Duty – Tenth Amendment Center
Does Maine have an anti-NDAA bill before our legislators yet?
Resistance to NDAA Kidnapping Powers is our Duty – Tenth Amendment Center
Resistance to NDAA Kidnapping Powers is our Duty – Tenth Amendment Center
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
President Obama Can Order Drone Killings of American Citizens
The U.S. Justice Department has just released a 16-page memo outlining its justification for why President Obama can order drone killings of American citizens and it seems everybody is screaming foul! Saying things like: “This is a chilling document,” (Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACL); "If you believe the president has the power to order U.S. citizens executed far from any battlefield with no charges or trial, then it’s truly hard to conceive of any asserted power you would find objectionable," (constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald); "But when an oppressive government regime decides to utterly ignore the Constitution and the limits of power described therein, it become a dictatorial tyranny. We are there now in America". (Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews.com); “Anyone should be concerned when the president and his lawyers make up their own interpretation of the law or their own rules,” and “This is a very, very dangerous thing that the president has done", said Mary Ellen O’Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame; "Every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them"....Senator Wyden; "In plain language, [the Obama administration memo] means that [any Americans can be assassinated if] the President considers the citizens to be a threat in the future. Moreover, the memo allows killings when an attempt to capture the person would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel. That undue risk is left undefined"....Top constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley.
Well my point is this. Where was all of this concern back in September of 2011? I wrote about Obama's murdering ways in October 2011 after he assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki! But no one wanted to listen then! NOW that as I said....."If the government can hunt down and EXECUTE even just ONE American, and WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW IT... who says YOU won't be the next one within their crosshairs"?.... has come to pass, everybody wants to scream foul! Where were all of of you back when President Obama first publicly did this? It's evident y'all didn't care THEN! Why? Cause y'all RE-ELECTED the tyrant! But NOW, cause you let Obama get away with killing a US citizen back then, and then told him you approved his doing so by re-electing the murderous son-of-biscuit maker, and he has decided that the rest of us can be put into his cross hairs, NOW you scream no? Where was all of your concern for your fellow US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki? Seems to me that all of you just may deserve what's coming down the road cause you never stood up for YOUR rights when this was done to Anwar al-Awlaki! Cause make NO MISTAKE about it, when ONE American's rights are violated... ALL Americans' rights are violated!!! And this authorized presidential drone killings only serves to point this out!
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me. - Pastor Martin Neimöller
Well folks....now they are coming for you....aren't you lucky that there IS SOMEONE LEFT (like me!!) to speak out for you?
Well my point is this. Where was all of this concern back in September of 2011? I wrote about Obama's murdering ways in October 2011 after he assassinated Anwar al-Awlaki! But no one wanted to listen then! NOW that as I said....."If the government can hunt down and EXECUTE even just ONE American, and WE THE PEOPLE ALLOW IT... who says YOU won't be the next one within their crosshairs"?.... has come to pass, everybody wants to scream foul! Where were all of of you back when President Obama first publicly did this? It's evident y'all didn't care THEN! Why? Cause y'all RE-ELECTED the tyrant! But NOW, cause you let Obama get away with killing a US citizen back then, and then told him you approved his doing so by re-electing the murderous son-of-biscuit maker, and he has decided that the rest of us can be put into his cross hairs, NOW you scream no? Where was all of your concern for your fellow US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki? Seems to me that all of you just may deserve what's coming down the road cause you never stood up for YOUR rights when this was done to Anwar al-Awlaki! Cause make NO MISTAKE about it, when ONE American's rights are violated... ALL Americans' rights are violated!!! And this authorized presidential drone killings only serves to point this out!
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me. - Pastor Martin Neimöller
Well folks....now they are coming for you....aren't you lucky that there IS SOMEONE LEFT (like me!!) to speak out for you?
Monday, February 4, 2013
Double Standards In Maine Attorney General's Office On Robo-Signing!
On January 31, 2013 the Maine Attorney General's Office reached a settlement against Lender Processing Services Inc. and its subsidiaries, LPS Default Solutions and DocX and Maine will receive $500,000 as part of the $121 million multi-state settlement in a mortgage robo-signing case.
I called the AG office and talked with Linda Conti, AAG who was the one who supposedly negotiated the settlement. My conversation with her was less than enlightening and down right discouraging. I asked her how it was possible for one fraction of the state government (AG's Office) understands the illegal practices of robo-signing which make the documents illegal, yet another fraction of the state government (The Courts) does not? How can the state, who hasn't lost anything, receive compensation based on illegal documents, but homeowners get foreclosed upon, with these same documents? Her answer? Because you didn't lose your case because of robo-signing, you lost because you didn't pay your mortgage and the judge found that the bank owned your mortgage. Excuse me????? How can the bank show that they own my mortgage when their proof of ownership are the very same robo-signed documents that the AG office has just said were illegal? And this isn't about whether I paid or not, this is about whether the bank OWNS MY NOTE & MORTGAGE OR NOT!!!!
Now, my documents aren't LPS or DocX, that I know of anyways. Countrywide (and we know how corrupt THEY were!) kept it in house. But, the very same ROBO-SIGNOR names that were used by LPS were used. Whether Jill Wosnak's name was used by LPS, or Countrywide, she's still the same robo-signor. If robo-signing is illegal and the signatures are forged, it makes those documents fraudulent ones. So how can a bank use fraudulent documents to show ownership? Especially when I had a hand writing expert's report that the signatures were forged! (Think maybe the judges in my case are either ignorant or corrupt here? Either way, their rulings are null and void due to fraud...as fraud vitiates everything. And the AAG doesn't know this? BULL PUCKIES!)
Ms. Conti's answer? You just aren't listening and don't understand and I don't know how else to explain it to you. It seems you just don't agree with me or the judge and need to appeal your case. I cannot help you.
Hmmmmm.... either Ms. Conti is very uneducated about the fraud here, or is helping in covering it up! Either way, is this the kind of caliber of attorney we have sitting in the state AG's office? Because if she is any kind of representation of what we have up there, no wonder the citizens of Maine are having their homes and businesses stolen by the fraudulent practices of these banks!!!
Seems to me, that illegal robo-signed documents that are illegal enough for the state of Maine to collect a settlement on should also be illegal enough for homeowners to prove that the banks don't own our mortgages!!!
And what happened to the $500k to help homeowners in foreclosure? Aren't I one?? But yet, Ms. Conti can't help me!!
I called the AG office and talked with Linda Conti, AAG who was the one who supposedly negotiated the settlement. My conversation with her was less than enlightening and down right discouraging. I asked her how it was possible for one fraction of the state government (AG's Office) understands the illegal practices of robo-signing which make the documents illegal, yet another fraction of the state government (The Courts) does not? How can the state, who hasn't lost anything, receive compensation based on illegal documents, but homeowners get foreclosed upon, with these same documents? Her answer? Because you didn't lose your case because of robo-signing, you lost because you didn't pay your mortgage and the judge found that the bank owned your mortgage. Excuse me????? How can the bank show that they own my mortgage when their proof of ownership are the very same robo-signed documents that the AG office has just said were illegal? And this isn't about whether I paid or not, this is about whether the bank OWNS MY NOTE & MORTGAGE OR NOT!!!!
Now, my documents aren't LPS or DocX, that I know of anyways. Countrywide (and we know how corrupt THEY were!) kept it in house. But, the very same ROBO-SIGNOR names that were used by LPS were used. Whether Jill Wosnak's name was used by LPS, or Countrywide, she's still the same robo-signor. If robo-signing is illegal and the signatures are forged, it makes those documents fraudulent ones. So how can a bank use fraudulent documents to show ownership? Especially when I had a hand writing expert's report that the signatures were forged! (Think maybe the judges in my case are either ignorant or corrupt here? Either way, their rulings are null and void due to fraud...as fraud vitiates everything. And the AAG doesn't know this? BULL PUCKIES!)
Ms. Conti's answer? You just aren't listening and don't understand and I don't know how else to explain it to you. It seems you just don't agree with me or the judge and need to appeal your case. I cannot help you.
Hmmmmm.... either Ms. Conti is very uneducated about the fraud here, or is helping in covering it up! Either way, is this the kind of caliber of attorney we have sitting in the state AG's office? Because if she is any kind of representation of what we have up there, no wonder the citizens of Maine are having their homes and businesses stolen by the fraudulent practices of these banks!!!
Seems to me, that illegal robo-signed documents that are illegal enough for the state of Maine to collect a settlement on should also be illegal enough for homeowners to prove that the banks don't own our mortgages!!!
And what happened to the $500k to help homeowners in foreclosure? Aren't I one?? But yet, Ms. Conti can't help me!!
Sunday, February 3, 2013
TWO SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THE ANTI-GUNNERS DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE
Carl F. Worden
January 15, 2013
There are two Supreme Court rulings that directly relate to the current anti-Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of.
The first is United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.
The second important case is that of John Bad Elk v. United States from 1900. In that case, an attempt was made to arrest Mr. Bad Elk without probable cause, and Mr. Bad Elk killed a policeman who was attempting the false arrest. Bad Elk had been found guilty and sentenced to death. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Bad Elk had the right to use any force, including lethal force, to prevent his false arrest, even if the policeman was only trying to arrest him and not kill him. Basically, the Supremes of the day ruled that as a citizen, you have the right to defend against your civil rights being violated using ANY force necessary to prevent the violation, even if the offending party isn't trying to kill you.
Both of these cases are standing law to this day.
Fascist Liberal Harvey Weinstein Wants to Curb Internet News Sharing
Oscar winning producer, Harvey Weinstein, a strong supporter of Obama, is going to push for legislation that would force websites to pay for linking to news articles. This legislation would require news websites and blogs to pay a monitoring organization (can we say, Big Brother's Watching!!) a fee for every link to an article written by a journalist.
Like my blog here and other sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google would have to pay for the privilege of including snippets and links to news stories! This is nothing more than just plain old censorship and trying to make it so that we go back to the days before the internet where we were only told the news that the liberal media (thus the government) wanted us to know!
This blogger has pointed out for many years now that mainstream media reporters have been nothing more than governmental puppets reporting only what the fascist US government wants the public to know and be aware of, even if they have to lie to do it! They are no longer true journalists reporting both sides of the story fairly and without bias so that we ourselves can deduce the truth. The internet has provided an avenue to do just this. And not just from America, but from all over the world! We get to see ourselves from many different viewpoints and get to see what truly is happening out there in the real world.
And fascists like Weinstein want to curb this cause God forbid that the slaves become educated to what their fascist government and supporters are actually doing, right? So, let's just charge them for spreading news that might educate them with the truth, with a fee each time they do!!!!
For example, I'm going to do right now, exactly what Weinstein wants to charge us for, so you can see what Rich Ord at WebProNews so succinctly wrote:
Weinstein said, “Journalists don’t benefit when their stories are taken, and given a link. It would be like me launching a newspaper–call it Link—where I can have the greatest journalists in the world working for me without paying them. It’s inconceivable. If BMI and ASCAP can monitor the music business, we need a BMI and an ASCAP to monitor these businesses. This will be the one legislation for our industry that I’ll press.”
Weinstein may think he’s only talking about making news linking giants like Google News pay, but laws against free linking could not just apply to them. His proposed legislation would also have to apply to Reddit, Stumbleupon, Facebook, Twitter and news publishers and bloggers who routinely republish snippets of news articles with links to the original. Many of these sites also inbed video clips as well.
Weinstein challenges the assertion by publishers that linking and taking small snippets of articles is not stealing content but is actually promoting the content. Weinstein equates linking and publishing as one and the same. Weinstein also told Deadline, “When it comes to journalists and journalism, I’m with you. It is important they get paid for good work, and wrong that others just take it, with a link.”.
Since most articles have numerous social buttons encouraging “sharing” their articles via social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, you would think it would be obvious to Weinstein that publishers and journalists want their stories to be linked to. The definition of going viral is mass sharing on social media sites which pushes huge numbers of people to a journalist article if he is so lucky. Linking drives traffic to an article which theoretically can then be monitized by the publisher. If the publisher doesn’t want the traffic he can put up a firewall login and charge visitors to read the sites content.
If a news site like Deadline doesn’t want its articles linked to then it shouldn’t publish them on a linking platform called the Web. Weinstein may be surprised to learn that Deadline and most news sites are quite happy that their articles get free traffic driven by links!
Just like the music industry, which has in the past sued the parents of kids who downloaded music without paying for it, Weinstein proposes that those linking to content should also have to pay up. He wants to do it a bit more tactifully than the RIAA, but still wants to collect nonetheless. His idea I presume is to first change the definition of fair use which is permitted per U.S. and many international copyright laws, where a website can take snippets of content and reuse it to a certain extent.
Like my blog here and other sites like Facebook, Twitter and Google would have to pay for the privilege of including snippets and links to news stories! This is nothing more than just plain old censorship and trying to make it so that we go back to the days before the internet where we were only told the news that the liberal media (thus the government) wanted us to know!
This blogger has pointed out for many years now that mainstream media reporters have been nothing more than governmental puppets reporting only what the fascist US government wants the public to know and be aware of, even if they have to lie to do it! They are no longer true journalists reporting both sides of the story fairly and without bias so that we ourselves can deduce the truth. The internet has provided an avenue to do just this. And not just from America, but from all over the world! We get to see ourselves from many different viewpoints and get to see what truly is happening out there in the real world.
And fascists like Weinstein want to curb this cause God forbid that the slaves become educated to what their fascist government and supporters are actually doing, right? So, let's just charge them for spreading news that might educate them with the truth, with a fee each time they do!!!!
For example, I'm going to do right now, exactly what Weinstein wants to charge us for, so you can see what Rich Ord at WebProNews so succinctly wrote:
Weinstein said, “Journalists don’t benefit when their stories are taken, and given a link. It would be like me launching a newspaper–call it Link—where I can have the greatest journalists in the world working for me without paying them. It’s inconceivable. If BMI and ASCAP can monitor the music business, we need a BMI and an ASCAP to monitor these businesses. This will be the one legislation for our industry that I’ll press.”
Weinstein may think he’s only talking about making news linking giants like Google News pay, but laws against free linking could not just apply to them. His proposed legislation would also have to apply to Reddit, Stumbleupon, Facebook, Twitter and news publishers and bloggers who routinely republish snippets of news articles with links to the original. Many of these sites also inbed video clips as well.
Weinstein challenges the assertion by publishers that linking and taking small snippets of articles is not stealing content but is actually promoting the content. Weinstein equates linking and publishing as one and the same. Weinstein also told Deadline, “When it comes to journalists and journalism, I’m with you. It is important they get paid for good work, and wrong that others just take it, with a link.”.
Since most articles have numerous social buttons encouraging “sharing” their articles via social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, you would think it would be obvious to Weinstein that publishers and journalists want their stories to be linked to. The definition of going viral is mass sharing on social media sites which pushes huge numbers of people to a journalist article if he is so lucky. Linking drives traffic to an article which theoretically can then be monitized by the publisher. If the publisher doesn’t want the traffic he can put up a firewall login and charge visitors to read the sites content.
If a news site like Deadline doesn’t want its articles linked to then it shouldn’t publish them on a linking platform called the Web. Weinstein may be surprised to learn that Deadline and most news sites are quite happy that their articles get free traffic driven by links!
Just like the music industry, which has in the past sued the parents of kids who downloaded music without paying for it, Weinstein proposes that those linking to content should also have to pay up. He wants to do it a bit more tactifully than the RIAA, but still wants to collect nonetheless. His idea I presume is to first change the definition of fair use which is permitted per U.S. and many international copyright laws, where a website can take snippets of content and reuse it to a certain extent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)