The Candid Blogger

The Great American Mortgage Scam

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:02:00 +0000

Protect Your Home

As foreclosures reach record numbers and the poor are blamed for the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, the real culprit, the mortgage companies and banks escape. Thousands of Americans have been scammed on their mortgages by a very clever securitization technique employed by lenders. Have you been scammed? Here's an easy way to find out:

The easiest way to determine if your "note" was converted to a negotiable instrument by your Lender and sold or traded is to examine your Note and your Deed of Trust. First, your note will have a date approximately at least one week BEFORE you actually sign it.

In the old days, your Note would say, "For value received..."

If you have a Note that the Lender wanted to convert to a negotiable instrument and make 10X the amount of the Note for themselves, your note will start out:

"In return for a loan that I have received, I promise to pay ..."

Of course you have not received an electronic transfer to your account, nor a cashier's check, nor any form of payment at all. The LENDER has completed step one of the fraud.

Step 2 is to get you to say that you own the home free and clear and can deed it to anyone you want. Of course you don't (or do you?)

Check out Page 3 of your Deed of Trust. Under Borrowers Covenants, if it says: "The borrower covenants that he/she/they are "lawfully seized of the estate."

There it is. You have told the Lender:

1) That you have already received a loan, and
2) That you own your home free and clear of encumbrances.

Based on that, the Lender slaps an allonge on the back and deposits it in their own bank, which considers it just like a cashiers check or pay order and credits the Lender 10X the amount of your note. In a common scam transaction, a 1st mortgage of $324, once sold or traded, earned the Lender $3.24 million, less $400K to pay the seller and commission. Nice payday!

The Lender has been PAID IN FULL for just your signature on the Note. Of course they ignore the RELEASE section of the Deed of Trust which says that once PAID IN FULL they must then reconvey the property to the Borrower and release the lien. Instead it is "reconveyed" to the Lender who has already been paid in full (10X). He then sits back and gets paid again over 30 years by YOU, the generous fool that gave him the property in the first place.

NICE SCAM.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

No More Waiting

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:52:00 +0000

How stupid it is to wait:

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

A Simple Solution for Fixing the Economy

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:53:00 +0000

This is from an article in the St. Petersburg Times newspaper on Sunday.

The Business Section asked readers for ideas on: "How Would You Fix the Economy?"

I think this guy nailed it! Please find below my suggestion for fixing America's economy.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan.

The Patriotic Retirement Plan:

There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:

1) They MUST retire. Forty million job openings.

Unemployment fixed.

2) They MUST buy a new American CAR. Forty million cars ordered.

Auto Industry fixed.

3) They MUST either buy a house or pay off their mortgage.

Housing Crisis fixed.

It can't get any easier than that!

P.S. If more money is needed, have all members in Congress and their constituents pay their taxes...

While you're at it, make congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I'll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:54:00 +0000

Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve

G Edward Griffin explains the FEDERAL RESERVE - a total money scam.

This 42-minute video is the beginning of your education. Click below to learn how to put this information to good use in eliminating your mortgage LEGALLY.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

House Passes Healthcare Reform Bill

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:13:00 +0000

PARTY OF NO SUFFERS CRUSHING DEFEAT

The House floor erupted in one of the loudest cheers the chamber has heard in years when Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), an hour before midnight, cast the 218th and deciding vote on landmark health care reform.

There were still six minutes and fifty-two seconds on the clock and the chair made a move to gavel the vote closed.
Democrats waived their opposition, keeping the vote open.

Almost every eye in the chamber darted to the far end of the GOP side, where the last possibility for a bipartisan bill sat wedged between Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), both of whom were leaning on him, both literally and figuratively.

The White House, two sources told HuffPost, had been working hard to win the vote of Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.), a freshman in a strongly Democratic district. The pro-life Cao's vote came into play when an amendment from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) passed overwhelmingly, greatly restricting reproductive rights.

After several minutes, Cao cast a yes vote from his seat, making the bill bipartisan. Reps. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Mike Honda (D-Calif.) waded into the Republican side of the aisle to get to Cao, rub his shoulders and slap him on the back.
Cantor stormed out as the Democrats applauded their defector.

Read more at: HUFFINGTON POST

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Party of NO Really Means It

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:11:00 +0000

Republicans have made it a crusade to block any healthcare reform put forth by the Democrats in order to make President Obama fail. They have said it and acted in this manner over and over again. Now, the Party of "NO", led by Emperor of Evil, John "Bonehead" Boehner have put forth their own healthcare reform package. Problem is it doesn't reform much of anything. There is no provision to deal with "pre-existing" conditions, and it has now been revealed that the Republican plan fails to cover 95% of the uninsured. 95%!

The Republican bill, which has no chance of passage, would extend insurance coverage to about 3 million people by 2019, and would leave about 52 million people uninsured, the budget office said, meaning the proportion of non-elderly Americans with coverage would remain about the same as now, at roughly 83%.

The budget office has said that the Democrats’ health care proposal would extend coverage to 36 million people, meaning that 96% of legal residents would have health benefits. The Democrats’ bill would cost $1.1 trillion, with the costs more than covered by revenues from new taxes or cuts in government spending, particularly on Medicare.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Judge Carter Dismisses Orly Taitz Case

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:52:00 +0000

Just as expected, Judge David Carter has dismissed the case of Barnett, Keyes, et al v. Obama. Here are just a few of his comments:

"Plaintiffs’ arguments through Taitz have generally failed to aid the Court. Instead, Plaintiffs’ counsel has favored rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions and prejudices of her followers rather than the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning...

"This Court exercised extreme patience when Taitz endangered this case being heard at all...

"Taitz also continually refused to comply with court rules and procedure.

"Taitz encouraged her supporters to contact this Court, both via letters and phone calls. It was improper and unethical for her as an attorney to encourage her supporters to attempt to influence this Court's decision.

"Additionally, the Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court."

"Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution ... Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism."

CLICK HERE TO READ THE COMPLETE ORDER: CARTER DISMISSES CASE

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Public Option Annie Serenades Anti-Healthcare Convention

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:20:00 +0000

AHIP is the powerful insurance lobby that spends 5 million dollars a week trying to kill health care reform. Billionaires for Wealthcare is a grassroots network looking to stop them - with song.

• AHIP and other insurance and HMO interests spend nearly $5 million per week undermining real health care reform, including a public option.

• AHIP has resorted to out-right lying and scare tactics to block health care reform. They sent letters that lie to seniors about what health care reform means for Medicare, and they issued a report on the costs of health care reform legislation that is so misleading even the reports embarrassed authors distanced themselves from the way AHIP used their work.

• Every year, 45,000 people die because they cant get access to the health care they need. Yet AHIP continues to stand in the way of health care reform that would provide coverage to millions of Americans because the industry is more concerned with protecting profits than saving lives.

Lyrics to "Public Option Annie"

(to the tune of "Tomorrow" from Annie)

SINGER #1

No, thank you!

FOR KILLING THE PUBLIC OPTION

AND BLOCKING ANY HOPES OF ITS ADOPTION

THANK YOU, SIR!

SINGER #2
Sure,

BUT WHAT ABOUT COMPETITION?

IT'S AN OLD AMERICAN TRADITION

OR SO I'VE HEARD?

SINGER #1
Meh.

SINGER #3

WHEN OLYMPIA SNOWE

SAID NO,

IT CROAKED

Right?

SINGER #2

NO, THE OPTION'S NOT DEAD

SINGER #3

OR RED!

SINGER #1

EXPLAIN!

Who let these hippies in here?

SINGERS #2 AND #3, and CHORUS MEMBERS

IF WE GET A PUB-

LIC OPTION

WE CAN SNIFF OUT WASTE

JUST LIKE A DACHSUND

COSTS COME DOWN!

SINGER #1

Hey, those "costs" are my profits!

SINGERS #2 AND #3, and CHORUS MEMBERS

THE OPTION

THE OPTION

THE PUBLIC WANTS OPTIONS

WITHOUT IT,

IT'S A GIVEAWAY

SINGER #1

Exactly. To us. Am I in the right room?

THE OPTION

THE OPTION

THE PUBLIC WANTS AN OPTION

SINGERS #2 AND #3, and CHORUS MEMBERS

OR REFORM IS A CORP'RATE GIVE-A-WAY!

SINGER #1

Well, I've heard enough - my helicopter is parked in a handicap space.

.BILLIONAIRES FOR WEALTHCARE

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FOX NEWS Vendetta Against Obama Exposed

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:00:00 +0000

ANYTHING BUT FAIR AND BALANCED

FOX NEWS would like everyone to believe that they are the only media outlet whose "news" broadcasts are Fair and Balanced. Rather than submit a written argument to disprove this claim, we find it much more easy to present video evidence to you of a long-standing vendetta that this so-called news station has conducted against President Barack Obama. These attacks are a clear indication of a planned and vicious campaign to discredit him and to tear down his administration.

With "news people" like Hannity, Beck and O'Reilly, it is ludicrous for anyone to claim that this media outlet is a news agency. FOX manufactures and creates news, then reports on it. They are a bad joke on America.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Orangutan and the Hound

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 03:14:00 +0000

After the negativity surrounding Orly Taitz and the birthers, I thought it appropriate to lighten the mood with this post. Enjoy:

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Orly Taitz Circus Continues

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:42:00 +0000

Orly Taitz in Wonderland with her Staff

Now that Orly Taitz has ignored Judge Clay Land's Order for a $20,000 sanction, Orly Taitz is taking her appeal to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. Taitz represents soldiers who are fighting deployment on the basis of their belief that the Commander-in-chief is not eligible to serve.

Judge Clay Land has called her filings frivolous and sanctioned her twice. The most recent sanction was $20,000.

In her court filing, Taitz accused Judge Land of “ completely ignoring ninety percent of the argument and facts, making extremely rude and demeaning remarks, showing bias; taken together, appear to be designed to silence her and, intimidate her.“

Now, the case gets even more intriguing. Ms. Taitz was planning to call a man named Lucas Smith to testify on behalf of her client in a case she filed in Orange County this is awaiting a decision by Judge David Carter on the motion of the Defendants to Dismiss the Case. Mr. Smith, however, paints a picture of Ms. Taitz not paying attention to details, sleeping with her disbarred attorney legal assistant, Charles Lincoln III, and attempting to get both Mr. Smith and another witness to make up stories and lie to the court under oath. Here is the complete Declaration of Lucas Daniel Smith. You can click to download it. It was just filed with the Court.

Among the charges her witness levels at Ms. Taitz is that she and her husband are independently wealthy, but that she will not pay her staff or help, yet buys expensive meals with donations from her supporters. Ms. Taitz also reportedly asked Mr. Lucas to lie to the court and say that Mr. Obama had tried to have him killed upon exiting a recent meeting at the Court.

Another interesting tidbit is that Mr. Smith says that Ms. Taitz told him that she had obtained the earlier phony Kenyan Birth Certificate on Obama from the Mossad. Mr. Smith also reports that Ms. Taitz is unable to comprehend details and that her attention span is like that of a small child...perhaps 15 minutes.

It gets curiouser and curiouser...

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Medicare for Everybody - Medicare Part E

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:10:00 +0000

THE BEST PUBLIC OPTION

Party of No Says YES to Rape

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:30:00 +0000

These 31 Republican Senators voted AGAINST a bill introduced by Al Franken called the "Anti-Rape Bill". Republicans have done everything they can to prevent President Obama from passing a sweeping healthcare reform bill. Now, they are doing everything they can to protect the financial interests of private contractors such as Blackwater and Halliburton by protecting them from ever having to defend against charges such as rape of their own employees. WOMEN OF AMERICA remember these men.

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)	Richard Shelby (R-AL)	Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)	Mike Crapo (R-ID)	James Risch (R-ID)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)	Mitch McConnell (R-KY)	David Vitter (R-LA)
Kit Bond (R-MO)	Mike Johanns (R-NE)	John Ensign (R-NV)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)	Jim Inhofe (R-OK)	Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)	Bob Corker (R-TN)	John Cornyn (R-TX)	)

John McCain (R) AZ Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) Sam Brownback (R-KS)

Pat Roberts (R-KS) Thad Cochran (R-MS) Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Judd Gregg (R-NH) Richard Burr (R-NC) Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

John Thune (R-SD) John Barrasso(R-WY) Mike Enzi(R-WY

Birther Wingnut Orly Taitz Defies Sanction, Files Appeal

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:44:00 +0000

Orly Taitz

Birther wingnut Attorney/Dentist/Realtor Orly Taitz has attacked Judge Clay Land's $20,000 sanction as "political lynching" and filed an appeal. She says she will not pay the fine and Judge Land has indicated she has 30 days in which to comply or the Attorney General will begin collection proceedings against her. In her appeal, she accuses the very patient Judge Land of "pervasively extreme and outrageous prejudice and bias" against her. She just doesn't seem to get it.

Her complete filing is available at Talking Points Memo: ORLY TAITZ APPEAL.

A formal complaint has already been filed with the California State Bar Association and Ms. Taitz' continued disrespect of the Court and her lack of integrity in dealing with the Court will surely result in her disbarment. It can't happen too soon as her fifteen minutes of fame have lasted a bit too long.

Pelosi's Strong Public Option Reduces Deficit

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:34:00 +0000

Public Option is Cost Effective, Reduces Deficit

A preliminary analysis from CBO may have sealed the deal. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is preparing to move ahead with a "robust" public option--one that reimburses hospitals and providers at Medicare rates, plus five percent--in the House's health care bill. She is briefing her caucus about the plan's savings tonight, and, pending the approval of a sufficient majority of members, will adopt the measure as part of the complete reform package.

A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources. CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years. analysis finds the reconstituted House proposal to be deficit neutral, and require less than $900 billion in new spending, over ten years.

The bill remains nominally more expensive than the Senate Finance Committee proposal, but would cover 96 percent of all Americans, providing greater bang for each federal dollar spent. And, aides note, the bill that comes to the floor of the Senate will be a hybrid of the Finance and more expensive HELP Committee bills, so the price is expected to rise.

The move is sure to make progressives ecstatic, and puts Senate leaders, who have been unable to reach any decisions about their preferences for a public option in their own bill, in an uncomfortable position. Senior Democratic aides told CNN that House Democratic leaders are likely to put this version of the public option favored by liberal Democrats in the final bill they are drafting. While no final decision has been made, on Tuesday night Speaker Pelosi made the case to House Democrats that this approach saves the most money and would put the House in a better negotiating position when it comes time to negotiate a final health care bill with the Senate.

sources: CNN, TPM

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Judge Land's Order Sanctions Birther Queen Orly Taitz

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:49:00 +0000

Judge Clay land pulled no punches in his Order for Sactions in the amount of $20,000 vs. Birther Wingnut Orly Taitz. Here is a small portion of his Order:

The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely
negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney,
she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the
rules and to respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct
conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a
provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to
the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and
borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret
regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless
attacks on the Court. Defiantly defending the “position of the
patriots,” she scoffs at the notion that a federal court would

consider sanctioning her when she is on the side of such freedom
fighters as the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, a comparison that, if
accepted, would disgrace Justice Marshall’s singular achievements.
Counsel’s bad faith warrants a substantial sanction.
Counsel’s misconduct was not an isolated event; it was part of
a pattern that advanced frivolous arguments and disrespectful personal attacks on the parties and the Court. This pattern infected theentire proceeding, not just an isolated pleading. Her initial

Complaint was legally frivolous. Upon being so informed, counsel
followed it with a frivolous motion for reconsideration. In response
to the Court’s show cause order, she filed a frivolous motion to
recuse. In all of counsel’s frivolous filings, she hurled personal
insults at the parties and the Court. Rather than assert legitimate
legal arguments, counsel chose to accuse the Court of treason and of
being controlled by the “Obama Machine.” She had no facts to support
her claims–but her diatribe would play well to her choir. This
pattern of conduct reveals that it will be difficult to get counsel’s
attention. A significant sanction is necessary to deter such conduct.
Whether Ms. Taitz had the subjective purpose to cause injury
through her conduct cannot be easily ascertained. It is clear to the
Court, however, that objectively her actions demonstrate an attempt
by her to smear the Court and the judiciary because she did not
prevail. She accused the Court of treason based upon its dismissal
of her case. She maintained that the district courts in the Eleventh
Circuit must be controlled by the vast “Obama conspiracy” because

otherwise she would have prevailed on her claim. She suggested that
the Court violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in ex
parte communications when she had no evidence to support the
suggestion and when the credible evidence undisputably refuted the
suggestion. She frivolously asserted that the Court had a financial
interest in the litigation, posting the web site for the undersigned’s
financial disclosure reports in her briefing, for no reason other than
to advance a false assertion. Counsel’s smear attempts were not
limited to the Court; she appears to relish calling the President
names that added nothing to her legal arguments. The Court concludes
from this conduct that counsel did have an intent to injure anyone
associated with the litigation who did not agree with her.

Judge Land finished his order with: " While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions upon counsel Orly Taitz, it likewise has no reservations about the necessity of doing so. A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice."

CLICK HERE to read complete order.

Obama Takes the Gloves Off

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:38:00 +0000

President Obama mounted a frontal assault on the insurance industry on Saturday, accusing it of airing “deceptive and dishonest ads” to derail his health care legislation and threatening to strip the industry of its longstanding exemption from federal anti-trust laws.

In unusually harsh terms, Mr. Obama cast insurance companies as obstacles to change interested only in preserving their own “profits and bonuses” and willing to “bend the truth or break it” to stop his drive to remake the nation’s health care system. The president used his weekly radio and Internet address to push back against industry assertions that legislation will drive up premiums.

“It’s smoke and mirrors,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, ‘Take one of these, and call us in a decade.’ Well, not this time.”

Rather than trying to curb costs and help patients, he said the industry is busy “figuring out how to avoid covering people. And they’re earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exemption from our anti-trust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing.”

Mr. Obama’s sharp attack comes as the health care debate moves out of congressional committees to the wider stage of floor debates in the Senate and House. While he has criticized insurers before, his bare-knuckled language on Saturday reflected a more open break with the industry and recognition that his efforts to bring it into some sort of consensus had failed.

FOR COMPLETE STORY: NEW YORK TIMES

Watch Obama's Weekly Address:

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

High School Teacher Recalls Day Obama was Born...in Hawaii

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:25:00 +0000

While conducting some research to debunk a birther post on a forum, I came across a very definitive article about Barack Obama's high school Literature teacher at Punahou High School. Her instruction included British, Biblical, and Middle Eastern Literature. This article was written prior to his taking office and is not something recently written to stave off the senseless ranting of the right wing.

This lady remembers the day he was born, in which hospital, she wrote down his unique name and discussed it with her father and the physician who delivered him, Dr. West. She later became his teacher.

When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible today to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.

“I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.

His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”

The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

“I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.

She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.

To read the entire article, BUFFALO NEWS
By Paula Voell

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Blue Dog Supports Medicare for Uninsured Under 65

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:34:00 +0000

Has He Come to Our Senses?

First he was for it. Then he was against it. Now Rep. Mike Ross is back on board with a government-run healthcare plan. Sort of.

Ross (D-Ark.), who had emerged as a leader among centrist Blue Dog Democrats opposing the public health insurance option, has suggested something his colleagues consider even more drastic – opening Medicare to those under 65 without insurance.

He made the suggestion in meetings with House Democratic leaders and brought the idea to the closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting Thursday.

"I — speaking only on behalf of myself — suggested one possible idea could be that instead of creating an entirely new government bureaucracy to administer a public option, Medicare could be offered as a choice," Ross said in a statement to The Hill.

Medicare would then compete with private insurers across the age spectrum. It would be open to those who don't have insurance through their employers, the same people who would be covered by the public option already under discussion.

But Ross said he would want reimbursement for providers to be at a "much greater rate" than it is now. Medicare reimbursement rates have been a sore point for rural lawmakers who feel that Medicare shortchanges their hospitals.

By Mike Soraghan

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Birther Wingnut Orly Taitz Sanctioned $20,000

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:40:00 +0000

Judge Clay Land didn't take too kindly to the outrageous accusations leveled at him by Birther Attorney Orly Taitz and has responded with a $20,000 sanction against the dentist/realtor/attorney. The “Birther queen” has been slapped with a five-figure fine for “wasting the judicial resources” of the Middle District of Georgia, where she’d filed one of her numerous lawsuits demanding that President Obama prove his citizenship before deploying soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The judgment, which calls Taitz’s case and tactics “delusional”:

JUDGE LAND SANCTIONS TAITZ $20,000

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Strange Skies Above Moscow Last Week

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:32:00 +0000

In what could have been a scene from the film Independence Day, a luminous ring-shaped cloud could be seen hovering over the city of Moscow last week. The pale gold 'halo' could be seen above the Russian capital city's Western District on Wednesday, and was captured on film by stunned Muscovites. Meteorologists rejected any theories of the supernatural however, calling it an optical effect.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize; Right wing Furious

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:38:00 +0000

DESPITE HONOR, REPUBLICANS AND RIGHT WING MEDIA HYSTERICAL

President Barack Obama has become the fourth American President to be honored by being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He was surprised and pleased at the honor, in direct contrast to the anger spewing forth by Republicans who learned of his winning the award, with the exception of a few such as John McCain.

"I am both surprised and deeply humbled," Obama said that morning. "I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership...I will accept this award as a call to action."

After resolutely working to undermine Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympic Games and then roundly applauding the International Olympic Committee's decision to eliminate the U.S. city from competition, the right-wing media responded with furor to the Nobel Committee's decision. "I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota," wrote Erick Erickson at the conservative RedState, who just last week had laughed at the idea that Obama had improved America's standing in the world.

"He's sided with Marxists Castro, Chavez, Morales and Ortega. ... Obama's bankrupted the US economy and destroyed the morale of our military," chimed in Gateway Pundit, another right-wing blogger. "No wonder he was awarded the Nobel." A poll question on Lou Dobbs' website expressed shock at the fact that the award had gone to "Our Supreme Leader." Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade (the brown-haired-guy-who-isn't-Steve-Doocy) suggested that Obama had delayed making a decision to send more troops to Afghanistan in order to win the award, even though the White House said it was unaware that Obama had even been nominated. "The World Apology Tour yields dividends," succinctly wrote prominent right-wing blogger and Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin.

"They [the Nobel Committee] love a weakened, neutered U.S, and this is their way of promoting that concept," radio host Rush Limbaugh said in an email to Politico. "Obama did make a big show of appeasing Iran during its election crisis," added conservative blogger Ed Morrissey. "Perhaps they should change the award's name to the Neville rather than the Nobel."

The volume emanating from the right quickly impacted more mainstream reporters. Time's Simon Robinson penned an online piece explaining how the award could prove politically harmful to the president, and Nancy Gibbs wrote a widely circulated article for Time as well, this one explaining why the Nobel was "the last thing [Obama] needs." She's right... we all know the Nobel Prize is something that should be avoided, you know, like cancer. Sigh.

It wasn't long before the calls started for Obama to turn down the award, from a variety of sources. Malkin, CBS' Chip Reid, Time's Mark Halperin, John Bolton, Slate.com's Mickey Kaus, The Weekly Standard's Mary Katharine Ham, and The Atlantic's Jeffery Goldberg all echoed the theme, among others.

"[H]e has to turn it down -- because it is such a joke -- that he'll turn it down and it's the only way for him make a win out of this," said Fox News' Glenn Beck. "Only his arrogance will stop him from doing it." For his part, Beck had an explanation for what was really going on, as well as a suggestion for who Obama could hand the award over to.

"These progressives are extraordinarily powerful," he explained, channeling conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. "And this campaign of Barack Obama, this global campaign for Barack Obama, is done by global interests that have extraordinary power. They're very well connected."

In what had to be a highlight of his lunacy, Beck continued: "The Nobel Peace Prize should be turned down by Barack Obama and given -- you ready for this? Oh, this one's gonna make headlines -- should be given to the Tea Party goers and the 9-12 Project." This makes sense, seeing as that the undeniable currents of racism, violence, and xenophobia the Tea Party "movement" embodies represent the very essence of what Alfred Nobel's prize is all about. Sigh, again.

But at the end of the day, it was El Rushbo who really made headlines. It turned out that the Taliban was also against the Nobel Committee's decision, something that didn't give Limbaugh a moment's pause.

"I think that everybody is laughing" he said. "Our president is a worldwide joke. Folks, do you realize something has happened here that we all agree with the Taliban and Iran about and that is he doesn't deserve the award. Now that's hilarious, that I'm on the same side of something with the Taliban, and that we all are on the same side as the Taliban."

The Republican Party and right-wing media showed complete disgust with the honor bestowed on American and its President and the video below demonstrates how little the right wing really cares about this country and how ridiculous that they should call themselves patriots.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Why Healthcare Reform is So Desperately Needed

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:25:00 +0000

Watch Keith Olbermann's riveting "Special Comment" on the need for healthcare reform in America.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Dutch Close 8 Prisons: Not Enough Inmates

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:16:00 +0000

For years prohibitionists, including our own Drug Enforcement Administration, have claimed — falsely — that the tolerant marijuana policies of the Netherlands have made that nation a nest of crime and drug abuse. They may have trouble wrapping their little brains around this:

The Dutch government is getting ready to close eight prisons because they don’t have enough criminals to fill them. Officials attribute the shortage of prisoners to a declining crime rate.

Just for fun, let’s compare the Netherlands to California. With a population of 16.6 million, the Dutch prison population is about 12,000. With its population of 36.7 million, California should have a bit more than double the Dutch prison population. California’s actual prison population is 171,000.

So, whose drug policies are keeping the streets safer?

SOURCE: MPP BLOG

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Dead Peasant Insurance Exposed

noreply@blogger.com (The Candid Blogger) — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:22:00 +0000

In the movie, "Capitalism, a Love Story", Michael Moore exposes a sinister secret that has been part of the American corporate world for some time now -- DEAD PEASANT INSURANCE. Your boss wants you DEAD. It seems that major corporations in America have been secretly buying life insurance policies on their employees, especially the low-level ones. You die, they win, even after you leave the company. If I bought a life insurance policy on my neighbor, I would have a vested interest in his death. How is this any different?

Here is an example:

This practice has been kept a secret for many years. Here is the reaction of ABC News analysts:

Among the corporations that have bought such insurance, nicknamed "janitors' " or "dead peasants' " insurance, are AT&T, Dow Chemical, Nestle USA, Procter & Gamble, Walt Disney and Wal-Mart. Corporations gain not merely from the tax-free life insurance benefits they receive when current or former employees die but also can borrow money against these policies. Many companies even deducted the interest on these loans from their taxes.

In 1996 Congress moved to limit such deductions, and the IRS has sued some 80 corporations, including Winn-Dixie and American Electric Power, to collect back taxes on such loans. Still, companies benefit. They are not taxed on gains within a life insurance policy; in effect, these policies amount to tax-free investments for businesses.

Critics have compared these life insurance policies to those purchased by some American slaveholders on the lives of their slaves, who also were unaware of such policies held by their owners. Finally, someone is going to do something about this practice which at the very least is immoral and should be illegal.

Finally, Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Chicago) is raising a red flag. He chairs the U.S. House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. This week Gutiérrez introduced a bill that would ban employer-owned life insurance unless the worker earns at least a million dollars a year from the company. He presented the legislation Wednesday on the House floor.

GUTIERREZ: In a nation where millions of full-time workers have no health insurance, maybe if we prevent companies from betting on the death of their employees, they’ll invest in the health of their employees.

For violations, the bill would provide civil and criminal remedies.

Copyright @ 1998-2009
All Rights Reserved

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.