How Mexico treats illegal aliens by Michelle Malkin

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens. While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in “Nazi-zona” last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.

The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?

– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

– Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

– Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There’s been no public clamor for “comprehensive immigration reform” in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.

Consider: Open-borders protesters marched freely at the Capitol building in Arizona, comparing GOP Gov. Jan Brewer to Hitler, waving Mexican flags, advocating that demonstrators “Smash the State,” and holding signs that proclaimed “No human is illegal” and “We have rights.”

But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the coun... In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private property and employment rights (if any).

As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico’s southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption,intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn’t respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.

Meanwhile, Mexican consular offices in the United States have coordinated with left-wing social justice groups and the Catholic Church leadership to demand a moratorium on all deportations and a freeze on all employment raids across America.

Mexico is doing the job Arizona is now doing — a job the U.S. government has failed miserably to do: putting its people first. Here’s the proper rejoinder to all the hysterical demagogues in Mexico (and their sympathizers here on American soil) now calling for boycotts and invoking Jim Crow laws, apartheid and the Holocaust because Arizona has taken its sovereignty into its own hands:

Hipócritas.

--------

I couldn't agree with Michelle Malkin more. She really hits this one out of the park...

The kind of guts we all need right now

95 year old hero!

Letter To Obama at Whitehouse Sent from 95 year Old Pearl Harbor Survivor !! Fantastic!!


WW II Battleship sailor tells Obama to shape up or ship out !




This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii
for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.



Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don't believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos'n Mate. Now I live in a "rest home" located on the western end of Pearl Harbor , allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can't figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
" We're no longer a Christian nation"
" America is arrogant" - (Your wife even
announced to the world," America is mean-
spirited. " Please tell her to try preaching
that nonsense to 23 generations of our
war dead buried all over the globe who
died for no other reason than to free a
whole lot of strangers from tyranny and
hopelessness.)
I'd say shame on the both of you, but I don't think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said," America hasn't lived up to her ideals."

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn't mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don't think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don't, I'll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue . You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don't want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don't mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don't want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you're the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you're not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you're thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You're not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That's not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don't want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle...

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes
Snopes confirms as true:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/haroldestes.asp


When a 95 year old hero of the "the Greatest Generation" stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can. Please pass it on.

DEVOUT MUSLIMS-- HEADING HOME LAND SECURITY????

This is actual nothing new. But, when have you heard this on the national media.

Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the hen house. The wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?


Obama and Janet Napolitano appointed Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria, as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).



NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...?

Just wondering.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this make you feel safer already?? That should make our homeland much safer, huh!!

Was it not "Devout Muslim men" that flew planes into U.S. buildings 8 years ago? Was it not a Devout Muslim who killed 13 at Fort Hood ?

Please forward this important information to any who cares about the future of our Country.


Checked this ! See http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dhs.asp

Arizona State Senator Speaks Out

Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen.

I want to explain SB 1070 I'm Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen. I want to explain SB 1070 which I voted for and was just signed by Governor Jan Brewer.

Rancher Rob Krantz was murdered by the drug cartel on his ranch a month ago. I participated in a senate hearing two weeks ago on the border violence, here is just some of the highlights from those who testified.

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran bibles.

Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way. This was not the only rancher we heard that day that talked about the drug trains.

One man told of two illegal's who came upon his property one shot in the back and the other in the arm by the drug runners who had forced them to carry the drugs and then shot them. Daily they listen to gun fire during the night it is not safe to leave his family alone on the ranch and they can't leave the ranch for fear of nothing being left when they come back.

The border patrol is not on the border. They have set up 60 miles away with check points that do nothing to stop the invasion. They are not allowed to use force in stopping anyone who is entering. They run around chasing them, if they get their hands on them then they can take them back across the border.

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal's and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal's. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

The majority of people coming now are people we need to be worried about. The ranchers told us that they have seen a change in the people coming they are not just those who are looking for work and a better life.

The Federal Government has refused for years to do anything to help the border states. We have been over run and once they are here we have the burden of funding state services that they use. Education cost have been over a billion dollars. The healthcare cost billions of dollars. Our State is broke, $3.5 billion deficit and we have many serious decisions to make. One is that we do not have the money to care for any who are not here legally. It has to stop.

The border can be secured. We have the technology we have the ability to stop this invasion. We must know who is coming and they must come in an organized manner legally so that we can assimilate them into our population and protect the sovereignty of our country. We are a nation of laws. We have a responsibility to protect our citizens and to protect the integrity of our country and the government which we live under.

I would give amnesty today to many, but here is the problem, we dare not do this until the Border is secure. It will do no good to forgive them because thousands will come behind them and we will be over run to the point that there will no longer be the United States of America but a North American Union of open borders. I ask you what form of government will we live under? How long will it be before we will be just like Mexico, Canada or any of the other Central American or South American countries? We have already lost our language, everything must be printed in Spanish also. We have already lost our history it is no longer taught in our schools. And we have lost our borders.

The leftist media has distorted what SB 1070 will do. It is not going to set up a Nazi Germany. Are you kidding. The ACLU and the leftist courts will do everything to protect those who are here illegally, but it was an effort to try and stop illegal's from setting up businesses, and employment, and receiving state services and give the ability to local law enforcement when there is probable cause like a traffic stop to determine if they are here legally. Federal law is very clear if you are here on a visa you must have your papers on you at all times. That is the law. In Arizona all you need to show you are a legal citizen is a driver license, MVD identification card, Native American Card, or a Military ID. This is what you need to vote, get a hunting license, etc.. So nothing new has been added to this law. No one is going to be stopped walking down the street etc... The Socialist who are in power in DC are angry because we dare try and do something and that something the Socialist wants us to do is just let them come. They want the "Transformation" to continue.

Maybe it is too late to save America. Maybe we are not worthy of freedom anymore. But as an elected official I must try to do what I can to protect our Constitutional Republic. Living in America is not a right just because you can walk across the border. Being an American is a responsibility and it comes by respecting and upholding the Constitution, the law of our land which says what you must do to be a citizen of this country. Freedom is not free.

Mr. President, how much is "enough money"?

By now you've probably heard the President's comments on earnings. But who is he talking to? Probably Exxon, maybe the heads of Goldman Sachs. Well, maybe he should start a little closer to home. Check out this short video from Glen Beck about what several of the President's associates, cabinet members and supporters make. I think you'll be amazed.

http://www.the912project.us/forum/topic/show?id=2881797:Topic:758736&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic

Exactly who is the enemy?

In the wake of the failed car bombing in New York City this week, I have noticed that not only the politicians but the major media are all bending over backwards to try to not use any language that might hurt the feelings of some peace loving Muslim out there. The article below clearly outlines how our government agencies are under orders to keep their statements "politically correct". But if you've listened to any of the major networks covering this story, how many times have you heard "muslim terrorist" mentioned? I'm betting NONE.

However, what would they be saying if it had turned out to be some white male right wing extremist (Tea party member) like Bloomberg and Napalitano had hoped for? Not too hard to imagine is it. I believe you'll find the following story interesting.


Is the U.S. Diplomatic and Intelligence Community Being Brainwashed in Dealing with Islamism?

Posted: 24 Apr 2010 02:21 PM PDT


By Barry Rubin

When I first heard the story that President Barack Obama was barring from national security documents the use of terms like "Islamism," "Islamic fundamentalist," "Islamic radicalism," or any reference of any connection between Islam and terrorist or revolutionary groups; al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hizballah; Iran's regime or al-Qaida, I said to myself, oh that's nothing new. That kind of policy started under Bush.

But then I realized--and this isn't obvious in the coverage but is the most important aspect of all!--that this policy applies to internal government documents not just public statements. That's both scary and shocking. Because the implication won't be lost on career officials that along with not using these words it isn't going to help their future prospects to use these concepts.

I don't want to overstate the situation. In internal government discussions, people do refer to "Islamic radicals," for example. It is the written work that is more likely to suffer. And are things going to tighten up under this administration in the years to come?

Suppose I'm an intelligence analyst in the State Department, Defense Department, armed forces, or CIA, and I'm writing about one of these groups or this ideology. How can one possibly analyze the power and appeal of this ideology, the way that ideas set its strategy and tactics, why it is such a huge menace if any reference to the Islamic religion and its texts or doctrines isn't permitted?

Indeed, it is worse. Can you refer to the claims of these groups about Islam, even while insisting that they are wrong? Remember it isn't just a matter of forbidding officials from doing something, they are going to get the signal that it is better for their careers not to do so.

And if one cannot talk about "Islamist" groups can you identify them as a huge threat or is the analyst tempted to suggest that they can be won over and moderated rather than they need to be combatted? Perhaps, say, the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt might not be such a bad thing, or Hizballah is something the U.S. government can work with?

How could one even talk about a coherent Islamist movement, which is possibly the most single significant feature of international affairs today, at least in the Middle East--if I cannot use the "I" word even as part of a different word?

Suppose I'm reporting on the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Could I say without fear:

Yes, of course, Islam is a religion of peace but these people want to hijack and distort it. So what they do is look at certain basic texts and important Muslim theologians and interpet their statements to mean that ultimately no compromise is possible, Egypt must become an Islamic [oops] state, America is going to be their enemy, and Israel must be destroyed. Of course, this is just a distortion of Islam [which is a religion of peace] but many people believe it because they have been taught an interpretation similar to the one the Brotherhood is using.

Or would I have to say:

Since Islam is a religion of peace and is really moderate and there's nothing in it that lends itself to a radical [mis]interpretation, therefore, the Brotherhood will realize this and become moderate or the Muslim masses--who, of course, understand their own religion--will inevitably reject the Islamists [oops!] false interpretation. In short, no worries and every little thing's gonna be all right. [Footnote: Bob Marley.]

After all, this is the name of the doctrine that triggers so much terrorism; destroyed the World Trade Center; overthrew the shah of Iran; seized power in the Gaza Strip; is killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan; and is trying to mount revolutions in countries as far-flung as Morocco, Algeria, Yemen, and Somalia to India, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Yet that reovlutionary Islamist doctrine itself is exploiting every advantage it can from the fervent belief of millions of people in Islam and the fact that its ideology arguably does coincide with some of that religion's most important features.

In contrast to the "official" view that Islam is a religion of peace which a few heretical desperadoes is trying to hijack, my image is one of a fight over the steering wheel between two rivals which each have a claim to ownership of the vehicle. We know who we want to win, but the battle's outcome isn't going to be determined by pretending that an Islamist ideology doesn't exist or that all the Muslim onlookers are laughing at the ridiculous pretensions of obviously outlandish heretics to their religion. After all, if that's true, the Islamists have no chance of gaining power, right?

But while the Islamists are not "the" or the only embodiment of Islam, they are an embodiment of Islam who can make their case for legitimacy, and must be understood as such. The danger is that the Islamists will in future be accepted as the definers of Islam by huge numbers of people. The Islamists may disillusion people if they become rulers--as did the Communists--but once they have control over a country and its weapons it's too late to debate them into defeat.

I'm less bothered by the fact that the U.S. government won't allow officials to speak that way publicly. There are two arguments for this stance: so as not to "insult" Muslims by associating them with Islamists and to avoid giving Islamists legitimacy as claimants to being normative Muslims. Both have a certain public relations' value but are sort of silly at the same time since many Muslims embrace Islamism while Muslims don't care what non-Muslims think about anyone's credentials. At any rate, these don't apply so much to the phrase "revolutionary Islamist" for example.

Those of us who know how government bureaucracy works understand that officials don't do things that jeopardize their careers and promotion hopes. For example, few in the U.S. army are going to look seriously for budding Islamist terrorists in their own ranks because--despite the Fort Hood massacre--to do so risks being called racist, Islamophobe, and--worse, lieutenant-for-life. And--may I be blunt here?--if officer bureaucrats and officials have to choose between getting into trouble and endangering lives, a lot of them will choose the latter.

For without an ability to discuss these matters frankly, analysis and reporting cannot be accurate. In effect, whole arguments and ideas will be swept from people's minds. Already, the U.S. armed forces is too intimidated (and individuals too concerned about their careers) to examine soberly and seriously the potential development of Islamist terrorists in its own ranks. My sources tell me nothing has improved in this respect since the Fort Hood massacre.

To extend this intellectual malpractice further to international affairs and intelligence reporting within the government may go down in history as the most dangerous thing the Obama Administration has ever done. Imagine trying to analyze the USSR without being able to talk frankly about Communism; Nazi Germany without a serious analysis of its fascism. The analysis of samurai culture and the sanctity of the emperor in Japanese religion were absolutely vital for the U.S. conduct of World War Two.

How can one have a good discussion of what differentiates moderates from radicals or whether, say, Turkey's government is a center-right family-values' regime or an Islamist one? In what manner can somebody understand how a revolutionary Islamist group might quickly pick up support from millions within a country by using Islamic concepts and texts to justify itself in a persuasive manner? How can you figure out how to dispute Islamist claims if you don't even acknowledge their existence and at least partial validity?

The above probably overstates the case. For example, there is still plenty of talk about "Islamic radicals" but very little longer-range or broader conceptualizations of what it all means. If you were a diplomat or intelligence analyst would you write a dispatch or report, for example, saying that the gaining of power in any Middle East country by revolutionary Islamist groups is a threat to U.S. national interests?

Yet the pressure is on for them to treat Islamist regimes and movements as rational, realist, national-interest-oriented, pragmatic entities whose ideas, methods, and behavior have nothing to do with Islam. Or, in the case of al-Qaida and others, the alternative is that they are insane heretical groups that have nothing to do with Islam?

Will officials be intimidated into shutting mouths and minds, altering strategic proposals, censoring out timely warnings? And that is a potential catastrophe for U.S. interests and is possibly going to be very costly in lives lost.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Taking back America

A great new video - a must see. Watch it now before it is taken down. http://www.notintexas.org/Taking_Back_America.htm


Very powerful

Arizona - what are they thinking?

Let me see if I got this right.....
. - IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.
. - IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.
. - IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.
. - IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.
. - IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.
. - IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.
. - IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.
. - IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET................................
1 - A JOB,
2 - A DRIVERS LICENSE,
3 - SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
4 - WELFARE,
5 - FOOD STAMPS,
6 - CREDIT CARDS,
7 - SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
8 - FREE EDUCATION,
9 - FREE HEALTH CARE,
10 - A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON,
11 - BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE,
12 - AND THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT.

Samual Adams by Glenn Beck

Our Founding Fathers were once revered in this country as divinely inspired, courageous visionaries. But now, after the past 100 years of "enlightenment," we've come to realize that they were nothing but old, white, racist, heathens. The "myth" of our Christian founding has been obliterated and, at best, we now know that they were no more than "deists" at best.

That's what the progressives have had to do to the memory of those great men. Men who — while not perfect, certainly, men with flaws — were in fact, mostly Christian and nearly all believers.

In order to restore the country, we have to restore the men who founded it on certain principles to the rightful place in our national psyche.

I want to start with the man known at the time as "the father of the American Revolution," but now has become all but forgotten.

We start with Samuel Adams. I want to tell you a story about him with the help of a man named Stephen McDowell, a historian from the Providence Foundation.

In the first two years of the War for Independence, the Americans had seen a few successes but many more defeats. If you ever get frustrated or down in your life, remember that George Washington lost every single battle he fought for over a year during the opening stages of the war.

By 1777, prospects were grim with little hope of overall victory in the war. By September, the army had been driven out of New York and New Jersey and had lost the strategic Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York.

On September 11, Washington was defeated at the Battle of Brandywine in Delaware; Americans had 200 soldiers killed, 500 wounded and 400 captured. Keep in mind that Washington only had about 14,000 troops. With the defeat, his troops deserted and numbers fell to only 6,000.

Ten days later in Pennsylvania, another 300 soldiers were killed or wounded and 100 captured at the Paoli Massacre.

By now, only 20 members of the Continental Congress even remained together and they met to decide whether they should even continue the struggle for liberty or if it was now a lost cause.

One of those present was Samuel Adams, a delegate from Massachusetts who had been involved in the cause of independence from the beginning. In fact, he had earned the title, "Father of the American Revolution" for his leadership since even before the Stamp Act in 1765.

King George was well aware of Adams' leadership in the rebellion, placing a bounty on his head and sending troops to capture him and kill him. In fact here is what the British order said as reported by the British officer in charge: "Our business was to seize a quantity of military stores and the bodies of Messrs. Hancock and Adams."

Samuel Adams suffered greatly for the cause. The British virtually destroyed his home; he had to leave his family for long periods of time and he was in continual danger of capture and death.

But Adams' faith in God and the cause of liberty were greatly needed that day in late September 1777. He spoke to his fellow congressmen, telling them "Gentlemen," he said, "your spirits appear oppressed with the weight of the public calamities."

He then told them that they could not show it to the American public. He told Congress: "Our affairs, it is said, are desperate! If this be our language, they are indeed. If we wear long faces, long faces will become fashionable. The eyes of the people are upon us."

Sam Adams knew that if Congress openly showed their fear to the people, the cause of liberty would be over. He also told them, "We have proclaimed to the world our determination 'to die freemen, rather than to live slaves' ... we have appealed to heaven for the justice of our cause, and in heaven have we placed our trust. Numerous have been the manifestations of God's providence in sustaining us."

Then he said, "In the gloomy period of adversity, we have had 'our cloud by day and pillar of fire by night.' We have been reduced to distress, and the arm of omnipotence has raised us up... Let us still rely in humble confidence on him who is mighty to save. Good tidings will soon arrive."

His confidence and faith in God convinced them.

Adams' statement also turned out to be prophetic, as it wasn't long after this that one of the most significant battles in history took place — one of the seven most important battles of all time happened after that. British General John Burgoyne was defeated by colonial forces under the command of Horatio Gates at Saratoga, New York. General Washington called it a "signal stroke of Providence. The arm of Omnipotence" was evident in the victory.

Afterward, Congress approved a resolution, which included Adams' call for a national day of "Thanksgiving." But Sam Adams did not intend the day to be set aside for eating turkey and pie while watching football and parades. Instead, it was set aside for "solemn thanksgiving and praise."

Here's the way he described that praise:

"With one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor ... and that together with their sincere acknowledgments of kind offerings they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public councils of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the Providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings: independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under His nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consists in righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Ghost."

Oh my goodness, call the ACLU. Where were the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State? The PSCS? Or the NSA, the FBI or the CIA? They were nowhere at our founding. That twisted, perverted, nonsense came over 100 years later. Check the Constitution, you'll find no mention of it — zero.

What you will find is protection from the state for religion. Look up the Constitution of Massachusetts — a constitution that Sam Adams helped write. It is the world's oldest constitution, still in use. Take a look at how perverted our thinking has become on this issue.

Samuel Adams was there at the beginning. There's a reason this man is only known now for beer.




— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

Obama's NASA trip

Author unknown

*The President at Space X*

*- His motorcade proceeded not far from the building where I
work. There is no picture for this historic moment in my life because
every building on the military instillation near his motorcade was put
into complete lockdown.*

*- The President then gave a 45 minute speech on his plans for
NASA at the Operations and Control building. 1,000 employees were given
paid leave to keep them out of the building the entire day. The O&C
building was in lockdown from 7 AM to 7 PM including the surrounding
parking lots.*

*- _The speech was given to persons who rec’d a White House
invitation._*

*- The President then flew out from the SLF around 3:45 PM.*

*The President came to “talk to us” about the future of NASA, but _NONE_
of “us” were at his speech. Nor were we able to even wave to him as he
drove around. Even his supporters that I work with were livid that they
could not even walk out of the building to view his motorcade at a
distance. One even stormed off from the single window facing the road he
traveled & stated that America is not free.*

*I can understand the desire for safety for our President, but this was
serious over-kill. The President was on a secure facility; surrounded by
unarmed nerds w/federally investigated backgrounds. Many of the
employees at NASA-KSC have been around since the beginning of the
shuttle program. I can honestly say that I do not believe we would have
been confined to our buildings or that entire buildings would have been
shut down for an entire day if Bush had ever visited … or any other past
President for that matter. We, as the media labeled us, truly were
hostile territory for this President.*

*The President’s speech did not tell us anything more than what we could
have read in /Florida Today/. We will still lose 8,000 jobs at just KSC
alone. He will “save” 2,000 jobs … not really. Tho, his logic is very
similar to the health care bill. We will spend (i.e. lose) 8,000 ($1
trillion dollars) jobs in order to save 2,000 jobs ($100 billion) in the
future. He is still cancelling Constellation. He is still relegating us
to the back of the bus in the space industry. We still do not have a
private industry that can send humans into space. We will give foreign
countries millions to employ their citizens in order to send our
astronauts into space.*

*He has proclaimed that he is giving us a “new” direction much like JFK
did when he proclaimed that America would go to the moon. Only, his new
direction does not have us going to the moon or Mars or even the ISS! He
wants us to find where the Easter bunny lives (i.e. Climate
Change). This is not a direction for NASA. This is the destruction of
America ’s lead in space.*

*This President spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to come & tell us
everything we already knew. He could have simply remained in D.C. &
given the same worthless speech to save everyone time &
money. Operations at KSC were shut down; some for the entire day. For
what? Well, we did learn something. When this President is around the
/“intelligent workforce that America ’s space industry cannot afford to
lose,”/ we will be locked down & prevented from seeing him.*

*This narcissistic, communistic President has betrayed America over &
over again. His reign of destruction will prove difficult to fix when he
is voted out in 2012. Are you, America, up for the challenge?*

What the hell happend to REAL MEN - Borrowed from a blog I belong to - cited at the end

I've made some slight corrections where I think there were some typo-s. I hope I haven't changed what the author really intended.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Lament for the REAL MAN?
What the Hell Happened to Real Men?

When I was young it was stand up for the girl, stand up for what is right, don't back down from bullies and never hit a guy with glasses. Real men always did the right thing. They took care of their families and put food on the table.

We had role models like Mike Brady of the Brady Bunch, James Evans of Goodtimes, Steve Douglas of My Three Sons and good old Ward Cleaver of Leave it to Beaver. On the big screen there was Stallone, Eastwood, Lee Marvin, Robert Mitchum, and of course the Duke "John Wayne". They represented the man of the time:
they worked, they fought, they were faithful and honorable. They took responsibility and had accountability.

The dads I knew went to work and loved mom. He dispensed kindness and discipline with the wisdom of Solomon. He showed you how to take responsibility, treat a woman with respect, showed compassion and kindness and was willing to fight for his beliefs.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the line those ideals became outdated and antiquated to caveman proportions. Men have been force fed their feminine side. Ideals have have been replaced with "reality". "Reality" is code for shifting focus from the good to the bad. Let's face it, you watch reality shows for the train wrecks, not the triumphs.

"Reality" has become the new truth and it's perverted. Our effort to show this new "truth" men has destroyed the image of REAL MEN. We are taught that real men are narrow-minded Neanderthals incapable of being humane. They are 2 dimension throwbacks that objectify women and are prone to violence.

Real men have been taught that all violence is bad. That violence doesn't solve anything. Well, it may not solve anything, but it sure stops a lot of shit. Violence is a SOLUTION, not an ANSWER.

Real men have been forced into social sensitivity training. We have been told it's OK to cry. Listen, real men only cry at funerals, Old Yeller and when they retire from professional sports. They can shed an occasional tear, but no more than two.

In the media men are unfaithful, cheat are deadbeat and nonexistent. They have been portrayed as buffoons an inept providers. Cliff Huckstable has been replaced by Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin. The new series Modern Family portrays the DADS like this: One is like an impetuous child, another is an antiquated tough guy with the proverbial wife who is 25 years younger and finally the homosexual couple who have my gay friends saying "they're a little over the top." Hell, even Spider-man and Superman developed "issues".

If left to use the mass media example of a what a real man is, my son will have 3 kids with 3 different mothers, no job and be living in my basement for the next 30 years eating nothing but peanut butter and crackers, smoking pot and playing Gears of War 15.

My daughter will learn to accept any substandard behavior because her expectations will be lowered to the point of ZERO. She will be mistreated and abused while moving from one failed relationship to another. Doesn't it bother anybody that the rate of divorce is 50%.

We have been told that marriage is unnatural and outdated. That animals are not monogamous, so how can you expect humans to be? Really, have we put our intellect on the level of the rest of the animal kingdom? People cheat and there's a high rate of divorce because the men you created are little whining maggots too concerned with their fulfillment. You have made them so sensitive that they question EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES. They are insecure, congratulations on your new inner child!

Listen, there are some people who shouldn't be together. But growing apart is....BULLSHIT!!! How can you grow apart when you live together. What happens is you get too distracted by your own world and FORGOT what you promised each other....how the hell did I wind up here?

Back on track.

The media will not help you. Time to turn off the TV and teach our kids to hold themselves to a higher standard. To be accountable and assume responsibility.

So far I have created a list of rules I am going to instill in my kids. The list is a work in progress but here goes.
For starters my son will:
1. Hold the door open for a woman
2. Pick up the check
3. Know how to protect himself
4. Stand up for what he thinks is right
5. Know that NO means NO.
6. To treat women with respect and kindness
7. To own his mistakes
8. To never kiss on the first date
9. To help the little guy in trouble
10.To play hard and by the rules
11. To know that steroids are not an acceptable performance enhancer
12. To be honest and loyal to his friends and family until given sufficient reason otherwise.
13. Never send a digital image of any body part, whatsoever.
14. Always be polite

My daughter will:
1. Never wait for a boy
2. Never do anything just because it's time or for the sake of doing it
3. Know how to protect herself
4. Know how she should be treated
5. To never pick up a check
6. To be honest and loyal to friends and family until given sufficient reason otherwise
7. Know that NO means NO.
8. To treat men with respect and honesty
9. To own her mistakes
10. To never kiss on the first date
11. To help the little guy/girl in trouble
12. To play hard and by the rules
13. Never send a digital image of any body part, whatsoever
14. Always be polite

The bar for behavior has been set so low that I don't think it even exists. Other than murder and rape, most everything is fair game. Like LtCol Slade in Scent of a Woman said "Grow up! [Today]It's fuck your buddy, cheat on your wife, call your mother on Mother's Day!"

Well not on my watch. I will not accept the "anything is good enough standard" that is set. I will not let myself or my family settle. We will strive to be a better son, daughter, friend, sister, brother and coworker. They will expect more of themselves and not at the expense of losing themselves. They will understand the virtues of a REAL MAN.

Damian Ross
The Self Defense Company
Family Safe Program
The Self Defense Training System
Posted by Damian Ross at 10:21 AM

The History human policital development

For those that don't know about history ... Here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals, and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement...

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.


Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.


And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.....I'm going to have another beer.

Only in Texas

Just read today where Governor Rick Perry was out with his dog and using the pistol he carries lawfully under his concealed weapons permit he shot and killed a coyote that was coming after the dog. What a problem for the liberals. Guns bad, no he used for protection. Animal rights, well what about the dog's rights....

Way to go Rick. I didn't vote for you in the Primary but I will next fall.

Islam, taking over one American school at a time

With fatal terrorist attacks on the decline worldwide and al Qaeda apparently in disarray, it would seem a time for optimism in the global war on terrorism. But the war has simply shifted to a different arena. Islamists, or those who believe that Islam is a political and religious system that must dominate all others, are focusing less on the military and more on the ideological. It turns out that Western liberal democracies can be subverted without firing a shot.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the educational realm. Islamists have taken what's come to be known as the "soft jihad" into America's classrooms and children in K-12 are the first casualties. Whether it is textbooks, curriculum, classroom exercises, film screenings, speakers or teacher training, public education in America is under assault.

Capitalizing on the post-9/11 demand for Arabic instruction, some public, charter and voucher-funded private schools are inappropriately using taxpayer dollars to implement a religious curriculum. They are also bringing in outside speakers with Islamist ties or sympathies. As a result, not only are children receiving a biased education, but possible violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause abound. Consider the following cases:



•Last month, students at Friendswood Junior High in Houston were required to attend an "Islamic Awareness" presentation during class time allotted for physical education. The presentation involved two representatives from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization with a record of Islamist statements and terrorism convictions. According to students, they were taught that "there is one God, his name is Allah" and that "Adam, Noah and Jesus are prophets." Students were also taught about the Five Pillars of Islam and how to pray five times a day and wear Islamic religious garb. Parents were not notified about the presentation and it wasn't until a number of complaints arose that school officials responded with an apologetic e-mail.

•Earlier this year at Lake Brantley High School in Seminole County, Fla., speakers from the Academy for Learning Islam gave a presentation to students about "cultural diversity" that extended to a detailed discussion of the Quran and Islam. The school neither screened the ALI speakers nor notified parents. After a number of complaints, local media coverage and a subsequent investigation, the school district apologized for the inappropriate presentation, admitting that it violated the law. Subsequently, ALI was removed from the Seminole County school system's Dividends and Speaker's Bureau.

•As reported by the Cabinet Press, a school project last year at Amherst Middle School transformed "the quaint colonial town of Amherst, N.H., into a Saudi Arabian Bedouin tent community." Male and female students were segregated, with the girls hosting "hijab and veil stations" and handing out the oppressive head-to-toe black garment known as the abaya to female guests. Meanwhile, the boys hosted food and Arabic dancing stations because, as explained in the article, "the traditions of Saudi Arabia at this time prevent women from participating in these public roles." An "Islamic religion station" offered up a prayer rug, verses from the Quran, prayer items and a compass pointed towards Mecca. The fact that female subjugation was presented as a benign cultural practice and Islamic religious rituals were promoted with public funds is cause for concern.

•Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, a charter school in Inver Grove Heights, Minn., came under recent scrutiny after Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten brought to light concerns about public funding for its overtly religious curriculum. The school is housed in the Muslim American Society's (the American branch of the Egyptian Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood) Minnesota building, alongside a mosque, and the daily routine includes prayer, ritual washing, halal food preparation and an after-school "Islamic studies" program. Kersten's columns prompted the Minnesota chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union to issue a press release expressing its own reservations about potential First Amendment violations. An investigation initiated by the Minnesota Department of Education verified several of Kersten's allegations and the school has since promised to make the appropriate changes. In a bizarre twist, when a local television news crew tried to report on the findings from school grounds, school officials confronted them and wrestled a camera away from one of its photographers, injuring him in the process.

•The controversy surrounding the founding of New York City's Arabic language public school, Khalil Gibran International Academy, last year continues. Former principal Dhabah "Debbie" Almontaser was asked to step down after publicly defending T-shirts produced by Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media, an organization with whom she shared office space, emblazoned with "Intifada NYC." But KGIA has other troublesome associations. Its advisory board includes three imams, one of whom, New York University Imam Khalid Latif, sent a threatening letter to the university's president regarding a planned display of the Danish cartoons. Another, Shamsi Ali, runs the Jamaica Muslim Center Quranic Memorization School in Queens, a replica of the type of Pakistani madrassa (or school) counter-terrorism officials have been warning about since 9/11. Accordingly, several parents founded Stop the Madrassa: A Community Coalition to voice their contention that KGIA is an inappropriate candidate for taxpayer funding.
Equally problematic are the textbooks used in American public schools to teach Islam or Islamic history. Organizations such as Southern California's Council on Islamic Education and Arabic World and Islamic Resources are tasked with screening and editing these textbooks for public school districts, but questions have been raised about the groups' scholarship and ideological agenda. The American Textbook Council, an organization that reviews history and social studies textbooks used in American schools, and its director, Gilbert T. Sewall, have produced a series of articles and reports on Islam textbooks and the findings are damning. They include textbooks that are factually inaccurate, misrepresent and in some cases, glorify Islam, or are hostile to other religions. While teaching students about Islam within a religious studies context may be appropriate, the purpose becomes suspect when the texts involved are compromised in this manner.

Such are the complaints about "History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond," a textbook published by the Teachers' Curriculum Institute, to the point where parents in the Scottsdale, Ariz., school district succeeded in having it removed from the curriculum in 2005. TCI is based in Mountain View, and the textbook is now being used in the state's public schools, where similar concerns have arisen. A Marin County mother whose son has been assigned "History Alive!" has been trying to mount an effort to call school officials' attention to the problem. Similarly, a San Luis Obispo mother filed an official complaint several years ago with her son's school authorities over the use of Houghton Mifflin's middle school text, "Across the Centuries," which has been widely criticized for whitewashing Islamic history and glorifying Islam. Its inclusion in the Montgomery County, Md. public school curriculum among other districts across the country, could lead to further objections.

But the forces in opposition are powerful and plenty. They include public education bureaucrats and teachers mired in naivete and political correctness, biased textbook publishers, politicized professors and other experts tasked with helping states approve textbooks, and at the top of the heap, billions of dollars in Saudi funding. These funds are pouring into the coffers of various organs that design K-12 curricula. The resultant material, not coincidentally, turns out to be inaccurate, biased and, considering the Wahhabist strain of Islam promulgated by Saudi Arabia, dangerous. And again, taxpayer dollars are involved. National Review Online contributing editor Stanley Kurtz explains :

"The United States government gives money — and a federal seal of approval — to a university Middle East Studies center. That center offers a government-approved K-12 Middle East studies curriculum to America's teachers. But in fact, that curriculum has been bought and paid for by the Saudis, who may even have trained the personnel who operate the university's outreach program. Meanwhile, the American government is asleep at the wheel — paying scant attention to how its federally mandated public outreach programs actually work. So without ever realizing it, America's taxpayers end up subsidizing — and providing official federal approval for — K-12 educational materials on the Middle East that have been created under Saudi auspices. Game, set, match: Saudis."
Along with funding textbooks and curricula, the Saudis are also involved in funding and designing training for public school teachers. The Saudi funded Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University now offers professional development workshops for K-12 teachers. The workshops take place at the hosting institution and provide teachers with classroom material. They are free of charge and ACMCU throws in lunch to boot.

But this generosity likely comes with a catch, for the center is known for producing scholars and material with a decidedly apologist bent, both toward the Saudi Royal Family and Islamic radicalism. It's no accident that ACMCU education consultant Susan Douglass, according to her bio, has been "an affiliated scholar" with the Council on Islamic Education "for over a decade." Douglass also taught social studies at the Islamic Saudi Academy in Fairfax, Va., where her husband still teaches. ISA has come under investigation for Saudi-provided textbooks and curriculum that some have alleged promotes hatred and intolerance towards non-Muslims. That someone with Douglass' problematic associations would be in charge of training public school teachers hardly inspires confidence in the system.

While groups such as People for the American Way, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU express outrage at any semblance of Christianity in America's public schools, very little clamor has met the emergence of Islam in the same arena. An occasional press release, such as the one put out by the Minnesota chapter of the ACLU regarding TIZA, will surface, but by and large, the arbiters of separation of church and state or in this case, mosque and state, have gone silent. The same can largely be said for the federal government and, in particular, the State Department. No doubt, Saudi dollars and influence are part of the problem.

Probably the single greatest weapon in the arsenal of those trying to fight the misuse of America's public schools is community involvement. As noted previously, a number of parental coalitions have sprung up across the country in an effort to protect their own children from indoctrination. The Stop the Madrassa Coalition has expanded its efforts beyond New York City by working on policy ideas for legislation and meeting privately with members of Congress. Also providing hope are Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), whose 10-point "Wake Up America" agenda includes a call to reform Saudi-provided textbooks, and the bipartisan Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus she co-chairs. Its focus on "jihadist ideology" demonstrates an all-too-rare governmental understanding of the nature of the current conflict.

The power to educate the next generation is an inestimable one and a free society cedes control at its peril. The days of the "silent majority" are no longer tenable in the face of a determined and clever enemy. The battle of ideas must be joined.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com. She also writes for the blog at campus-watch.org.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/11/cstillwell.DTL#ixzz13oJ03KiV

What Happens in New Orleans (to conservatives) stays in New Orleans, apparently

The New Orleans Beating: Real Violence, Real Evidence, No Media

The Hayride publisher finds vast circumstantial evidence of politically motivated mayhem, putting the MSM narrative on trial — if they ever dare talk about it.
April 20, 2010 - by Scott McKay

A brutal beating in New Orleans following the Southern Republican Leadership Conference — held in that city from April 8-11 — has challenged the myth regarding the preferred residence of political thuggery.

Circumstantial evidence is piling up that far-left anarchists viciously attacked a staffer to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, putting Allee Bautsch and her boyfriend Joe Brown in the hospital with broken bones. The story has been, unsurprisingly, ignored.

Bautsch, a rising star in Republican politics and just 25 years old, helped organize a $10,000-a-plate GOP fundraiser at the legendary Brennan’s Restaurant in New Orleans. Jindal attended the affair, as did Republican Governors Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Rick Perry of Texas.

The event drew a hostile protest from a group which had initially assembled to protest the SRLC at the Hilton Riverside Hotel, a half-mile away. That protest, which had purportedly focused on state budget cuts to higher education and health care, was organized by the Iron Rail Book Collective. The Iron Rail is a self-described anarchist commune, boasting of holding book-study groups on violent revolutionary literature and having vandalized French Quarter banks in recent months.

Iron Rail members engaged in rhetoric which, had it been used by conservative protesters, would have headlined that week’s coverage.

Video of their demonstration at Brennan’s shows a protest barely short of a riot. Attendees at the fundraiser were subjected to intense verbal abuse upon arriving and leaving the restaurant.

After Jindal, Barbour, and Perry had departed the restaurant from a rear entrance, an employee of Brennan’s announced to the demonstrators that the three were no longer present. The protesters refused to either leave or to cease the abusive chanting. Sometime either before or shortly after the New Orleans Police were called in a semi-successful effort to break up the protest, Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere found himself blocked from exiting the restaurant’s front door. When Villere then tried to exit through the rear, he was chased by protesters. He made a narrow escape into a waiting taxi.

About an hour later, Bautsch and Brown exited through the front door into what appeared to be a dwindling demonstration. The duo were immediately “catcalled” by the remaining protesters, and were followed by a group of approximately five white males bearing a “counterculture” appearance. The pursuers made repeated insulting comments based largely in class-warfare rhetoric: “little blond bitch,” “you think you’re f***ing special.”

Brown told Bautsch to hurry towards their car. When they reached the 600 block of St. Louis Street, a block and a half from Brennan’s, Brown turned to gauge their progress.

At that time, the attack began.

Brown was immediately set upon by four of the assailants, thrown into a wrought-iron fence. Another assailant attacked Bautsch, knocking her to the ground and stomping on her leg. She suffered four breaks in the leg, requiring a steel rod during extensive surgery on April 10, and faces three months of recuperation.

Brown suffered a broken nose and jaw, and a concussion.

Both are deeply traumatized from the attack. And both have said that while they can’t prove the attack was an explicitly political one, they believe it was exactly that, and furthermore, was committed by the protesters.

Bautsch’s mother, Della Berning, believes that the attackers picked their target. Bautsch had ventured to the front door of the restaurant when Brennan’s employees announced to the crowd the governors had left, which may have given the protesters a good look at her — and the perception that she was an organizer or official for the fundraiser. Considering that Villere had been chased while other attendees were allowed to exit but with a torrent of profanity and verbal abuse, Berning’s opinion warrants investigation.

After the attack, New Orleans Police officers arrived and arranged for EMS personnel to attend to the couple. But the initial report on the case was filed as a “fight,” rather than the second-degree battery it obviously was. (As an aside, New Orleans Police have recently been caught employing a practice designed to artificially improve the city’s crime statistics.)

As a result, no investigation began on the case until Monday, April 12 — three days after the attack.

NOPD detective Nick Gernon, the detective assigned to the case, didn’t speak with Brown until April 12 and with Bautsch until April 15 — six days after the attack.

Gernon, a veteran detective with a solid reputation, is believed to be investigating the protesters. However, as Villere has said he believes the attackers were likely “professional agitators” brought in from outside New Orleans, it’s quite possible the delays in opening the investigation have left Gernon little to work with.

The local media and national media have avoided acknowledging the potential political nature of the assault all along, even after revelations of significant circumstantial evidence.

The Iron Rail Book Collective, whose website and blog are covered with revolutionary and anti-capitalist rhetoric, hosted two flyers advertising the demonstration, and also an eight-page brochure filled with intense verbiage. It repeatedly stated that SRLC attendees were not welcome in New Orleans four years after Republicans had “drowned” the city, and called for “direct action” and “active resistance” against the conferees.

Members of the Iron Rail encouraged the protesters to join them in adjourning to Brennan’s, both through another set of flyers they issued on site and by use of a public-address system to “invite” their comrade demonstrators to march on the restaurant. That a relatively tame — if profane and obnoxious — protest turned unruly and dangerous at the eatery could be the result of strategic planning.

Bautsch has identified photos of an auburn-haired, “dirty-looking” protester from both the Hilton and Brennan’s demonstrations as looking “exactly” like the assailant the couple described to police, though she admitted she can’t positively identify the protester.

On the Iron Rail-produced brochure of the protest is a map of five hotels at which SRLC attendees were principally lodged during the conference. Two members of the Iron Rail Gang — Joanna Dubinsky and Daniel Mauch — took down YouTube videos and Facebook pages identifying them and their compatriots as having participated in the event last week after scrutiny of the Iron Rail commenced. Dubinsky is pictured in photos and video at both the Hilton and Brennan’s, speaking into the PA system while wearing a red-and-black anarcho-communist flag (which is also pictured on the Iron Rail website). Neither has come forward to deny having knowledge regarding the perpetrators of the attack.

None of this information seems to have piqued the curiosity of the local New Orleans newspaper, the Times-Picayune. T-P reporting has focused on the NOPD’s initial police report, which is substantially incomplete. Local television and radio news outlets have shown a similarly incurious attitude toward the case. Outside of Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, to date no traditional national outlet has deigned to investigate what seems to be a pin in the balloon of the “right-wing violence” narrative.

Della Berning is caring for her injured and traumatized daughter on a long-distance basis (she currently lives in Florida), with diminishing hope that the assailants who shattered her leg and put a rising career on a three-month hiatus will ever be brought to justice.

Bautsch and Brown have to date received no expressions of sympathy or support — or even vows to catch the attackers — from either outgoing New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin or Mayor-elect Mitch Landrieu.

And the public is left to wonder whether the legacy media is at all concerned with finding the truth or investigating incidents of leftist violence.

Scott McKay is publisher of The Hayride.

CNN Report on New Amnesty Bill

I don't think even my liberal friends can make a case for this being "good law". And this isn't a right wing slanted report. It's Lou Dobbs of CNN.

I've blogged about illegal aliens before. Quick reminder, I have nothing whatsoever against anyone who came to this country legally. But illegal is illegal. But not for long WHEN this bill passes in Washington.

Listen to the short video and tell me you think this is a good law. Come on, I want to hear someone argue that the provisions of this bill are in the best interest of the USA or our legal citizens.

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/17260182/1610997888/name/ftc-vi26.wmv

Is This What We Tried to Tell Them???????

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.

The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill — Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings — could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.

"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.

Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.

"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise — health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.

In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.

"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.

Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.

The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.

The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.

Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency.

So, when did this stop being the Land of the Free?

AP – FILE - In this Sunday, May 24, 2009 file photo, Franklin Graham prepares to give the invocation before …

By DAN ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Dan Elliott, Associated Press Writer – Tue Apr 20, 9:30 pm ET

DENVER – A watchdog group objected Tuesday to an evangelist's invitation to speak at the Pentagon next month, saying his past description of Islam as "evil" offended Muslims who work for the Department of Defense and the appearance should be canceled.

Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, said inviting evangelist Franklin Graham to speak May 6, the National Day of Prayer, "would be like bringing someone in on national prayer day madly denigrating Christianity" or other religious groups.

It would also endanger American troops by stirring up Muslim extremists, Weinstein said.

Graham is the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham and president and CEO of both Samaritan's Purse, a Christian international relief organization in Boone, N.C., and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, in Charlotte, N.C.

He said through a spokesman that he will be a guest of the Pentagon and will speak only if he's still invited. A military spokeswoman said she was locating officials to respond to the criticism.

After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Graham said Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion." In a later op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal, Graham wrote that he did not believe Muslims were evil because of their faith, but "as a minister .... I believe it is my responsibility to speak out against the terrible deeds that are committed as a result of Islamic teaching."

Graham hasn't changed his views on Islam, said his spokesman, Mark DeMoss.

DeMoss quoted Graham as saying, "As the father of a son serving in his fourth combat tour, I'd be glad to know someone was leading a prayer service at the National Day of Prayer, or any other day."

Weinstein, the foundation president, also criticized the Pentagon's working relationship with the National Day of Prayer Task Force, a Colorado group that organizes Christian events for the prayer day, designated by Congress.

Weinstein said that while he doesn't object to the day of prayer, the Pentagon chaplain's office has effectively endorsed the task force by using its materials and routinely inviting its honorary chairman to speak at the Pentagon. Weinstein said that amounts to preferential treatment in violation of Defense Department rules.

Graham is honorary chairman this year for the National Day of Prayer Task Force, based in Colorado Springs. A spokesman for the task force didn't immediately return a telephone message.

Weinstein said the task force is entitled to organize Christian-oriented events. But he said the Pentagon chaplain shouldn't be closely affiliated with the task force because it requires that all its events be conducted by Christians, although those with other beliefs are welcome to attend.

A federal judge in Wisconsin ruled last week that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional because it amounts to a call for religious action. The judge did not bar any observances until all appeals are exhausted.

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade

If you haven't read this story yet, check it out below and then leave some comments. Surely no one can be on the fence about this. YOu've got to have an opinion one way or another.

I've seen this bouncing around for several weeks now. Generally I've assumed that even if Obama tried such a tactic that the NRA and others would challenge the Constitutionality of such a treaty and would win. But, you have to ask, "Can we count on winning that challenge?" Considering how Washington totally ignored our wishes and instructions concerning the health care bill I feel we can no longer trust them even when when we have the law clearly on our side.

Frankly, it's time to put a stop to this administration forcing it's policies down our throat.

Here's the article:

U.S. reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade
Arshad Mohammed
WASHINGTON
Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."

"Consensus is needed to ensure the widest possible support for the Treaty and to avoid loopholes in the Treaty that can be exploited by those wishing to export arms irresponsibly," Clinton said in a written statement.

While praising the Obama administration's decision to overturn the Bush-era policy and to proceed with negotiations to regulate conventional arms sales, some groups criticized the U.S. insistence that decisions on the treaty be unanimous.

"The shift in position by the world's biggest arms exporter is a major breakthrough in launching formal negotiations at the United Nations in order to prevent irresponsible arms transfers," Amnesty International and Oxfam International said in a joint statement.

However, they said insisting that decisions on the treaty be made by consensus "could fatally weaken a final deal."

"Governments must resist US demands to give any single state the power to veto the treaty as this could hold the process hostage during the course of negotiations. We call on all governments to reject such a veto clause," said Oxfam International's policy adviser Debbie Hillier.

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobbying group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

A resolution before the U.N. General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

We need more politicans who think like Jefferson

Sorry, I can't confirm that these are all quotes from President Jefferson. I've reprinted them in because even if he didn't say them I still find them noteworthy.



It has been said the greatest volume of sheer brainpower in one place occurred when Jefferson dined alone...."
John Kennedy

HOW DID JEFFERSON KNOW??????

Especially read the last quote from 1802.
And pass these on to your children and grandchildren!!

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.
Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.
Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Thomas Jefferson

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson said:
'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered..'


'If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.' -Mark Twain

The Gun Is Civilization

Something I only recently began to understand is why so many people (read all liberals) fear law abiding citizens owning guns. The answer finally came to me during a trial I was observing when the defense attorney used his closing argument to characterize the complainant in the case as a "bully". Of course lately there has been a lot of news coverage about kids bullying other kids but if you think about it I bet you know and regularly deal with some adult bullies. And after you read the article below I think you will understand that such bullies are the way they are and get away with acting the way they do because the rest of us allow it because we are "too civilized" to do anything about it.

The next time some idiot is yelling at you over something they did, imagine for just a minute that you could just punch them right square in the nose - of course you can't really do it because that would be an assault, but imaging doing it. I bet it will make you feel a whole lot better. Then just imagine being in that same circumstance but being allowed to have a firearm strapped to your side and ask yourself, "would this jerk be treating me like this if I was armed"? I doubt it.



The Gun is Civilization

by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)



Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through
persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
paradoxical as it may sound to some.


When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason
and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical
strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.


There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force
equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all
guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.


People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young,
the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.


Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several
ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal
force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a
bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works
solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.



By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

How in the world did this guy get elected?

This idea makes way too much sense:

Taken from an email I received from Congressman Michael Burgess.

This year, like years past, American families and businesses spent billions of hours and billions of dollars complying with our nation’s complex Tax Code. When it was first created, the Tax Code was 400 pages - this year, it is 71,684 pages.

There are many reasons why we need to overhaul the tax code - the current income tax system is unfair, costly, and takes valuable time away from our daily lives. A faster, flatter, fairer tax structure would work, and it's pretty simple. Tax returns could be done on a single page – an optional one-page tax form, like the one below. Just enter your identification data and income, calculate your deductions for personal exemptions and taxable income, calculate the tax by multiplying by a flat rate, subtract taxes already withheld, and you're done.

American families and businesses these days have enough to worry about, and Tax Day shouldn’t be the most dreaded day of the year. I support simplifying the tax code through a user-friendly, pro-growth flat tax based on a fixed percentage of income, which is exactly what my bill, the Freedom Flat Tax Act, HR 1040, would do. The goal of the Freedom Flat Tax Act is to encourage people to make financial decisions based on common-sense economics, rather than on the 71,684 pages of our tax code.

I think it’s important that we simplify our complicated and time-consuming tax code. To learn more about my ideas, including an optional one-page tax form and the Freedom Flat Tax Act, please visit http://burgess.house.gov/flattax.

For more information on this and other topics, go directly to my web site - http://burgess.house.gov. To view floor speeches, interviews and other video messages from me, please visit my YouTube Channel - www.youtube.com/MichaelCBurgessMD. You can also follow me on Twitter - http://twitter.com/MichaelCBurgess. It is an honor to serve you in the United States House of Representatives.

Sincerely,

Rep. Michael C. Burgess, M.D.

The Marines Have Landed

Yes, I know that Marines do take care of their own but do you suppose that this white house may have just possibly put out word to have someone take care of this......hmmmmm

See the story about the Marine who didn't like Obama care at the link below (The associated press doesn't like their article reproduced so I didn't copy it here. Interesting, doesn't reproducing them just mean that more people get to read them?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36560152/ns/technology_and_science-security/?gt1=43001

How is this recovery going for you?

Two stories - interesting contrast

Why the housing market is about to turn
Despite the bearish scare stories, many experts say the home market is about to improve. Here's why -- and the stocks and funds to buy now.


By Michael Brush
MSN Money
Now's the time to find a home for homebuilders in your portfolio again.

The economy is improving, and there are signs that jobs are coming back, which should make more people confident enough to buy homes. Lots of people are already itching to make the move while houses remain cheap and interest rates are low.


The best and worst housing markets
In fact, in many markets, home prices have been on the rise for eight straight months -- added incentive for potential buyers to jump into the market.

Sure, the bears are throwing around lots of negativity: that recent demand is driven by government incentives, that mortgage rates will go up, that a fresh round of foreclosures will kill the market. But their horror stories are all fairly easy to knock down.

Read the rest of this story at: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/why-the-housing-market-is-about-to-turn.aspx?GT1=33002


By Alex Veiga
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36547572/ns/business-mortgage_mess

LOS ANGELES - A record number of U.S. homes were lost to foreclosure in the first three months of this year, a sign banks are starting to wade through the backlog of troubled home loans at a faster pace, according to a new report.

RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday that the number of U.S. homes taken over by banks jumped 35 percent in the first quarter from a year ago. In addition, households facing foreclosure grew 16 percent in the same period and 7 percent from the last three months of 2009.

More homes were taken over by banks and scheduled for a foreclosure sale than in any quarter going back to at least January 2005, when RealtyTrac began reporting the data, the firm said.

"We're right now on pace to see more than 1 million bank repossessions this year," said Rick Sharga, a RealtyTrac senior vice president.

Foreclosures began to ease last year as banks came under pressure from the Obama administration to modify home loans for troubled borrowers. In addition, some states enacted foreclosure moratoriums in hopes of giving homeowners behind in payments time to catch up. And in many cases, banks have had trouble coping with how to handle the glut of problem loans.

Reversing trend
These factors have helped slow the pace of foreclosures, but now that trend appears to be reversing.

"We're finally seeing the banks start to process the inventory that has been in foreclosure, but delayed in processing," Sharga said. "We expect the pace to accelerate as the year goes on."

In all, more than 900,000 households, or one in every 138 homes, received a foreclosure-related notice, RealtyTrac said. The firm based in Irvine, Calif., tracks notices for defaults, scheduled home auctions and home repossessions.

Homeowners continue to fall behind on payments because they've lost their job or seen their mortgage payment rise due to an interest-rate reset. Many are unable to refinance because they now owe more on their loan than their home is worth.

The Obama administration's $75 billion foreclosure prevention program has only been able to help a small fraction of troubled homeowners.

About 231,000 homeowners have completed loan modifications as part of the Obama administration's flagship foreclosure prevention program through March. That's about 21 percent of the 1.2 million borrowers who began the program over the past year.

But another 158,000 homeowners who signed up have dropped out — either because they didn't make payments or failed to return the necessary documents. That's up from about 90,000 just a month earlier.

Last month, the administration expanded the program, launching a plan to reduce the amount some troubled borrowers owe on their home loans and give jobless homeowners a temporary break. But the details of those programs are expected to take months to work out.

The big four
The states with the highest foreclosure rates in the first quarter were Nevada, Arizona, Florida and California, with Nevada leading the pack, RealtyTrac said.

Rising home prices and speculation fueled a wave of home construction there during the housing boom. But now the state, particularly around the Las Vegas metropolitan area, is saddled with a glut of unsold homes.

Still, the number of homes in Nevada that received a foreclosure filing dropped 16 percent from the first quarter last year.

All told, one in every 33 homes in Nevada was facing foreclosure, more than four times the national average, RealtyTrac said.

Foreclosure filings rose on an annual and quarterly basis in Arizona, however.

One in every 49 homes there received a foreclosure-related notice during the quarter.

Florida, meanwhile, posted the third-highest foreclosure rate with one out of every 57 properties receiving a foreclosure filing.

California accounted for the biggest slice overall of homes facing foreclosure — roughly 23 percent of the nation's total. One in every 62 properties received a foreclosure filing in the first quarter.