Foreclosure-Gate

From: The Economic Collapse…

If you work in the mortgage industry or for a title insurer, you might not want to make any plans for the next six months. Foreclosure-Gate is about to explode. It is being alleged that many prominent mortgage lenders have been using materially flawed paperwork to evict homeowners. Apparently officials at quite a few of these firms have been signing thousands upon thousands of foreclosure documents without even looking at them. In addition, it is being alleged that much of the documentation for these mortgages that are being foreclosed upon is either “improper” or is actually “missing”. As lawyers start to smell blood in the water, lawsuits challenging these foreclosures have already started springing up from coast to coast. In fact, some are already calling Foreclosure-Gate the biggest fraud in the history of the capital markets. JPMorgan Chase, Ally Bank’s GMAC Mortgage and PNC Financial have all suspended foreclosures in the 23 U.S. states where foreclosures must be approved by a judge. Bank of America has actually suspended foreclosures in all 50 states. Now, law enforcement authorities from coast to coast are calling for investigations into this controversy and it could be years before this thing gets unraveled.

This thing just seems to escalate with each passing day. It is being reported that the attorneys general of up to 40 U.S. states will be working together on a joint investigation into this foreclosure crisis. Lawmakers in both houses of the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi and Christopher Dodd, have called for an investigation to begin on the national level. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said last week that he is looking into the issue. Things are certainly getting very serious out there. Never before has there ever been such a national focus on foreclosure paperwork.

But apparently there are good reasons for such scrutiny….

*One GMAC Mortgage official admitted during a December 2009 deposition that his team of 13 people signed approximately 10,000 foreclosure documents a month without reading them.

*One Bank of America employee confessed during a Massachusetts bankruptcy case that she signed up to 8,000 foreclosure documents a month and typically did not look them over “because of the volume”.

But the “robo-signing” aspect of Foreclosure-Gate is just the tip of the iceberg. Apparently there is a whole lot more going on than just a bunch of bad signatures.

Peter J. Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, was recently quoted by MSNBC as saying the following about Foreclosure-Gate….

“You’ve got so many potential avenues of liability. You don’t even know the parameters of this yet.”

The sad truth is that potentially millions of foreclosures across the United States could potentially be invalid because the securitization process has muddied the chain of ownership. In fact, an increasing number of judges from coast to coast have been ruling that the “owners” of the mortgage have no right to foreclose on a property because they lack clear title.

At the core of this title controversy is MERS – Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems. MERS is based in Reston, Virginia and it was created by the mortgage industry to enable that big financial firms to securitize and swap mortgages at high speed. MERS allowed these big financial firms to largely avoid the hassle of filling out more forms and submitting new filing fees every time that a mortgage was traded.

But now MERS is facing some very serious legal challenges. A recent article in Businessweek described the situation this way….

A lawsuit filed on September 28th in federal court in Louisville on behalf of all Kentucky homeowners claims that MERS was part of a conspiracy to create false promissory notes, affidavits, and mortgage assignments to be used in mortgage foreclosures. Similar class actions have been filed on behalf of homeowners in Florida and New York. Karmela Lejarde, a MERS spokeswoman, declined to comment on any pending litigation.

The reality is that as millions of U.S. mortgages have been bunched together and traded around the globe at lightning speed, it has become increasingly unclear who actually has title to them and who actually has the right to foreclose on these properties.

Title insurers have backed the titles of millions of these foreclosed properties and now potentially find themselves in a heap of trouble. Some of the biggest title insurers have already begun circling the wagons in an attempt at damage control. For example, one of the biggest title insurance companies in the United States, Old Republic National Title Insurance, has already declared that it will no longer write new policies for homes that have been foreclosed on by JPMorgan Chase and GMAC Mortgage.

So what happens if nearly all title insurers start avoiding foreclosed properties?

Won’t that make it much more difficult for the banks to sell the massive backlog of foreclosed properties that they have accumulated?

In addition, Americans that have purchased foreclosed homes may now be facing some serious problems themselves. Millions of Americans may now “own” homes that they do not have clear title for. When it comes times to sell those homes, many Americans may find themselves unable to do so.

Needless to say, this is a complete and total mess.

Already, U.S. banks have a record number of foreclosed properties that they need to clear out, and now all of this scrutiny on foreclosure paperwork and all of these lawsuits are going to grind the process of getting these homes sold off to a standstill.

In fact, the true legacy of Foreclosure-Gate may be the massive amount of bank failures that it causes.

It would be difficult to understate how much of a nightmare Foreclosure-Gate is going to be for U.S. mortgage lenders. Having to go back through the paperwork of millions of old mortgages is going to be a complete and total disaster. If banks end up being unable to foreclose on a large number of bad mortgages, it could potentially be enough to put many banks out of commission for good. Not only that, but the legal fees that many of these banks will accumulate defending lawsuits related to Foreclosure-Gate will be astronomical.

The U.S. mortgage industry was already on the verge of death, and Foreclosure-Gate may just be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The reality is that U.S. banks are drowning in foreclosures and this current crisis is just going to make things a lot worse. Back in 2005, there were approximately 100,000 home repossessions in the United States. In 2009, there were approximately 1 million home repossessions in the U.S. and RealtyTrac is now projecting that there will be an all-time record of 1.2 million home repossessions in the United States this year.

For the U.S. mortgage industry, Foreclosure-Gate must feel like someone has dropped a bomb on them after they have already been beaten up and doused with gasoline.

Attorney Richard Kessler, who recently conducted a study that found serious errors in approximately three-fourths of court filings related to home repossessions, says that Foreclosure-Gate could haunt the U.S. mortgage industry for the next ten years….

“Defective documentation has created millions of blighted titles that will plague the nation for the next decade.”

While it may be easy to beat up U.S. mortgage lenders and say that they deserve all this, let us not forget that this is going to impact a whole lot of other people too.

It is going to become much harder to get a mortgage. It is going to become much harder to buy a home. It is going to become much harder to sell a home. The U.S. housing industry is likely to suffer a significant downturn due to all of this. There is even a good chance that the entire U.S. economy could be dragged down for an extended period of time.

So no, Foreclosure-Gate is not good news for anyone.

Well, except maybe for lawyers.

But for virtually everyone else this is really bad news. Any hope that the U.S. housing industry would experience a quick recovery is completely and totally gone.

Is the Day of Great Leaders Past?

A column co-authored by John Eidsmoe and Ben DuPré struck me. They titled their column, “What makes a ‘great’ president?”

See it at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114683

The basic thrust of the column was to examine the qualities that make one a “great” President. They start by examining the Presidency of our 11th President, James K. Polk. They note that Polk is commonly regarded as being one of America’s top 12 greatest Presidents. To use their words, “between eighth and 12th among our greatest presidents.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré note that Polk was undoubtedly a man of outstanding Christian character and faith. They say that Polk was “the only president who kept and fulfilled every one of his campaign promises.” They observe him to be a man “with a Puritan work ethic, [who] literally worked himself to death as president, retired from office in broken health and died 103 days later.”

But Polk also greatly expanded the power of the Presidency. “In 1846, President Polk sent American troops into disputed territory where they were almost certain to become embroiled in hostilities, and then demanded that Congress recognize that a state of war already existed. Increasingly with Polk’s presidency and thereafter, the president set national policy and the Congress rubber-stamped the president’s decisions.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré note that the people who are charged with rating our Presidents are commonly academicians, “and as such they tend to be left of center. They believe in centralized power, and they therefore admire presidents who increased federal power and concentrated it in the presidency.”

In this regard, Eidsmoe and Dupré are 100% correct. Look at the heroes of liberal historians and who do you find? Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt. Not by accident, these same historians will extol the virtues of Hammurabi, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, and Napoleon. All these men have one thing in common: they were responsible for expanding (either by force or fraud) a centralized government.

Eidsmoe and Dupré correctly challenge the standard by which greatness is determined and offer alternatives to the avant-garde, politically correct formula. They proffer that “the truly great men of history are those who have defended and preserved individual liberty by resisting the increase and centralization of government power.”

To that I say a hearty “AMEN.”

Eidsmoe and Dupré then offer their own list of great men, which includes Judas Maccabeus, Cato and Cicero, Hermann the Liberator, Archbishop Stephen Langton of Canterbury, William Wallace and Robert the Bruce, and George Washington and Patrick Henry.

This brought to mind the fact that, several months ago, I had asked my friend, Howard Phillips, to rate his favorite US Presidents. This was his response:

1) George Washington: for the standard he established during his Presidency.
2) Thomas Jefferson: for his commitment to religious liberty and for recognizing the role of the states as he spelled out in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.
3) Andrew Jackson: for his opposition to the second bank of the United States.
4) John Tyler: for his role in the admission of Texas to the Union.
5) James Polk: for advancing America’s “manifest destiny.”
6) Grover Cleveland: for his fidelity for the Constitution of the United States.
7) Calvin Coolidge: for his commitment to low taxes and limits on Federal spending as well as for his good character.

As for my personal list of greatest Presidents, it would largely mirror Howard’s list, with one deviation. I would suggest:

1) George Washington: America’s greatest President, without whom this republic would not exist. His “Farewell Address” is the greatest political speech ever delivered on American soil and should be regarded as “must-reading” for every American citizen.
2) Thomas Jefferson: America’s greatest defender of individual liberty and states’ rights.
3) James Monroe: for his leadership in establishing America’s strategically important “Monroe Doctrine.”
4) Andrew Jackson: for standing up against the bankers.
5) John Tyler: for defying his own party (Whigs) and twice vetoing the incorporation of the US Bank. And also for supporting the Southern cause for secession.
6) Grover Cleveland: for his honesty and devotion to the US Constitution.
7) Calvin Coolidge: for his dogged determination to limit taxes and federal spending.

One will notice that there are hardly any modern-day heroes mentioned on my list. I also observed that there were no modern-day heroes mentioned by John Eidsmoe and Ben Dupré in their column. Indeed. Where are the real heroes in national public office today?

Our national leaders (from both parties) seem to be shortsighted opportunists, possessing little regard for their oaths to the US Constitution, the principles of decency, or even plain, old-fashioned common sense. Both major parties in Washington, D.C., offer the American people varying degrees of socialism. Neither party demonstrates even tacit devotion to constitutional government. Federalism and limited government have all but disappeared under the oversight of both Republican and Democratic leaders. These disastrous Presidents (from Johnson, Nixon, and Carter to Clinton and Bush I & II) calmly leave office with no regret or remorse for the devastation, death, and deception that they inflicted upon the country. They live in the lap of luxury and comfort without the slightest tinge of conscience as to the massive destruction done to our Constitution, not to mention our economy, security, and way of life. Beyond that, our congressmen and senators are mostly miscreants in the similitude of Nancy Pelosi and Lindsey Graham.

It’s hard to imagine there was a time when giants once lived among us. It’s hard to recall a day when the word “hero” really meant something. Today, everyone is called a hero. Well, as one Marine Corps veteran recently said, “If everyone is a hero, no one is a hero.” Amen!

Perhaps more than anything, America needs great leaders once again: men who are not enamored with power and wealth; men who are more concerned with honoring their word and preserving the Constitution than they are being reelected and receiving a government pension; men who really do respect the people that elected them; men who are willing to be unpopular, if that is the cost of honesty and integrity; men who know the difference between the eternal and the temporal; and, yes, men who know the meaning of the word AMERICAN.

Is the day of great leaders past? With few exceptions, it would appear so. And that–more than anything else–is why we are in the mess we are in today.

So, while you are saying your prayers tonight, don’t forget to ask God to give us some men like Washington and Jefferson. We could sure use them about now.

Will Liberty Continue To Have A Home In America?

Only the most willingly ignorant people (most of whom are educated beyond their intelligence, as my dad used to say) would argue with the fact that the generation who founded this great country believed that God had providentially established and protected what became known as the United States of America. The public sentiments in this regard are irrefutable.

In his first inaugural address, President George Washington said, “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States.”

In Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Address (1789), he said, “That we then may all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war.”

Thomas Jefferson (author of the Declaration of Independence and America’s 3rd President) said, “God who gave us life gave us liberty,” and, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” He also said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

Virtually everyone at the time of America’s founding attributed divine blessing and protection to the establishment of these States United. That fact is undeniable–at least by any honest and objective student of history.

Indeed, Jefferson’s warning is as germane today (perhaps even more so) as it was when he wrote it: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” Meaning: The God who gave and protected our liberties is the same God who can remove and overthrow them in His wrath and judgment. Some would even argue that this is what God is currently doing: removing His hand of protection from America and turning us over to divine judgment. I must confess that I wonder about this in my own mind.

The signs that America is fast losing her freedoms and is falling into the throes of socialism, agnosticism, humanism–and maybe even fascism–are ubiquitous. It is to the point that even the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were supposed to protect the rights and liberties of the American people, have been so neglected or abused by our civil magistrates in Washington, D.C., that those foundational documents have, for all intents and purposes, been relegated to museum-status.

Add to the abandonment of constitutional governance the advent of European-style socialism in the US, the collapse of Christian virtue and morality (even by professing Christians), the repudiation of sound money principles, and a preoccupation with globalism, and it is easy to see the handwriting on the wall (to borrow from the Old Testament Book of Daniel).

Nowhere is it written that a free republic is promised perpetuity. In fact, if history is any teacher, it indicates that the propensity of free nations is for them to–after the brave and heroic efforts of their founders–apathetically allow freedom’s gradual (or not so gradual) decline. And that is exactly what this generation, and every generation since “The Greatest Generation,” has done and is doing.

That America seems destined for a fall (how far and how fast is yet to be determined) appears inevitable. Therefore, the real questions seem to me to be, Will liberty continue to have a home in America? And, if so, WHERE will liberty continue to have a home in America?

I think it is safe to say that many Americans today are not only unwilling to fight for their own liberty (and I am not talking about fighting unconstitutional, unprovoked wars in the Middle East), they do not even seem to be able to discern what true liberty is. To many avant-garde Americans, freedom is whatever Uncle Sam (or Big Brother, as he is better known today) determines freedom to be. If one of the 3 branches of the federal government (especially the Supreme Court) determines that a God-given liberty is not a God-given liberty after all, but only a temporary and transient “privilege of the state,” many Americans seem to have no personal knowledge, wisdom, discernment, or fortitude to even remotely resist it. The fact that their Creator, via Natural and Revealed Law, endows them with certain “unalienable” rights and liberties never seems to dawn on them. It’s as if the only god they know is the god of government. Even many pastors and Christians are carried away with this fallacy.

If Daniel Webster was right (and he was) when he said, “God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it,” then liberty’s future is suspect indeed. There is another principle, however, that is equally true: there will always remain a remnant of people who value freedom enough to never surrender it.

During the past two years, I have traveled over 60,000 miles to virtually every crack and corner of this country, and I can tell you without hesitation or equivocation: not every place (or State) understands–or is prepared to fight to defend–freedom. All men may be created equal, but all men are not equally discerning or determined. If I observed anything, I observed the great disparity between people when it comes to their willingness to draw a line in the sand for liberty–especially when that line is being drawn against their own federal government. Oh, there may exist pockets of such people scattered here and there in certain geographical regions, but I’m talking about a concentration of determined citizenry armed and alert to the usurpations of their liberties. There are only a few places where I observed such a spirit. And if you have read my last 3 columns, you know that I have been led to the studied conclusion that the Mountain States region of America’s great Northwest is certainly one of those places, if not the most notable of those places.

Granted, there is a sizeable freedom spirit in many local communities around the country. I have especially found the freedom spirit scattered throughout Texas, Arizona, South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma, Vermont, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and eastern Tennessee (and several other places), but not in the concentrated aggregation as in states such as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, South Dakota (maybe even North Dakota), and eastern Washington State.

Accordingly, I am absolutely convinced that God is calling a determined remnant of freedom-lovers to the Mountain States. And as most of my readers now know, that is exactly where God has called us–my family and me. (We are in the process of moving to the Flathead Valley [Kalispell area] of Montana.) I am personally convinced that this relocation of patriots to the Mountain States is as inevitable and divinely inspired as was the relocation of the Pilgrims to colonial America.

Not all of America’s Pilgrims were Christians, of course, but most were. And not all of these modern-day Patriot-Pilgrims who answer the western call today will be Christians (but probably most will be). And quite frankly, I would much rather share a foxhole with a patriot-unbeliever who acknowledges the Creator-God, and who accepts the Natural Laws of his Creator, and who is willing to fight and defend these freedom-principles than with these brain-dead, Big-Government centralists who call themselves “Christians” that we seem to be inundated with today.

Granted, not all of America’s patriots will be led to relocate to the Mountain States. And I would never try to presume upon God’s will for another man! In reality, the Lord may lead His freedom-loving children to a variety of locations and to a variety of actions. Others will be led to “stay in Crete” to be the “salt” and “light” where they are. After all, God is much too big to confine to one place or idea.

However, it is abundantly clear to me that each of us who call ourselves patriots (Christian or not) must begin answering these questions for ourselves: Will liberty continue to have a home in America? And, if so, Where will liberty continue to have a home in America? And I suppose the logical follow-up question is, What should I do about it? My family and I have answered that question for ourselves. I therefore urge each reader to also answer that question, because the fate of our posterity likely hangs in the balance.

Public Employee Unions Guarantee National Bankruptcy

Presidential executive orders have a long history. Both Democratic and Republican presidents exercise such commands. Are EO’s a privilege in law or are they simply a technique to skirt passing a Congressional statute? The executive branch adopts a pattern of rule that undermines the fundamental purpose of separation of power. The historic result is that the legislature is relegated to a junior collaborator in their partnership of crime. The bureaucracy has developed into a full-fledged imperial juggernaut that has a life of its own. Who started such an ill-conceived practice?

“Executive Orders have two main functions: to modify how an executive branch department or agency does its job (rule change) or to modify existing law, if such authority has been granted to the President by Congress. Executive orders are not mentioned by the Constitution, but they have been around a long, long time. George Washington issued several Presidential Proclamations, which are similar to EO’s . EO’s and Proclamations are not law, but they have the effect of statutes. Executive orders are subject to judicial review, and can be declared unconstitutional”.

The Kennedy pandering to government “hired help” put the bankruptcy of state and federal budgets into motion. Consider for a moment the absurdity of encouraging a permanent class of government slackers who conspire to steal from the productive wealth creators of society. Anyone who accepts that state or federal employees provide invaluable and necessary public services must be a “civil servant” or come from the long tradition of government parasites.

One of the most destructive of initiatives encourages the unionization of state and federal public employees.

“In 1959, the state of Wisconsin enacted the first state statute permitting municipal employees the right to form, join, and be represented by labor organizations. Three years later, President John F. Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, which granted federal employees the right to join and form unions and to bargain collectively. The order established a framework for collective bargaining and encouraged the expansion of collective bargaining rights to state and local government employees. Beginning in 1976, the federal courts have ruled that the First Amendment’s freedom of association prohibits states from interfering with public sector employees’ right to join and form unions. These decisions invalidated the sovereignty doctrine, contributing to the growth of unions.

The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Arkansas State Highway Employees, Local 1315 (1979), (3) however, that nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires public employers to either recognize or collectively bargain with public employee unions. Employees can form and join unions without the benefit of protective legislation, but public employers are not compelled to recognize or bargain with unions. Public employers are required to bargain only under laws that mandate bargaining. The duty to bargain can be imposed only by statute”.

The consequence from allowing public employees to form unions is a core cause for the fatal dysfunctional government on all levels. There is seldom any mention of public service or civil servants coming out of the supreme entitlement federations. The immutable reality is that the public officialdom is a systematic destroyer of the Republic.

A Baron’s cover article, The $2 Trillion Hole lays out the dire dilemma.

“According to a survey last month by the Pew Center on the States, a nonpartisan research group, eight states — Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and West Virginia — lack funding for more than a third of their pension liabilities. Thirteen others are less than 80% funded.

According to the latest compensation survey by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average state and local employee out earns his counterpart in the private economy with an hourly wage of $26.11, versus $19.41. That’s before benefits (pensions, health care, paid vacations and sick days and leaves) drive the disparity even higher, to $39.60 an hour for public employees and $27.42 for private workers.

Besides the politicians, the primary culprits are the public-employee unions, which have used their growing power to dramatically enhance pension benefits. They curry favor with sympathetic politicians, lavishing them with large donations and manning campaign phone banks. They also engage in full-court-press lobbying at all levels of state and local government”.

Watch the video ! by journalist Steven Greenhut, who details a number of ploys that both workers and management use to maximize their retirement checks. The brilliant WSJ article, Public Employee Unions Are Sinking California by Mr. Greehut points out the insane aftermaths from allowing public employee unionization.

“Approximately 85% of the state’s 235,000 employees (not including higher education employees) are unionized. As the governor noted during his $83 billion budget roll-out, over the past decade pension costs for public employees increased 2,000%. State revenues increased only 24% over the same period. A Schwarzenegger adviser wrote in the San Jose Mercury News in the past few days that, “This year alone, $3 billion was diverted to pension costs from other programs.” There are now more than 15,000 government retirees statewide who receive pensions that exceed $100,000 a year, according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.

Many of these retirees are former police officers, firefighters, and prison guards who can retire at age 50 with a pension that equals 90% of their final year’s pay. The pensions for these (and all other retirees) increase each year with inflation and are guaranteed by taxpayers forever—regardless of what happens in the economy or whether the state’s pensions funds have been fully funded (which they haven’t been).

A 2008 state commission pegged California’s unfunded pension liability at $63.5 billion, which will be amortized over several decades. That liability, released before the precipitous drop in stock-market and real-estate values, certainly will soar”.

If you think that there are exceptions within the public sector unions that are above criticism you are wrong. Teachers like to cling to the myth that they are essential and sacrifice to educate the children. By any objective and empirical standards the results of their social engineering and indoctrination is an underclass of illiterate and brain dead idiots. Government schools are tombs for zombie reproduction. is spot on in his assessment of the Teachers Union video.

It is beyond common sense and pragmatic necessity to sit back and allow the “dumbing down” of America by a system that rewards failure and steals tax dollars to pay the Teacher Unions blackmail. If you think reform is possible, forget it.

In, The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand, Steven Brill writes.”The teachers’ unions have become accustomed in recent years to fighting off reform efforts by Republicans and think-tank do-gooders. They ignore the rhetorical noise, while sticking to the work of negotiating protectionist contracts with the politicians who run school systems and depend on their political support”.

The fact that the education bureaucracy comprises a union paradise is obvious. Why citizens swallow this insult might best be explained that most feudal subjects were trained to accept unlimited abuses from the state in government schools.

Municipal jurisdictions do not fare any better. View the video. America does not need cradle to grave government services and certainly cannot afford its cost.

The Freeman sums up the essential problem in Government Workers Are America’s New Elite.

“The bottom line: Public-safety officials have many ways to gin up their already generous retirements benefits to astronomical levels. Most garden-variety government employees get lucrative pensions also. It is common for them to retire at age 55 with more than 80 percent of their final year’s pay. Most public employees receive defined-benefit retirement plans, in which the taxpayer promises a set rate of return, as opposed to private-sector workers who have 401(k)s and other defined-contribution plans in which the market sets the return”.

Public Employee Unions came into being because of harebrained executive orders. The legislature has the authority to put an end to the abuse of power from the executive. Indeed the theory is sound. The election of courageous representatives dedicated to unwinding of the tyranny from the public sector is remote even under the best of circumstances. The lobbying and funding from public service unions keep a stranglehold on the process.

The U.S. is broke. Public Employee Unions refuse to void their unconscionable contracts. The taxpayer can no longer afford this destructive fraud. Society can only be rejuvenated through a total downsizing of all public services. The biggest deadbeats that skim off the system are your phony public servants. The only bright spot from a collapse and natural bankruptcy is the evaporation of the public sector. Can you say Bye Bye to those decadent pensions? The government wants total control and public employees have made their – UNION – bargain with the devil.

Freedom’s Real Enemies

Politicians in Washington, D.C., love to manufacture a crisis. The crisis generates fear within the citizenry, thereby allowing the federal government to centralize more and more power. During a crisis, the citizenry becomes much more forgiving of federal abuses and accommodating of federal encroachments than it otherwise would be without a crisis. Hence, we have a federal “war on drugs,” and a “war on poverty,” and a “war on terror,” and an “oil crisis,” and an “energy crisis,” and a “domestic terrorism crisis,” and an “education crisis,” and a “border crisis,” and an “economic crisis”–Blah! Blah! Blah!

You can mark it down: every major crisis that America has faced over the last several decades has been either manufactured or facilitated by policies and activities originating in Washington, D.C. But at the same time that DC is creating these crises, it categorizes any ideological group it finds distasteful as a convenient scapegoat. These convenient scapegoats can include “angry white guys,” “tea party extremists,” “a vast right-wing conspiracy,” Constitution Party or Libertarian Party “extremists,” “Second Amendment extremists” (gun owners), “pro-life extremists,” ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Yet, while DC’s elitists are plotting America’s next crisis and figuring out whom to categorize as America’s next “extremist,” some real enemies are waging war against the freedoms and liberties of our once-great republic. And, ladies and gentlemen, these enemies are much more subtle, a lot closer, and much more dangerous than almost anything you are being told about.

Here are some of freedom’s real enemies:

Big Cities

When the United States was a much smaller–much more agricultural–nation, our freedoms were mostly intact. The mass exodus out of rural America into urban America has been a bane of freedom–and it will continue to be so.

Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue astutely when he wrote in a letter to James Madison, “When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe.” (Source: The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson)

Jefferson spoke again of this danger in a letter to Benjamin Rush. He wrote, “I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man. True, they nourish some of the elegant arts, but the useful ones can thrive elsewhere, and less perfection in the others, with more health, virtue and freedom, would be my choice.” (Source: Ibid.)

Big cities are most always more liberal, more socialistic, more utopian, and more centralist. Citizens living in big cities readily submit to the machinations and designs of Big Government with much greater regularity than do their rural counterparts. In states where a handful of big cities dominate State politics, Big-Government policies almost always take over the politics of the entire State. If you doubt that, just speak with freedom-loving citizens in New York, Illinois, or Maryland.

Consider, specifically, the freedom most necessary to preserve our liberties: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. People in states that are less populated enjoy much greater liberty than do people in heavily populated states. For example, Boston’s Gun Bible (BGB) ranks the states according to the degree of gun ownership (and possession) protection in each State. It is no coincidence that the states with sparser populations are much freer than states with denser populations.

Here is BGB’s breakdown of the most and least free gun ownership states:

Most Free States:

1. Vermont
2. Idaho and Kentucky (tie)
3. Louisiana and Alaska (tie)
4. Wyoming
5. Montana

Least Free States:

1. New Jersey
2. Illinois
3. Hawaii
4. Massachusetts
5. New York

Population density in the “most free” states is less than 50 persons per square mile, while in the “least free” states it is more than 460 persons per square mile. Case closed!

While big cities will typically tolerate much more in the way of licentiousness and sexual perversion, they are also the first to tolerate Big-Government socialism. Without a doubt, Thomas Jefferson was right: big cities are “pestilential to the morals, the health, and the liberties of man.”

If you want to live free in the future, you will probably need to leave the big city–and perhaps the states that are dominated by big cities.

The National News Media

For the most part, the national news media is no friend of freedom. About all most of them know of the US Constitution is the part about the “freedom of the press” (from the First Amendment, of course). Watch any of the Big Three television network newscasts on any weekday evening, and what will you see? You will see the exact same stories regurgitated over and over again–even with the exact same spin! And that spin is most always tilted toward bigger and bigger government. This goes on night after night, week after week, month after month, and year after year. But this is all just coincidental, right? Get real!

The cable news networks are not much better. About the only difference between cable networks is that CNN will provide cover for Big Government Democrats while viciously attacking all things Republican, and FOX NEWS will provide cover for Big Government Republicans while viciously attacking all things Democrat.

Face it: the national news media is intoxicated with Two Party Politics. They really don’t care nearly as much about the fundamental tenets and principles of liberty as they do about whether a Democrat or Republican wins office. Washington’s media elite are wined and dined by the same party politicians that they cover on television or in the newspaper. (What a racket!) Do you really think any major media news personality is going to risk losing his or her job (which is exactly what would happen) by asking too many questions, or boring too deeply, or straying too far off the reservation? Once again, get real! All of these guys and gals know exactly where the line–and the “third rail”–is located. And they all will stay clear of both! It’s not about reporting the news, or defending liberty, or anything of the sort. It is about pleasing their big corporate sponsors–corporate sponsors who are in bed with the elites from both major political parties, by the way!

As long as the American people continue to allow the national news media to manipulate and spin the news, our liberties will continue to erode.

Big Business

In fact, Big Anything can be freedom’s enemy: Big Business, Big Labor, Big Media, Big Cities, and Big Religion. Big Anything!

However, the rate and degree to which Big Business has been able to advance during the last half of the twentieth century–and now into the twenty-first century–is especially problematic for the survival of liberty. Dear friend, it is a mistake to equate Big Business with freedom. Big Business has little to do with capitalism and free enterprise and much to do with monopolism and globalism. Big Business does not want to compete with private enterprise; it wants to crush it! Big Business sees Big Government as a friend and partner. In fact, Big Business and Big Government are conjoined twins. They grow and live as one.

Accordingly, it is no accident that when the Bilderbergers got together a few days ago at the Hotel Dolce in Sitges, Spain, for their super-secret meeting, the list of attendees included the cabal of super-elites from Big Government, Big Business, Big Academia, and Big Media. People such as Bill Gates (Microsoft), Roger Altman (former Deputy Secretary of the US Treasury), Martin Feldstein (Harvard University), Niall Ferguson (Harvard University), Philip Gordon (Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs), Donald Graham (The Washington Post), Richard Holbrooke (Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan), Robert Hormats (Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs), Henry Kissinger (former Secretary of State), Klaus Kleinfeld (Chairman and CEO, Alcoa), Craig Mundie (Microsoft), Peter Orszag (Director, Office of Management and Budget), Charlie Rose (Producer, Rose Communications), Robert Rubin (Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations; former Secretary of the Treasury), Eric Schmidt (CEO and Chairman of the Board, Google), James Steinberg (Deputy Secretary of State), Lawrence Summers (Director, National Economic Council), Christine Varney (Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust), and Paul Volcker (Chairman, Economic Recovery Advisory Board). And please remember that these are only the names of those that were published. The complete list of attendees is top secret and never released. For example, was Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner there? He is a Bilderberg (and CFR) member.

But of course, this meeting–complete with the tightest security and secrecy possible–is only for the purpose of social fellowship and clubmanship, right? That the world’s most interconnected business, governmental, and media elites would meet outside the viewing and listening of everyone is supposed to be dismissed as irrelevant and insignificant, right? Well, if you get your news from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or FOX NEWS, that is exactly what you are being led to believe.

Yet, Big Business has been conspiring with Big Government for the purpose of personal aggrandizement (at the cost of liberty, of course) for decades–probably centuries. Remember, it took an act of Congress to stop old Prescott Bush (George H.W. Bush’s father and G.W. Bush’s grandfather) from sending financial assistance to Nazi Germany. Know, too, that international bankers today are supporting governments (some that are openly hostile to the United States) in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Again, Big Business and Big Government are conjoined twins–an interconnected body that grows in unison at the expense of our liberties.

Freedom has many more real enemies that could be added to this list, of course; and maybe in the future we can talk more about them. For now, recognize that our liberties are hanging by a thread in this country. And the next time you hear someone in Washington, D.C., or the national news media railing against the latest “crisis” that requires Big Government to fix, please remember who the real enemy is.

Do Ron Paul Supporters Really want the Presidency?

According to his book, End the Fed, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been contemplating the twin follies of fractional reserve banking and unconstitutional government since the 1960’s. More importantly he has not kept his observations hidden from public review as he is easily the most prolifically writing politician in the nation. Not only has he written 12 books—none of which are about himself—but he produces several commentaries per month and routinely delivers speeches as a congressman and as a freedom advocate. All of this while sustaining his practice in obstetrics and gynecology.

Consequently it is no surprise that millions of Americans who consider the growing power of the federal government and the abuse of America’s monetary supply by the Federal Reserve to be a threat to our liberty and our future have sought Dr. Paul as their spokesman and leader. His recent victory in the CPAC Presidential Straw Poll has made both the man and the spontaneous movement that has flourished in his wake something that America’s political system will recognize.

Dr. Paul’s CPAC surprise has understandably inspired hope in many of those who understand and accept his message. Some have even approached states of euphoria over the future prospects of his coup. The showing suggests the Liberty Movement is rising to an influential public level that can challenge the corrupt and incompetent stranglehold the two party political system has on all levels of American government.

The possibility of having a national stage from which to voice the movement’s positions on Austrian Economics, limited government, and personal liberty is driving leaders of the Liberty Movement to organize, present their ideas, and reach out to those most interested in the future of the country—especially college students.

On the other hand, if the Liberty Movement organizes to challenge America’s centralized political system on a national level, is it not moving toward centralizing its influence as well? Should it win enough support in coming elections to begin challenging the current political order, what would keep it from focusing on keeping that support rather than working to dismantle government power? Can the Liberty Movement avoid the temptation to abandon its principles to pursue an agenda?

Dr. Paul has put some thought into how he would act as president and he well knows the problems that come with speaking truth to the powers of the federal government. Planning an agenda and being in the position to pursue it are two different things, though. Washington has become the burial ground of high hopes and noble causes. Just look back to the “Contract with America” and the ambitions of Christian Conservatives for examples of the failure of high-minded causes to restore moral restraint to American government.

America, as a monolithic global empire, has been mismanaged to the edge of a cliff just as its sister system, The European Union, which is facing break-up due to the incompetence of its elite ruling class. Those who see the problems realize hard times lie ahead. Unfortunately of those millions, only one, Dr. Paul, works where the trouble is being fueled.

As to whether or not the United States can be restored to the federal republic of its constitutional definition is a fading hope, but one that Dr. Paul holds and promotes. On the other hand, many of his ideas, such as restoring the gold standard and repealing legal tender laws, are such a threat to the power structure of Washington it is hard to conceive that such will ever be attained without a total collapse of the institutions that currently profit from the current Keynesian economic system. Those include the banking industry, the government and global corporate industries that profit from America’s profligate spending.

Dr. Paul’s ascension as a voice redirecting a concerned populace to the virtues of freedom founded in limited, controlled government is certainly encouraging. On the other hand, it is difficult to comprehend implementing economic and governing systems he has studied and articulated for our modern understanding on a national level. His positions are clearly constitutional, indeed, of all the political ideas that have been offered to the voting public, his are probably the only constitutional thoughts published since the Kentucky Resolutions.

It is certainly difficult to contemplate that a movement dedicated to dismantling the centralized power of government could take power over the system and avoid being corrupted by it. Dr. Paul, himself, might be able to hold onto his personal integrity, but could the hundreds of administrators he would need to accomplish his goals keep so clean?

Would it not be more effective to work to restore the federal balance of powers at the seat where they are best kept alive, that being within the communities that can stand to protect their homes, property, and businesses from outside influences that seek to usurp what we have worked so hard to establish? Instead of directly confronting the federal leviathan that is posing a risk to our freedom and our wealth, would we not do better to consider a locally directed political action that will direct and strengthen our neighbors when the federal dinosaur finally meets its extinction?

Hooray For Starbucks

The major news media was replete with reports over the weekend that the coffee company, Starbucks, “has no problem with customers packing heat while placing their orders.”

“The coffee giant says it won’t take issue with gun owners who take advantage of ‘open carry’ laws and bring firearms into their restaurant.” (Source: NBC News)

To tell you the truth, I’m not sure why this is even considered “newsworthy.” Perhaps because Starbucks is a Seattle-based company that caters to the “yuppie” crowd? Maybe because the anti-gun national news media is shocked and chagrined at Starbucks’ statement? Who knows? That Starbucks would not want to alienate millions of gun owners (many of whom lawfully carry concealed weapons for personal protection) makes perfectly good sense to me. I’m sure the statement by Starbucks has little to do with guns and everything to do with business. But the fact is, there are tens of thousands of lawfully armed citizens who carry either concealed or open that have been peacefully doing business with thousands of companies around the country for years.

At last glance, 12 states allow unrestricted open carry. Those states are Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia. Plus, at least 13 other states allow restricted open carry (meaning a permit is required). I know it infuriates gun-grabbing liberals to admit this, but the facts are absolutely undeniable that an armed citizenry is far and away a more civilized and peaceful citizenry.

Founding Father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and our third President Thomas Jefferson rightly said, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Founding Father, the man called “the father of the U.S. Constitution, and our 4th President James Madison, agreed with Jefferson. He wrote in Federalist, Number 46, “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation . . . [where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

Founding Father and author of the classic Revolution-era books, “Common Sense” and “Rights of Man,” Thomas Paine concurred. He said, “Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”

And should there be any doubt in the minds of sincere men regarding the advantages and appropriateness of an armed citizenry, the research of John R. Lott, Jr. is more than sufficient to dispel it. Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, College Park. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School. His book, “More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws,” is the most authoritative and thoroughly researched volume on the subject. And the title of his book is exactly what his research proves: More guns, less crime!

Lott’s analysis “is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.” Lott said carry laws reduce violent crime because “victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.” DUH!

See a University of Chicago-sponsored interview with Mr. Lott at:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Of course, liberal gun-grabbers love to instill fear into people by saying that citizens carrying guns will result in more incidents of violence. However, the facts just do not substantiate this hysteria. Even our local “mullet wrapper” recently ran a column excoriating the new law that allows concealed carry permit holders to carry his or her sidearm in national parks and forests. The basis of their diatribe? “It’s a risky change that will endanger families, hikers, those who work in these places and the park rangers themselves.”

See the rant at:

http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=20102260311

Like all gun-grabbers, however, the fearmongering of the editorial board at the Pensacola, Florida, News Journal just does not square with the facts. As Lott observes, “Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate–as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”

Accordingly, the new law allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in national parks and forests serves only to make those parks and forests safer.

I well remember being invited to speak in the rural Montana town of Hamilton last year. Somewhere between 600 and 800 people assembled at the local fairgrounds to hear me speak. It was a terrific rally with some of the most patriotic and enthusiastic people I have ever spoken to. (They have invited me back to speak, this time at the University of Montana in Missoula, to a much larger crowd of probably several thousand later this May.)

Along with the vibrancy, energy, and sheer enthusiasm of that audience I observed that scores of people were openly carrying handguns on their hips. (No telling how many people were carrying concealed. Scores more, I’m sure.) Can one imagine a would-be killer trying to open fire in that meeting? Needless to say, not only did I feel at home, I felt absolutely safe–a whole lot safer than I feel when I travel to Washington, D.C. (or any other city or State restricting gun possession), that is for sure!

Obviously, the executives at Starbucks are wiser and more discerning than a majority of newspaper editors and television news anchors. They have seen several other business establishments that have introduced corporate policies prohibiting lawfully armed citizens from entering their establishments–and they’ve seen their profits and customer bases shrink dramatically! They’ve also, no doubt, seen what happened in Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, when a madman crashed his vehicle into the restaurant and began shooting patrons at will. The total carnage on that horrific day back in 1991 resulted in 23 people dead and 20 more wounded, and the killer eventually killing himself. Some 80 people were in the restaurant when the shooting occurred, but Texas did not have a concealed carry law at the time, so no one was armed and able to fight back.

At this point, I strongly urge readers to watch the eyewitness testimony of former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp–whose parents were killed in the Luby’s Cafeteria rampage–given before the US Congress. See her testimony at:

Therefore, the sadness and chagrin of liberal gun-grabbers notwithstanding, I say, “Hooray for Starbucks!” And I don’t even like their coffee. Maybe I’ll give them another chance.

« Previous Page