Tag Archives: Socialism

No, Virginia, Obama is NOT a Fascist like Hitler; he’s a Communist, just like he says he is…..so are the Bushes….so don’t go around insulting the memory of Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Sir Oswald Moseley…..and Senator Huey Pierce Long of Louisiana….

In my writing on this blog, and even in my personal correspondence, I often refer to the current system in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe as “Corporate Communism”.  I realize this sounds oxymoronic to some people—an inherent contradiction in terms, kind of like “Jumbo Shrimp” or “Microsoft Works”—so I thought I should make a clarifying statement.  May people realize that the United States is neither what it used to be in the past nor what it pretends to be at present, although most people would admit that we have gone a long way down the road to socialism, at the very least.  In February of 2009, right after Obama was sworn in as President for his first term, Newsweek Magazine trumpted on its cover “We are all Socialists Now”—-well, let me just clarify that Newsweek was not speaking for me, directly or indirectly, because I never authorized it to do so, and I certainly didn’t vote for Obama….
As for defining “corporate communism”, some people like to call it “Fascism” but I object to the use of that term as historically inaccurate and non-descriptive.  (Compare Aaron Russo’s Movie, “From Freedom to Fascism”). Many people who use this term intend to criticize the current status quo in America, but neither America nor any of the other Western powers are in any sense “Fascist” in the early 20th century sense of that term as used by Mussolini, Franco, Moseley, or even the followers of Huey Long of Louisiana.
Communism was a system envisioned by many 19th Century Philosophers and Economists but made especially famous by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in a pamphlet published in London in February 1848 called “The Communist Manifesto”—  and, up to a point, Fascism was a reaction against Communism and other forms of modern socialism.
The universal features of Communism, as crystalised in the writings of Karl Marx, are the abolition of the family, private property, and the Democratic Republican “Bourgeois” State (“Bourgeois”) basically referring to the “Middle Class” of productive tradesmen and women who live in cities.
“Corporate Communism” is what we have in the United States today: the government imposes an economic system based on consumer credit debt that effectively makes all citizens and residents of the United States slaves.
I call it “communism”, and it seems to me that this is the only appropriate label, because *(for all intents and purposes) individual property ownership has been abolished in the United States by a combination of predatory (high interest, inflationary), government sponsored financing FIRST ENVISIONED IN THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO OF 1848 as a means of abolishing or absorbing all private property by and through Central Banking.
The government has taken a stand against Religion and all the institutions and sacraments of Christianity in particular so that the family can be abolished.  And the judicial and financial attack on and the sociological and psychological subversion of the family and private property, and the destruction of the middle class, guarantee the collapse of all Constitutional and Democratic-Republican forms of limited government, in favor of the kind of Police State Despotism that Americans are slowly but surely becoming all to familiar with and accustomed to and accepting of.
This is actually the opposite of “Fascism” which protected individual and family ownership of real estate and other property above all other civil rights, favored the bourgeois middle class and its “family values”, protected traditional religious faith and traditions against atheism and psychology, and in general was “conservative” and “traditional” in its socio-cultural orientation.  Whether this is a good thing or bad thing, it’s NOT what we have in Modern Europe, America, Australia, China, or Japan (and its seeping all through Latin America and the rest of the world with lightening-like speed, so that “Corporate Communism” based on non-Capitalized Credit, can accurately be described as the current, modern “World System”.
I call the modern European-America-Japanese-Chinese system “Corporate” Communism because the government acts through Corporate Agents to accomplish specialized goals, but all these corporations are effectively part of and one-in-the same with the Federal Government.
In other words, the through a pretense that all property is held privately, just in the name of corporations (or because of, as a derivation or derivative of, corporate financing).
But these corporations (including all banks, all dependent on ONE SINGLE CENTRALIZED SYSTEM known as the Federal Reserve System, which produces the vast majority of “notes” used in every day commerce as “legal tender”) could not possibly exist without the government regulations which shape, organize, and in breathe life into their very CORPORATE being.
Without government contracts and financing and programs of economic stimulus (including the planned distributional and utility infrastructure) these corporations could not exist….
So the American “Corporate System” is in fact neither private and nor capitalistic at all.  It is merely a sophisticated implementation of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 which operates by and through so many veils smoke seen through two way and reflective mirrors that nobody even realizes what is really going on…..

Is America a Nation of Gullible, Useless Idiots? (Apparently, some Communists think we are Useful—like Obama maybe?)

http://newsrotator.com/blog/post/the-rise-of-communism-in-america-a-warning-to-americans (with gratitude to Frank Mannarino for sharing)

  • THE RISE OF COMMUNISM IN AMERICA: A WARNING TO AMERICANS

    America is the last beacon of hope for the world and for freedom. If we allow freedom to slip away, our generation will forever be remembered as the generation that knew the most and did the least to prevent it. We have a moral obligation to educate everyone around us to the dangers of socialism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, the welfare state and big government. If we are to stop the destruction of what is left of the free world, we must force our government to stop funding and aiding the soviet military industrial complex.

    “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” ~Nikita Khrushchev

    “The goal of socialism is communism.” ~Vladimir Lenin

    In 1848, Karl Marx wrote and introduced The Communist Manifesto. It has been regarded as one of the world’s most influential political manuscripts. The manifesto offers an analytical approach to “class struggle”, offering itself as a replacement to capitalism.

    Karl Marx

    Karl Marx
    wikipedia

    The Communist Manifesto

    The Communist Manifesto
    wikipedia
     

    Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov was a KGB Propagandist who defected from the USSR to the United States in 1970. In 1984, he was interviewed by G. Edward Griffin on the topic of subversion. Mr. Bezmenov shares his insight and speaks candidly about communism, the stages that must be completed before communism can take hold of a nation and whether he believes communism is a reality for the United States of America. Mr. Bezmenov sounds the alarm to Americans and warns of the dangers already facing this nation and what will happen if measures are not taken to defeat the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

    Some of the terminology Mr. Bezmenov uses in the video is not clearly defined, so we’ve outlined some of the terms beforehand in an effort to help you better understand the video. The information Mr. Bezmenov imparts is priceless to our freedom and liberty and should be mandatory viewing for educational institutions, at all levels.

    1. “Subversion”

      The term “Subversion” or “Ideological Subversion” refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy; a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed. Subversion changes the perception of reality and targets the populace of the enemy and is synonymous with psychological warfare.

    2. “Useful Idiot”

      The term “Useful Idiot” is a pejorative term used by the Soviets for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause; a term that describes Soviet Sympathizers in Western countries and in the United States in particular.

    3. “Demoralization”

      The term “Demoralization” refers to a breakdown in the moral standards of a nation. People that have been demoralized are unable to assess truth and facts, even when authentic proof has been shown to them contrary to their beliefs.

    4. “Destabilization”

      The term “Destabilization” refers to the breakdown of society within a nation. Communism generally targets capitalism and attempts to break down the economic system which will lead to crisis.

      For further reading on destabilization, please see: Capitalism Destabilized – How Do We Prepare To Overthrow the U.S. Government. Or you can view the PDF.

    5. “Crisis”

      The term “Crisis” is exactly what you would expect it to mean. Once a nation has been destabilized, the natural order immediately following is crisis. Crisis is the final stagebefore communism is fully instituted.

    6. “Normalization”

      The term “Normalization” is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda. When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Brezhnev said, ‘Now brother Czechoslovakia is normalized.’ Normalization is the exact opposite of Destabilization. At this stage, the leftists, progressives, professors, homosexuals, Marxists, Leninists and any other group of people that helped to bring about communism, are almost always eliminated from the new society.

    7. “Active Measures”

      The term “Active Measures” is a form of political warfare to influence the course of world events through media manipulations and seeks to collect intelligence.

    8. “Disinformation”

      The term “Disinformation” is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false. Disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.

    9. “Propaganda”

      The term “Propaganda” is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

    10. “Espionage”

      The term “Espionage” involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, as it is taken for granted that it is unwelcome and, in many cases illegal and punishable by law. It is a subset of intelligence gathering, which otherwise may be conducted from public sources and using perfectly legal and ethical means. It is crucial to distinguish espionage from intelligence gathering, as the latter does not necessarily involve espionage, but often collates open-source information.

    The following four stages must be completed in the order listed before any existing power structure can be replaced with communism:

    1. Demoralization

      The demoralization of a nation generally takes between fifteen to twenty years to complete. This is the time to expose one generation of youth to Marxist-Leninist ideology, unchallenged by any other political ideology.

      “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” ~Vladimir Lenin

      There are six areas in which the demoralization process happens:

      1. Religion (Distract attention from real faith)
      2. Education (Get control of the youth)
      3. Social Life (Friendships, Families, etc.)
      4. Power Structure (Substitute elected officials with unelected people)
      5. Labor Relations (Unions are the death of natural exchange or capitalism)
      6. Law and Order (Change perception: Ex: A criminal is not a criminal but a defendant)

      Demoralization occurs in entertainment, the arts, the breakdown of the family, Social Justice programs like child support as well as political correctness.

    2. Destabilization

      The leftists/progressives are instrumental in the destabilization process of subversion, only to destabilize the nation. After destabilization is complete, they are no longer needed by the communist system. When they finally understand that they were used, they will become angry and revolt. There is no place in a Marxist-Leninist regime for dissenters and are usually eliminated from the new society. These are the people that Vladimir Lenin referred to as “Useful Idiots”.

      Destabilization generally takes between two to five years to complete and encompasses the growth of big government, the economy, defense systems, foreign relations and the promises of government entitlements.

      There are three areas of focus within the Destabilization process:

      1. Economic (Radicalization of human relations: fighting – Normal relations are demoralized)
      2. Law and Order (Society becomes more antagonistic)
      3. Media (Positions itself in opposition to society in general)

      It is interesting to note that “Sleepers” within the target country, “awake”, or rise up after the Demoralization process is complete and position themselves in jobs of leadership, such as: professors, law enforcement – within prominent public positions. These sleepers actively involve themselves in the political process.

      These sleepers, once awake and engaged, concentrate on creating chaos and strife within society. Hot-button issues such as homosexuality are made into human rights issues, demanding these groups be recognized and respected. Other issues that cause chaos are equal rights, abortion, economic issues, ridistribution of wealth (Socialism) and income inequality.

    3. Crisis

      After the crisis or collapse occurs, a violent change in power, structure, and economy takes place. Crisis can happen by either civil war or invasion.

      A crisis can take as little as six weeks to complete. At this stage, there is no turning back from communism and the fate of the nation is sealed. During crisis, the following will occur.

      1. Installation of self-appointed committees (Revolutionary committees)
      2. People will look for someone or something to save them. Government always has the solution
    4. Normalization

      Normalization lasts indefinitely. This is the stage when communism is fully instituted and the people within its society lose any rights they had prior to the takeover. Groups of people that fought so hard for rights during the destabilization phase, such as homosexuals, will no longer have “rights” and will likely be eliminated from the new society. The beautiful utopia the leftist/progressives envisioned will no longer be a reality.

    After contemplating the four phases of communism and weighing it against our current political state, it should be crystal clear that the United States is in the last stage of destabilization. If a major event, whether manufactured by the government, or real, comes to pass, it will surly be the spark that ignites and thrusts our nation into crisis.

    I consistently hear people asking the same question: “Why don’t the republicans stop Obama?” or “Why hasn’t Obama been impeached?” The answer is simple. We have a one-party system, whereby both the democrats and republicans are playing on the same side. What we see on the news is nothing more than political theater; it is disinformation. Both parties are working toward the same goal – communism.

    As you watch these videos, please keep in mind that Mr. Bezmenov spoke about communism in 1984; thirty years from the time of this article. When you consider current events and social/political climate in the United States today, you will better understand how and why our country is in the state that it’s in. Mr. Bezmenov’s words and predictions are eerily prophetic and accurate.

    Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press
    YouTube
    Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society
    YouTube
    Cultural Marxism – Why are we in Decline
    YouTube
    Congresswoman Slips – Admits Socialism Is Goal
    YouTube
    45 Declared Goals From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen
    (Completed goals in red)
    1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
    2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
    3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
    4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
    5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
    6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
    7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
    8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
    9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
    10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
    11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
    12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
    13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
    14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
    15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
    16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
    17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
    18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
    19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
    20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
    21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
    22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
    23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
    27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
    28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
    29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
    30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
    31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
    32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
    33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
    34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
    35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
    36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
    37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
    38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
    39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
    40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
    41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
    42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
    43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
    44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
    45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
    Further Reading

    Please read Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov’s  Love Letter to America  for further reading on communism.

THE DANGERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, by JERRY O’NEIL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE & FORMER STATE SENATOR, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 3, COLUMBIA FALLS & KALISPELL, MONTANA

AGAINST AN AMENDMENTS CONVENTION Montana State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls, Wednesday, 26 February 2014—4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Central Standard Time

I am against an “Amendments Convention” as called for by Mark Levin, Rob Natelson and Tim Baldwin. I do not take this position lightly.

Under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, our President and Congress have taken over our banking, unions, businesses, communications, and education. They have created a secret police/national police (TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, etc), and instituted ObamaCare by which government will control all our health care. They have failed to turn over about 25% of the land area of Montana as was agreed to when we became a state. 

I agree freedom could be advanced with the proper amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a state legislator, I have attempted several times to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to place some control over, and limits on, the federal government. 

In 2003 I got a bill to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment out of the Senate Judiciary Committee – but it was defeated on the Senate Floor. In the 2005 legislative session I attempted to accomplish close to the same thing by having the Montana legislative caucuses nominate our U.S. Senate candidates to be on the general election ballot. 

In the 2013 legislative session, with Senator Verdell Jackson’s brilliantly executed motion for reconsideration in the Senate, I got House Joint Resolution 3 passed. This is a request for a constitutional amendment to put some sideboards on the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. I presently need some help to get other states to advance this concept. 

Then why am I against an Amendments Convention? Because I don’t believe the majority of the citizens of the United States currently understand or appreciate Freedom. It is not adequately taught in our schools or churches. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church seems to be ignorant of the fact that capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than socialism and communism ever have. 

Vaclav Klaus, the former Premier of the Czech Republic stated: 

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

While many of us in Montana have known what is happening for many years, we have not hollered loud enough to wake up our neighbors. We have not always supported the candidates who understood the basics of freedom when they were running for our school boards, city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, judges, congress and president. We have not sent enough letters to the editor speaking up for freedom. 

We have been complacent, attending churches where the preachers would not take a stand on Biblical principals of freedom because they were afraid they would loose their parishioners’ monetary support and their federal tax exemption. Many of these churches would not even mention it to their congregations when they knew a political candidate was in favor of government supported abortions. 

For years we have watched the Supreme Court put forth immoral, anti freedom and statist decisions , including the Dred Scott decision, the Slaughter House Cases, Wickard v. Filburn, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, Gonzales v. Raich, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. We have allowed the bigs, such as AIG, General Electric, Bank of America and Monsanto, to choose the likes of McCain and Romney to be our presidential candidates. (Will they choose Chris Christie for us this coming election?) 
We have known for years deficit financing as advocated by Keynesian economists constitutes theft from our seniors’ retirement accounts and supports the big banks. Yet the public supported the Federal Reserve Act in order to “furnish an elastic currency.” 
We have supported our universities where the professors of economics are beholden to the Federal Reserve System as consultants, board members, or for having published their masters or doctors thesis in one of the fed’s magazines. 

We have seen the evidence of how the “bigs”, including the pharmaceuticals, banking industry, insurance, unions and other protected industries and professions own the political establishment, but we have not supported the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to lessen the bigs’ power and return some semblance of states’ rights. 

We have seen socialism advance but have not challenged the expansion of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal intervention in education, food stamps, ObamaCare, and a whole plethora of other government programs. 

We have seen the installation of the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, but, because we were afraid, we kept silent. We accept airport screening and government eavesdropping. We take off our shoes at the airports like good comrades. 

The people of Montana believe government can pass laws to make them more affluent. 
In 2006 we 72.7% of the voters passed Initiative I-151 to increase the minimum wage. By so doing we devalued the dollar and deprived many Indian children on our reservations, where unemployment is over 50%, the opportunity to get their first job. The minimum wage effect on those whom age out of our foster care system is similarly devastating. At the age of 26, 46.8 percent of participants responding to one study were unemployed. We need to make it easier to hire the needy, not remove the bottom rung of their ladder to prosperity. 

In our last Montana election we passed initiative I-166 by a 3 to 1 majority. The fuzzy catch phrase with which it was sold to the public was “Corporations are not People.” That was what appeared on the ballot. The rest of I-166, which did not appear on the ballot, called for a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! The intent was to abolish the freedoms of speech, press and association that Congress is presently not allowed to interfere with. If I-166 is successful, these freedoms likely will be replaced with statutory rules as Congress sees fit. 

While the public remains asleep to the concept of freedom it is too dangerous to make it easier to change the Constitution. 
Our Constitution contains negative rights, stating what government can’t do to us or take away from us. We are too likely to throw away these “negative rights” contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace them with “positive rights,” such as a right to: free health care, free child care, living wages, and government controlled food prices. 

Maybe the chance to amend positive rights into our Constitution is the reason George Soros, Common Cause, the Move to Amend coalition and hundreds of other progressive organizations are also pushing for an Article V amendments convention. 

What are we going to do to save freedom for our progeny? When are we going to stop bowing to the socialists, fascists and communists? When are we going to demand our schools and churches teach and advocate for freedom? When are we going to join freedom fighters holding up signs along the highways criticizing the big government statists and asking for freedom? When are we going to stand up in church and speak up for political candidates who will fight for the Biblical truths and freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for? 

Until the majority of the public understands and believes in freedom an Amendments Convention is more likely to enslave us than to free us. Therefore I am against having one at this time.

Gilad Atzmon on his support for Dieudonne—interviewed on Al Jazeerah—I had the honor and privilege of meeting Gilad Atzmon last week in New York

I have been following Gilad Atzmon’s writings and advocacy for about six years now, and I consider him one of the foremost cultural, ethnic, socio-historical and political philosophers of our time.  Gilad is traveling in the United States and, if you get a chance to listen to his lectures or music, I urge you to do so.  I have NEVER met anyone quite like him.  I met him last week in New York City when he was staying as the guest of Michael Santomauro on the Upper East Side.  The several days spent with these two were one of the most intense intellectual experiences of my life, fully comparable to any seminar discussion on historical formation or cultural process, micro-or-macro evolution and ethnic identity or politics that I ever had in Anthropology, Biology, or History at Harvard or in Law at the University of Chicago—the level of feverish debate was (in my personal memory anyhow) closest to in chambers meetings between law clerks and Externs for the Ninth Circuit between clerks for Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski….  Everyone concerned with American, European, or Middle Eastern Culture, Economy, or Politics today needs to read Gilad Atzmon’s latest book The Wandering Who?

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

Opinion Editorials, February 2014




Dieudonné, Alain Soral, and Zionism:Gilad Atzmon Interviewed By Alimuddin UsmaniAl-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 24, 2014

AU: What led you to offer Dieudonné such support in his struggle against the French government?

GA: Dieudonné is the true meaning of resistance.  Being cogent and coherent, he has managed to expose in France the corrosive bond between contemporary Zionised socialism and Jewish political power.

For some time now, many of us who, in the 60s and 70s, were inspired by Left thinking have been confused by contemporary ‘progressive’ politics. For some reason, the so-called ‘New Left’ was very quick to compromise on crucial issues to do with labour and working class politics. Instead of siding with the workers and those struggling in society, the post-68 Left  adopted an identity-politics discourse that was actually aimed at breaking up society and the working class into isolated marginalisd groups. This led to political paralysis which in turn prepared the way for the invasion of big money, monopoly culture and globalization. It is this that Dieudonné, has managed to expose. He has also identified the power of the Holocaust religion and Jewish lobby power at the very heart of political establishment. Being the author of The Wandering Who – the book that took apart Jewish identity politics, I see Dieudonné as a continuation of myself. He is my twin and I stand up for both him and his cause.

AU: Dieudonné’s detractors accuse him of antisemitism and as evidence they offer that in his show, (now banned) he said this about a prominent Jewish radio journalist: “You see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself : Gas chambers…too bad”. His supporters explain that Dieudonné was simply responding to a provocation from this journalist who said that Dieudonné must be blacklisted from mainstream media and that people with “mental illness ” shouldn’t be invited to comment publically. What do you think? Did he go too far or do you think he had the right to respond to someone who wished for his social, economic and professional demise?

GA: Those Jews who insist that the Holocaust become our new state religion must accept that such a claim comes with a price. If you choose to identify yourself with gas chambers, Auschwitz and victimhood you must also accept that you will be identified as such by others.  I have no problem with Dieudonné’s reaction to Cohen. Dieudonné is an artist, his duty is to reshape and revise the vision of the world around us. Accordingly, placing a mirror in front of Cohen was a most appropriate thing to do.

AU: The only main political party in France who didn’t join in this “Dieudonné bashing” is the nationalist National Front founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. What is your explanation of that?

GA: It obviously means that in terms of tolerance and multi-cultural/ethnic openness your Nationalists are way ahead of any so called ‘progressives’ and the Left. But this does not surprise me. The Left has always found it difficult to bond with working people, in fact, the entire ‘progressive’ ethos is elitist to the bone. And again, this should come as no surprise. After all. identifying oneself as  ‘progressive’ surely means that someone else must be ‘reactionary’ – and that someone else is the working man or woman. This may explain why being ‘progressive’ is so attractive to so many Jews – it offers a godless alternative to their traditional choseness. It also explains why the workers generally stay away as far from the Left as they can. They much prefer identifying with the whole, the grand collective narrative, with the flag and with the language. rather than be progressive, they prefer to be patriotic and nationalist. And the outcome is clear: The  left eventually drifts away into a state of total detachment which is the exact state of the French socialist at the moment.

Now, Dieudonné, has managed to galvanize this Left detachment. Here we have a black person who enjoys the support of the National Front and is cheered on by a massive popular movement consisting of migrants and White working class – and all this has now matured into one giant Left collective neurosis. How amusing is this?

AU: Thanks to Nicolas Anelka, the British Media started to talk about Dieudonné. According to Alain Soral, the  BBC conducted quite fair interview with him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gdbXHsVks

Can you explain to us why the French media seem unable to give the same fair treatment to this story?

GA: To start with, let’s not delude ourselves. It is easy for Brits to mock French kosher totalitarianism but believe me, no one in the BBC dares discuss the embarrassing fact that 80% of our Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel. No one in the BBC has ever been brave enough to delve into the embarrassing fact that when Tony Blair took us into an illegal war in Iraq, his chief fundraiser was Lord Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). But let me answer your question as concisely as I can.

Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion on Jewish power. CRIF and BHL are not the essence of Jewish power, they are just symptoms of this power. The real Jewish power is the capacity to silence all discussion of the Lobby, CRIF and HBL. So Alain Soral should carry the ban against him as a badge of honour. It only reaffirms that the media doesn’t find within itself the intellectual capacity to challenge him and his work. This is hardly surprising, I’ve now begun to realise that George Orwell might well have been the last thinking person in the Left. The contemporary Left is a soundbite culture far removed from any dialectical thinking or intellectual exchange. It is indeed a tragedy.

AU: In our last interview you told us that you “learned that most Palestinian NGOs are funded by liberal Zionist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”  A French cartoonist named Joe le Corbeau, who was briefly arrested over a photo of a quenelle http://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/man-arrested-over-photo-of-quenelle-in-front-of-toulouse-jewish-school/, suggested in one of his cartoons that Femen are funded by Soros : http://judeologie.com/2013/05/28/the-femen-powers-prostitutes-par-joe-le-corbeau/

Do you think that may explain why these women perform only in mosques and churches and never in synagogues?

GA: Obviously, I don’t know whether Femen is funded by Soros but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. Soros’ philosophy, as far as I understand it, is very simple. He is a Liberal Zionist who funds a lot of ‘good causes’ – causes that just happen to also be ‘good for the Jews’.

Now, let me address Femen’s preferred choice of ‘artistic’ venues. As you probably know, Post-Structuralism is pretty much a French philosophical school of thought and may be  defined as an attempt to dismantle all ‘grand narratives’ except the Jewish one. In concert with the spirit of the 68 students’ revolution and the Frankfurt Yeshiva, Femen are more than happy pull apart every French cultural heritage – except the Jewish ones. Just follow the money trail, those people who facilitated their move to France – the record label and the ANR who signed them. Surely, you’ll find the answers within just a few minutes.

Here is an interesting anecdote that may throw some light on the topic. It was recently pointed out to me that in spite of the fact that Jewish radicals despise the Talmud and the Rabbinical culture and have been caught burning many religious congregation houses, mainly churches in Spain and the Ukraine etc.,  they have never burned a single synagogue.

AU: People who support the right of Femen to blaspheme are often the same people who call for the banning of Dieudonné’s shows. Don’t you think that these kinds of double standards will lead people to rise up against the elite?

GA: No doubt at all, and as we see, it’s already happening.

AU: Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni, who recently passed away, once said that accusation of antisemitism is a “trick” used to shut down critics of Israeli policy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbtu0-mgvw  How do you explain the current weakness of the Israeli left?

GA: ‘Weakness’ is an understatement. The Israeli left is non-existent and for a good reason: Jewish Left is an oxymoron. While ‘Left’ is a universal concept, Jewishness is a tribally driven ideology. Even Aloni,  whom I admired, wasn’t exactly a ‘universalist’. She didn’t really campaign for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages, she was mainly concerned with Israel being a ‘Jewish civilization’ as opposed to a universal one.

It is not a secret that the so-called ‘Jewish Left’ is in practice, a form of National Socialism. Those ‘radical’ Israeli leftists support a racially-driven ‘egalitarian’ philosophy – which applies to Jews only. In other words, they are full of contradictions so it’s hardly surprising that they are now pretty much extinct. On the other hand, right wing Israeli politics,  is as consistent as it is crudely unethical. It postulates that Jews are entitled to return to Palestine, and it draws on a vile, militaristic ideology and practice that aims to maintain this  Jewish hold on the land. Right-wing Zionist  leaders admit daily to not being ethical – but they justify their national project in terms of survival. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it is only natural for Israelis to identify with a consistently tribal right-wing ideology instead of some half-baked, convoluted and totally inconsistent (but always kosher), socialist clap-trap.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  Amazon.co.uk

Interview: Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and Zionism

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/interview-atzmon-on-dieudonne-alain-soral-and-zionism.html

Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info editor@ccun.org

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2014/February/24%20o/Dieudonne,%20Alain%20Soral,%20and%20Zionism,%20Gilad%20Atzmon%20Interviewed%20By%20Alimuddin%20Usmani.htm

Is this another knowing and willful (but insane) step towards socialism? What we need is to restore the Common Law and make individual Judges Accountable for Enforcing the Law in a Constitutional Manner

California cities eye plan to seize mortgages

Associated PressBy AMY TAXIN and CHRISTINA REXRODE | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

FONTANA, Calif. (AP) — In the foreclosure-battered inland stretches of California, local government officials desperate for change are weighing a controversial but inventive way to fix troubled mortgages: Condemn them.

Officials from San Bernardino County and two of its cities have formed a local agency to consider the plan. The securities industry has been quick to register its displeasure and say it will only make loans harder to get.

Discussion of the idea is taking place in one of the epicenters of the housing crisis, a working-class region east of Los Angeles where housing prices have plummeted. Last week brought another sharp reminder of the crisis when the 210,000-strong city of San Bernardino, struggling after shrunken home prices walloped local tax revenues, announced it would seek bankruptcy protection.

Now — and amid skepticism on many fronts — officials from the surrounding county of San Bernardino and cities of Fontana and Ontario have created a joint powers authority to consider what role local governments could take to stem the crisis. The goal is to keep homeowners saddled by largemortgage payments from losing their homes — which are now valued at a fraction of what they were once worth.

“We just have too much pain and misery in this county to call off a public discussion like this,” said David Wert, a county spokesman.

The idea was broached by a group of West Coast financiers who suggest using the power of eminent domain, which lets the government seize private property for public purpose.

In this case, they would condemn troubled mortgages so they could seize them. Then the borrowers would be helped into mortgages with significantly lower monthly payments.

Steven Gluckstern, chairman of the newly formed San Francisco-based Mortgage Resolution Partners, says his main concern is to help the economy, which is being held back by the mortgage crisis.

“This is not a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around saying, ‘How do we make money?'” he said. “This was a bunch of Wall Street guys sitting around saying, ‘How do you solve this problem?'”

Typically, eminent domain has been used to clear property for infrastructure projects like highways, schools and sewage plants. In this case, supporters say, the public purpose is served because communities battered by foreclosures have seen tax rolls decimated and services gutted and have suffered economic blight.

The plan targets homeowners who are current on their mortgage payments but “under water,” meaning they owe more on the mortgage than the home is worth. Here’s how it would work for a hypothetical city:

— The city goes to court and argues that the public purpose is served by having the county own, and ultimately refinance, the mortgage.

— The city pays fair market value to the owner of the mortgage. That is usually a securitization trust, an otherwise passive financial entity used to bundle mortgages and sell pieces to investors that became a bigger part of the mortgage market during the 2000s housing boom.

— The city, the new owner of the mortgage, encourages and helps the homeowner to find refinancing. Now the principal is lower, and interest rates are at historic lows, so the homeowner winds up with easier monthly payments.

— Mortgage Resolution Partners collects a flat fee, $4,500 per loan, for helping the city find homeowners who can be helped and for handling the other mechanics of the process.

The company says everyone should wind up happy: The homeowners get lower payments, cities help clean up the mortgage crisis and shore up their tax base, and the mortgage-owning trusts unload a risky asset.

Rick Rayl, an eminent domain lawyer in Irvine, Calif., who is not connected to the company, said the plan could have unintended consequences, like discouraging banks and other lenders from making new mortgage loans in an area.

“The lenders are going to be livid,” he said.

The company says that focusing on borrowers who are current on their loans is a smart way to do business, rewarding those who are already working hard to keep their homes.

At the first meeting of the joint powers authority on Friday, chairman and San Bernardino County chief executive Greg Devereaux said the entity — which was inspired by Mortgage Resolution Partners’ proposal — has not decided on a specific course of action.

Timothy Cameron, managing director of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association’s asset managers group, told the authority that residents of the region would find it harder to get loans and investors — including pensioners — would suffer losses. He also said such a move would invite costly litigation.

“The use of eminent domain will do more harm than good,” he said. “We need mortgage investors and lenders to come back to these fragile markets — but this plan will force both groups to avoid them.”

Robert Hockett, a Cornell University law professor, said the plan forces the hand of some investment bankers who bundle mortgage loans into securities and sell pieces to investors.

The bankers have sometimes stifled plans to reduce mortgage payments, he said. Their objections to this plan, he said, are “kind of like saying a loan shark objects to anti-predatory lending laws.”

Theodore Woodard, a 62-year-old retired air conditioner installer, said he’d welcome the help on his five-bedroom home in Fontana. So far, he and his wife have kept up with monthly $3,100 payments, plus taxes and insurance, but it hasn’t been easy, and they have watched several neighbors in the well-manicured neighborhood some 50 miles east of Los Angeles lose their homes to foreclosure.

“We’ve been making our monthly payments, barely making them, but we just pay them and try to survive off what’s left,” said Woodard, who estimates his house has lost a third of its value since 2004.

In San Bernardino County, the problem is clear. The median home price has plunged to $150,000 from $370,000 in five years. The combined San Bernardino-Riverside metro area has the highest foreclosure rate of any large metro area in the country, at four times the national average, according to RealtyTrac, which tracks foreclosure properties.

Devereaux, who has seen other plans to fix the housing crisis peter out, is cautious.

“I don’t know whether this will work or not,” he said. “But we do think we have a responsibility to explore it.”

Rexrode reported from New York. AP Business Writer Daniel Wagner contributed to this report from Washington, D.C.

on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

The Futility of Individualized Resistance to Collectivization: the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation

I want to deliver a very short and bitter message here: individual case litigation strategies have failed and are doomed to continued failure.  EVERY PERSON who wants to fight in court for his or her family home in Court in California must include a Constitutional Challenge to the Non-Judicial Foreclosure System and all the component statutes, but even this is not enough: the remedy is political action.  Until these statutes and the nation-wide socialistic policies which support them are obliterated, which can be reliably expected to happen ONLY through political rather than judicial action, the institutions of private property and the home-based family will continue to erode and disintegrate.  

Without MASSIVE LEGAL REFORM, there is no hope that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” will not be continually violated as it has been in millions of cases nationwide.  These mass foreclosure and eviction policies have been approved and strategies formulated by the government at the highest levels.  

(That was the short brief and very bitter message—all the rest that follows is an elaboration on these points).

I am writing today to announce firmly that I think that everyone involved in the “Anti-Foreclosure” guerilla resistance is and has been misguided, myself included.  We have to stop thinking, or even looking for ways, to succeed on an individual, case-by-case basis.  We have to organize as a community whose wealth and values are under siege.  Offering potential strategies or hypothetical solutions to individuals is just “wrong” and we’ve got to give it up.  We must organize like the abolitionists before 1861, like the labor unions from the 1880s-1920s, like the real civil rights activists of the 1950s-60s.  All our “gurus” and sources of individual advice regarding individual and isolated action, from the cosmically brilliant Neil Garfield on his wonderful “Living Lies” website, down the hierarchy through local geniuses like April Carrie Charney and Malcolm Doney in Florida, Charles Koppa and Catherine Bryan in Orange and San Diego Counties, California all the way down to Theresa Moore and Robert Garvin in Studio City and finally Peyton and me have just had it all wrong—–we have been doing more harm than good.  

We are all either engaging in false hopes or blindly misleading people to think that we can stop the seizure of homes and property in any sort of systematic way through litigation and the court system.  

Worse than that, by offering false hopes to people and engaging in one losing court-battle after another, we have been bolstering and shoring up the success of the corporate-banking enemies.

What I am writing today is that the individual case-litigation approach is a massive failure even to slowing the rates of foreclosure and eviction in California or anywhere else.  Even in Florida, at best “Anti-Foreclosure Guerillas” like April Carrie Charney, Malcolm Doney and Catherine Bryan can claim very if outright victories other than temporary delay in a small percentage, not even a statistically significant minority of foreclosures or evictions.  

The individual case strategy cannot be used to eradicate what is a society-wide systemic cancer created by the politically tempting bait of “easy credit” which was, after all, the original communist-socialist demand of the mid-to-late nineteenth century.

Because “easy credit” is by definition based on wants and desires rather than actual wealth or production, “easy credit” is the antithesis of capitalism or any sound economic system, but it sure is popular if you’re a politician….  When they said that Communism works through the ways and means of the devil, they weren’t kidding: the theory that temptation has been the path to sin and death since the Garden of Eden is not actually “just a theory” but a fairly demonstrable fact.

Even coordinated constitutional litigation cannot work because I do not think we can every achieve statewide in California, much less nationwide, anything like what I tried and failed to achieve in the family courts in Williamson County Texas in 2005-7.  What I tried in Georgetown, Texas, was to try to arouse and incite enough popular discontent and cooperative participant action among parents that we might close down the system.  I came close enough that Judge James F. Clawson commented on the fact that if he did not ban me from further litigation in the state of Texas, I would have closed down the Family Law Courts.  

But in fact we did not come anywhere close to permanently shutting down the courts by flooding them with protests and constitutionally demanding civil rights motions and litigation maneuvers.  We just got labelled “paper terrorists.”  Ok, Assistant Texas A.G. James Carlton Todd and his boss Mr. Greg Abbott actually called me “the most dangerous paper terrorist in Texas”—but that dubious distinction plus $5.00 is barely enough to buy you a coffee and pound cake at Starbucks these days.

Given the scale of the foreclosure crisis—Millions in California alone—tens of millions nationwide—1.5 million abandoned and empty homes in Florida—we have to recognize this as a problem much bigger than any of us as individuals.  

Slavery was not abolished by helping individual slaves escape through the “underground railroad” or even through individual plantation-owners granting manumission by will to hundreds or thousands of slaves upon their deaths by will.  

Decent wages in factories were never achieved by individualized negotiation for “modifications” of employment contracts—only by COLLECTIVE ACTION on the part of organized labor unions—and that is what we need in the foreclosure arena.  And in doing so we have to recognize that we face, just like the operators of the underground railway did, just as the early leaders of the labor movement did in the 1880s-1890s, the possibility of arrest and even armed suppression of our movement.  (Compare the “Haymarket Riot” in Chicago on May 4, 1886 and the much larger and more widespread Pullman Riots, also centered in Chicago but Nationwide, in the summer of 1894.)

So if we REALLY oppose collectivization of private property we cannot do so individually, we cannot oppose the government one-on-one, unless we do so as “We the People” acting politically and in concert.  To this end I would ask for contributions to take out full – page ads in the Los Angeles Times and advertise on television and radio as well as the internet.  “CALIFORNIA FORECLOSURE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL—TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS BEFORE THEY TAKE YOUR HOME, IF YOUR HOME HAS BEEN TAKEN, TAKE BACK YOUR RIGHTS AND YOUR HOME.

We must clearly articulate our position that: we know that the Foreclosure Crisis is Government Policy in Action, Securitization is the Banks’ Communistic Mechanism for Confiscation, and we demand an end to both the governmental policy and the (ironic as it might seem) banks’ confiscation of property by securitization.  

The outward trappings of capitalism have become the instruments of communistic confiscation and expropriation of homes and the destruction of families.  This will only end when the people demand it to end—and the Courts are not the proper arenas to do this. Courts in the United States and Europe, all known judicial systems, really, are designed at best to correct (or compensate) small variant problems and deviations from established norms.  

We who OPPOSE foreclosure and eviction, who DEMAND adherence to the common law and constitutional norms respecting contract and the right to own property according to contractual terms and rights, WE are the deviants now, and it is UP TO US to bring the law into conformity.  It is a tall order, but it is the only way we can reclaim our heritage and our RIGHTS to property—even when so much property has already been lost or destroyed.

Courts can only act as mechanisms for the imposition of widespread social and cultural change when they are expressly delegated this purpose by the political branches, as they have been during the racial civil rights movements 1948-1972 and the less well-publicized but even more historically significant family and domestic relations “reformulations” involving no fault divorce, abortion, and “sexual liberation” generally during the period starting not later than 1962 and continuing until the present time.  

Ironically, for all its internal contradictions, for all that it was an incomplete movement which only raised up one part of society by dragging down another, upgraded some statements of rights while degrading others, some of the best pro freedom statements and constitutional formulations of the law as written today owe their origins to the American Civil Rights movement.  

The civil rights movements of both the 1860s-70s (though mostly constitutional and statutory) and 1950s-60s (mostly judicial) had many positive components and results which were actually pro-freedom and anti-communist (although the movement itself was widely labelled as “communistic” by many opponents during the twentieth century—I often retell the story that among my earliest memories of highway driving in Texas and Louisiana were the “Impeach Earl Warren” signs all throughout the South and Southwest in the late 1960s).  

Again ironically, the “sexual liberation” movement and now the mortgage foreclosure crisis have undone many of the positive, pro freedom, effects of the civil rights movement by creating new forms of oppression (as indeed have some statutory civil rights programs—as distinct from a strong majority of the judicial decisions of the civil rights quarter century noted, 1948-1972).  

But the mortgage foreclosure crisis appears to be completing what was worst in both the civil rights and sexual liberation movements: the final destruction of the home-based family and stable neighborhood community.  In fact, it is fair to say that, on the populist activist level, it would now be impossible to have a civil rights movement analogous to the one that started after World War II, because NO COHERENT COMMUNITIES OF ANY POLITICALLY SIGNIFICANT SIZE REMAIN IN AMERICA TODAY—we are truly a nation of transients).

For fifteen years now, since 1996, I have been involved almost continuously in Civil Rights litigation of one species or another against State and Corporate abuses of individual rights and personal autonomy, against takings of liberty & property without due process of law.  I started off fighting the Sheriffs and Police Departments in Central Texas, disputing their claims of “qualified immunity” to abuse the rights and autonomy of people on a random and unsystematic basis, almost like criminals or terrorists.  I then graduated to believing the problem took a more systematic form with a plan to destroy the individual and family regularly and predictably, and that the root of problem lay with judicial immunity and the Court system, especially the Family or Domestic Relations Courts.  I still believe that at both levels, our local, state, and national institutions have betrayed their birthright in liberty.

Since 2006, my focus has been primarily against the mortgage finance and credit systems.  During these five years’ time I have researched and experimented with many varieties of theories or approaches to common-law (and commercial code) holder-in-due-course doctrine, privity of contract, quiet title, securities fraud, and other pro-consumer, pro-buyer, theories.  I have tried and tested such theories at the very least in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, Arizona, Nevada, and (most intensely of all since 2008) California.   I know that, logically and rationally, all these theories are either correct in some absolute or historical or logical sense, but they do not work in Court in ANY SORT OF PREDICTABLE WAY. What this means is that, as a matter of any individual’s “reasonable expectation”, there is no adequate remedy at law or in equity, there is only the occasional, seemingly almost random, single decision in a thousand or so that goes the way of the owner consumer.  This is not a matter of “legal victory”, this is a matter of “playing the odds” at Roulette or Blackjack, much worse than betting on racecars, ponies, thoroughbreads, or greyhounds whose mechanical design and/or natural and innate skills can be rated and assessed objectively.

In the past five years, no two cases or situations have ever been exactly alike, but the pattern is always the same: the decks in the courthouses across the nation are stacked against the homeowner/consumer/buyer/ “borrower” or “credit applicant/credit user.”   I feel I fairly competently understand the law in only five states at the present time: California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas (although all the Ninth Circuit States—Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Washington—are by conscious historical design pretty close in design and execution of statutory scheme to California).   In Florida and New Jersey, the law is EXCELLENT, in that foreclosure and eviction are both by the clear requirement of the law judicial in nature, and common law modified by the commercial code is all that counts.  Yet the rate of foreclosure is astronomical in both states.  In Florida, they are dragging judges out of retirement to preside over the foreclosure epidemic in the state with the flimsiest houses (owing to both construction and lack of regular winter weather) and the nation’s longest tradition of continuous real estate fraud.  In New Jersey, there is a moratorium on foreclosure proceedings until the system “can catch up with itself” whatever that means.  

In California, the worst laws in the country are fueling the worst foreclosure epidemic anywhere in history.  I have written extensively about California Civil Code §§2924 et seq., especially 2924a, 2924i, and the related “attorney conspiracy” limitations of §1714.10.  Michigan and Texas are both “mixed” systems where judicial and non-judicial foreclosure are authorized by law, but non-judicial foreclosure has become the norm in the past decade.

It was only when I came to California in 2008 that I began to realize for certain what was really going on, and what is really going on is that the United States Government, and State Governments with more-or-less enthusiasm, are cooperating with banks and finance companies to abolish private property and turn ownership of all private interests to a state-controlled governmental-corporate conglomerate along the lines originally suggested in Karl Marx’ and Frederick Engels’ Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      In some very real ways, the most disturbing results come from Massachusetts.  To the same degree that I believe that the Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loan case (121 CalRptr3d 819 OPINION Gomes v Countrywide Home Loans Inc Feb_18_2011) illustrates the utter futility of fighting within the law of California—(when the law itself is the enemy and unconstitutional wall-to-wall), I had thought that the Ibanez case in Massachusetts showed a glimmer of sanity and light on the East Coast US Bank Nat Ass’n v Ibanez 458 Mass 637 941 NE2d 40 (Massachusetts 2011).  Peyton’s research in Massachusetts last month (May 2011) has brought evidence to my attention that Ibanez in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with securitization and that Massachusetts law appears to expressly permit the separation of ownership of the note and ability to collect on the mortgage, and has done so for approximately 100 years.  In particular, two sections of its general laws make Massachusetts appear as bad or even worse than California in terms of its statutory scheme, although Massachusetts generally has a much “kinder and gentler” set of consumer protection laws § 9-609 Secured Party’s Right to Take Possession After Default UCC 106 Art 9 GENERAL LAWS of MASSACHUSETTS and § 9-607 Collection and Enforcement by Secured Party (these are all part of the “gentle, gradual” transition to socialism which deceptively gives the—entirely false— appearance of respect for individual rights).  The “Uniform Commercial Code Comment” for 1999 Main Volume appears to confirm that the note and mortgage may be separated in Massachusetts by stating: 

“6. Relationship to Rights and Duties of Persons Obligated on Collateral. This section permits a secured party to collect and enforce obligations included in collateral in its capacity as a secured party. It is not necessary for a secured party first to become the owner of the collateral pursuant to a disposition or acceptance.”

In other words, Massachusetts Law addresses by editing the Uniform Commercial Code what would otherwise is and should remain one of the strongest common law (and in fact, “normal” commercial code) explanations for why securitized mortgages are (everywhere else) facially illegal. It is widely known that Massachusetts and California are two of the most “socialist-tending” states in the Union—so the Ibanez case as originally (apparently, COMPLETELY misinterpreted) was a major surprise.  See also the Boston Bar Journal Comment on the case: Boston Bar Journal US BANK v IBANEZ THE MORTGAGE INDUSTRY’S DOCUMENTATION PRACTICES IN FOCUS, and for the disconnection between Massachusetts law and the rest of the United States Concerning the necessary that “note and mortgage travel together” see the Westlaw Journal Article published on Valentine’s Day: 02-14-2011 IBANEZ A 19TH-CENTURY DECISION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY.  

Now, regardless of whether California or Massachusetts has the WORST foreclosure law “on the books” the simple truth is that the law, and the way that the law is consistently applied by the courts—is the primary problem—NOT “robo signing” by the banks, NOT any of the faults or practices of the banks at all in fact—because if the Courts would enforce the common law and constitution against the financial industry, criminal and civil violations would be recognized and dealt with as such.  The problem is that the law and the Courts have effectively IMMUNIZED the Banks and financial institutions pursuant to an express government policy—very succinctly and clearly, and unambiguously identified, articulated, and described in the California Gomes opinion attached above, from February 18, 2011, that California public policy favors quick and easy foreclosure.  Foreclosure has thus become a kind of “kindly manner” of execution in this “Brave New World” in which we now live.  (Compare G.B. Shaw’s Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism” which explains: 

…under Socialism…..you would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not.  If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well.”)

One repeating mantra of the “easy credit” society is that “living well is the best revenge” but appears that in a Socialist Society—others (namely the Corporate/Governmental Intelligencia) has the power to decide on our behalf what constitutes good living.  Obviously, the choice to live austerely in the desert and contemplate truth, like the early Christian monastics known as “The Desert Fathers” would be off limits/impermissible.  I suppose “living well” means buying at shopping malls, living in government/corporate allocated housing which will be awarded based on the degree of your conformity with government/corporate policy—whatever that is—which determines whether you have or have not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble.”

Getting to these conclusions and understanding what’s going on has been a long and fairly painful process…..

       It is still less than ten years since, on my son Charlie’s tenth birthday, California Attorney Deborah S. Gershon, then Vice-President and General Counsel of AAMES Home Loan, Inc., informed me that AAMES could not modify any Home Loans because the notes at all been pooled and securitized.  Following up, I now find that Deborah S. Gershon (according to her profile with the California State Bar) is employed by and affiliated with another subprime lender: “Signature Group Holdings, Inc.” (owner of “Signature Capital Advisers, LLC, Fremont Credit Corporation and Fremont Investment & Loan Bank of California).  This is very interesting because Fremont Investment & Loan went through bankruptcy reorganization a couple of years ago as a direct result of some early “foreclosure crisis” litigation in Massachusetts relating to predatory lending in the sub-prime field.  See, e.g., http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/452/452mass733.html (452 Mass. 733, 2008) and also, Attorney General Martha Coakley’s press release on her $10MM settlment http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=cagopressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Cago&b=pressrelease&f=2009_06_09_fremont_agreement&csid=Cago   In short, Deborah S. Gershon has dedicated her life to the securitization of mortgages and related financial and legal endeavors.  It is apparently a very good business, and a very good line of work.  Those who had the foresight to join in that movement deserve the same respect as those who saw that the Bolsheviks were destined to rule Russia after the 1917 Revolution, that Mao Tse-Tung would triumph over Chiang Kai-shek (aka Jiǎng Jièshí or Jiǎng Zhōngzhèng in Mandarin), and that Saigon would ultimately fall to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam (for the Vietnamese aftermath, seehttp://www.eng.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/eng/news/default.aspx?cat_id=513&news_id=12053#content “Scientific seminar on President Ho Chi Minh and the road to national salvation”).

AAMES was a pioneer in home equity loans, starting an advertising program in the late 1970s (Carter Administration) which included some fairly interesting and or amusing ads, see for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjTzEzNT7_M&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgB335zLfc&NR=1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp5STpiAwt0.  AAMES is thus one of the earliest criminal enterprises which insinuated the concept of Easy Home Credit through the Yellow Pages into the American Consciousness as a vehicle of expanding credit regardless of productivity and wealth or REAL need—and AAMES’ was a mover in reshaping Federal and State laws to allow for the extension of such loans and the consequent expropriation of homes without due process of law.  

In one sense, the American people bear full responsibility for and complicity in this crisis up to the present time.  More certainly even than that the Germans voted Hitler and the Nazi Party into power in not one fluke but two successive national elections in 1932 and 1933, the Americans have repeated voted the supporters of easy credit and punitive and confiscatory policies leading to the expropriation of property into power.  The destruction of Germany under Hitler and during World War II, then was guaranteed by only two elections.  

The Americans have been voting soft-sell corporate socialists into power continuously for 76 years since 1932, with increasingly express enthusiasm since at least 1970 (the last “real” anti-communists to receive any electoral votes for the Presidency were Barry Goldwater in 1964 and George Wallace in 1968).  The election of 2008 saw the first election of the first avowedly, admittedly socialist President in U.S. History, and major magazine articles discussed his commitment to socialism with fanfare as “Cover” articles, but little actual controversy.  And the greatest irony was that there was not one IOTA of difference between the “avowedly socialist” policies of President Barack Hussein Obama and the “Conservative Republican” policies of George Walker Bush—Obama has yet to introduce a single policy without precedent in his predecessor’s administration more significant than his “cash for clunkers” program.  (“Obamacare” has actually been “in the works” since 1993 during Hillary’s first term in the White House….. yes, if Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky made anything clear about Bill Clinton, it was that if anyone was wearing the pants in the White House during the first term, it certainly was NOT him….and in fact Hillary’s support for health care reform back then was well-known and publicized).  

The highly controversial “individual mandate” for healthcare has been a socialist threat since the 1920s.  Samuel Gompers, an early American union leader, founder of the American Federation of Labor (A.F.L.) and contemporary of Eugene Debbs, argued against the individual mandate as early as January 22, 1917:

“Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty.  The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty.  Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.”

If Gompers could see the “individual mandate” coming in January of 1917, it is not so surprising that we now HAVE IT as enacted law today, in June 2011, despite considerable resistance in the courts and public mind.

And the general proposition that socialism would be imposed by stealth on the United States people without their realizing it has been around since at least 1947, when Harvard’s famed professor of history (and CUNY “Albert Schweitzer Professor of the Humanities”) wrote in an oft-quoted essay:

IF SOCIALISM (i.e. OWNERSHIP BY THE STATE OF ALL SIGNIFICANT MEANS OF PRODUCTION) is to preserve democracy, it must be brought about step by step in a way which will not disrupt the fabric of custom, law, and mutual confidence upon which personal rights depend.

         That is, the transition must be piecemeal; it must be parliamentary; it must respect civil liberties and due process of law Socialism by such means used to seem fantastic to the hardeyed melodramatists of the Leninist persuasion; but even Stalin is reported to have told Harold Laski recently [remember this was written in 1947] that it might be possible.  . . . There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals.  

        Socialism, then, appears quite practical within this frame of reference, as a longtime proposition.  Its graduate advance might well preserve law and order…. the active agents in effecting the transition will probably be, not the working classes, but some combination of lawyers, business and labor managers, politicians, and intellectuals, in the manner of the first New Deal.  

Quoted in John A. Stormer’s 1964 None Dare Call it Treason, Ch. XIII, Economics & Government: 199.

I submit to you that we find ourselves in a critical moment of history.  I oppose collectivism because I want to own my home and all its contents.  If people steal my home and all its contents under any pretext which violates my common law contractual and constitutional rights, I want them to be held liable as thieves and compelled either to restore my property to me or to compensate me very richly for the loss of the same.  I have in fact lost two homes and their valuable movable content to such “predatory lending practices”, once in Texas and once in California, both times in 2009.       I don’t think it is a coincidence that these criminal acts happened during the first full year of the first term of the first openly socialist President of the United States.  Expropriation and confiscation and destruction of private property are, in essence, a core part of the socialist way of life, mandated by the express terms of the Communist Manifesto of 1848.  

      How do you feel about your homes and property, if you still have them OR if you’ve already lost them?  Do you believe that those who oppose collectivism are routinely discredited by smears as I and so many others have been?  Do you believe that we should all accept that we “can’t fight city hall” as our philosophy and settle down to “exist” within the framework of a completely-controlled, federally dominated economy and culturally decimated way of life?  Do you feel that politicians should avoid genuine controversy, and focus on emotionally “hot” issues which are tangential to the choices we have to make that will define our own and our children’s way of life for hundreds of years to come?  

Should we all just look to our own individual interests or should we band together and fight until the laws which permit Collectivisation of our Society and the Confiscation and/or Expropriation of all that we own are repealed and or overturned?

NONE OF THESE THINGS WILL EVER OCCUR THROUGH INDIVIDUAL CASE-BY-CASE LITIGATION.  NONE OF US WILL EVER REALLY OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY AGAIN UNTIL ALL OF US CAN OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY and, within the words of the Fourth Amendment, know for sure that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” either by the Federal Government, the State Government, Local Sheriffs, or Privateering Real Estate Pirates Like Steven D. Silverstein and all the other marauders like him who operate “under color of law” in California and nationwide.

Will Florida be infected and destroyed by the cancer of non-judicial foreclosure?

My Gratitude to Deborah Focht of Sarasota for providing this important information.  Deborah (aka “American Reply”) is another one of Florida’s Great Lady Warriors who fight against creeping Socialist dictatorship in America.  And let there be no doubt, although the state of California has the worst laws on non-judicial foreclosure, non-judicial foreclosure EVERYWHERE is unconstitutional (1) as an impairment of the rights of contract for existing contracts, (2) an abridgment of the common law freedom of contract on which this nation was founded and flourished for about 150-190 years (any relic traces of real economic freedom pretty much ended, for the economy as a whole, about during the middle of the Johnson Administration at the absolute latest), (3) a legislatively engineered taking of property for public purposes (those purposes being the maximization of governmental power against the citizen, and the diminution of individual freedom and stability to maintain and reserve power against the state) without due process of law, (4) a complete abrogation of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, as well as the key to universal corporate-governmental co-ownership of property.  It is because of non-judicial foreclosure that I decided to enter politics (too late, too disorganized, and too underfunded to accomplish much in 2010, most probably, but I consider my present WRITE-IN CANDIDACY against Barbara Boxer as just the first step in running against Feinstein in 2012—-and I will have a much better organization by then).
Freitag, den 9. April 2010, 20:46:07 UhrHomeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act HB 1523 – STOP the Madnes!!!! bill has been substituted by a far worse version than the original
Von:
“AmericanReply@gmx.com” <americanreply@gmx.com>

Zu Kontakten hinzufügen

An: Undisclosed recipents <americanreply@gmx.com>
18 Dateien  Alle herunterladen
4376.jpg (16KB); emailyourrepresentative.png (4KB); photobutton.png (3KB); 4372.jpg (35KB); 4457.jpg (35KB); 4267.jpg (15KB); 4272.jpg (13KB); 4289.jpg (7KB); 4449.jpg (39KB); 4387.jpg (43KB);4263.jpg (38KB); 4385.jpg (11KB); 4433.jpg (37KB); 4287.jpg (15KB); 4386.jpg (13KB); 4396.jpg (37KB); 4367.jpg (14KB); 4443.jpg (60KB)




HB 1523 – Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act – STOP the Madness of Nonjudicial Foreclosure

Published April 9, 2010 CorruptionFannie MaeForeclosure FraudMERSMortgage Fraudbankruptcycdocdsforeclosurefreddie macmortgage electronic registration systemsecurities fraudLeave a Comment
Tags: 4closurefraudAdam M. FettermanAudrey Gibsonbank fraudCarl J. DominoCivil Justice & Courts Policy CommitteeconspiracycriminalDoug HolderEduardo “Eddy” GonzalezEric Eisnaugle,Florida Bankers AssociationforeclosureForeclosure Fraudhb 1523hb1523Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery ActJames W. “Jim” WaldmanJr.Julio RobainaKevin C. AmblerLuis R. Garcia,Michael B. “Mike” WeinsteinnonjudicialPerry E. Thurstonproduce the noteRobert C. “Rob” SchenckSandra “Sandy” AdamsTom GradyWilliam D. Snyderwrongful foreclosure

SPREAD THE WORD!

The bill has been substituted by a far worse version than the original. It is being voted on by the Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee on Monday April 12, 2010

READ BILL IN ITS ENTIRETY HERE AND CONTACT THE REPRESENTATIVES BELOW IMMEDIATELY BY PHONE AND EMAIL PROVIDED BELOW.

The Florida Bankers Association, like a coven of evil banking wizardshopes to commit an act of sorcery by conjuring up three letters “NON” to be placed in front of the word “Judicial” in Regards to Florida’s Foreclosure Process.

In this bill they propose changing the Florida law which currently requires foreclosures to be adjudicated through the courts to a new law which would allow foreclosures to bypass the judicial system altogether to become a NON Judicial foreclosure state.

Why? Perhaps the gravy train has foreseen a few obstacles on the track ahead (legally strong foreclosure defenses, educated judges, wiser populace, state mandated mediation requirements). These Florida Bankers may be trying to ease their way on the path of least resistance to confiscate more homes and more wealth from both the homeowners and the investors who funded these loans.

Or could it be the Florida Supreme Courts new Rules?

First, rule 1.110(b) is amended to require verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. The primary purposes of this amendment are (1) to provide incentive for the plaintiff to appropriately investigate and verify its ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate; (2) to conserve judicial resources that are currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded “lost note” counts and inconsistent allegations; (3) to prevent the wasting of judicial resources and harm to defendants resulting from suitsbrought by plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations.

OR MAYBE ASSET BACKED SECURITIZATION MEANS NO NOTE?

Regardless of the statements above, this bill could be devastating to the millions of Floridians facing foreclosures caused bybanks selling loans connived to a well planned default, bundling the bad debt, and betting against it to ensure a win for the banks and foreclosure for homeowners.

As it stands now, these aggressive, unprofessional foreclosure mills and their Plaintiff clients are still filing fabricated documents by the millions without any respect for the integrity of our official public records or the laws of evidence set by the judiciary system even after they were sanctioned by Judge Olson for these same issues. If this is how foreclosures are rammed throughwhen we have a glimmer of hope of judicial protection, imagine the steamroller effect which will potentially ensue if this bill is passed, the flood gates thrown open, and the judicial dike washed away.

So we ask the following, shall Florida:

  • Join the 37 states which allow non-judicial foreclosures to proceed without any protections whatsoever for the homeowner?
  • Allow the Bankers to smother the judicial branch as they have the executive and legislative branches?
  • Disrespect the serious efforts of the Florida Supreme Court Task Force on Foreclosures and the Honorable Chief Justice Peggy Quince’s order mandating mediation for all homesteaded properties in foreclosure?
  • Ignore the contagion of Stockholm Syndrome that has infected most of our local, state, and national politician sycophants who bow with obeisance as the bankers confiscate millions of constituents’ homes?
  • Cost shift the $1,900 foreclosure lawsuit filing fee from the foreclosing entity to the financially stressed, perhaps newly unemployed Floridian family trying to defend their home?
  • Transfer the burden of proof in a foreclosure action from the foreclosing bank which has great difficulty producing authentic, genuine evidence showing its right to foreclose, to the homeowner who has subsistence survival worries?
  • Banish pro se litigants and clients of foreclosure defense attorneys from the halls of justice, allowing entry to only those who have the funds to pay the “cover charge”?
  • Allow to go unopposed the fabricated mortgage assignments, dubious indorsed notes, unauthorized property transfers, and deeply clouded property titles?
  • Trust as altruistic the professed motives of the same bankers who charge egregious credit card interest rates, overdraft and late fees, place holds on deposits, and reward themselves with billions in bonuses while crushing their customers under the weight of usurious loans?
  • Eradicate the right of due process granted by the U.S. Constitution:
    • Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
    • Right to be present at the trial
    • Right to an impartial jury
    • Right to be heard in one’s own defense

The Bankers have taken our jobs, our savings, our 401Ks, our education funds, our public safety nets, the equity in our property, our municipality revenue source, our access to credit, and our credit scores. Florida being a deficiency state, we may lose our home to foreclosure and end up with a garnished paycheck for the deficiency.  Second mortgage holders are freezing bank accounts to get their piece of the action. Now that we have almost nothing left, will we also abdicate to these Florida Bankers our Constitutional rights?

GENERAL BILL by Insurance, Business & Financial Affairs Policy Committee and Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee and Grady (CO-SPONSORS) Domino; Eisnaugle; O’Toole

Homeowner Relief: Creates “Homeowner Relief & Housing Recovery Act”; provides general provisions for nonjudicial foreclosures; provides criteria for notice & knowledge; provides for transactions creating security interest; provides for time of foreclosure; provides procedures, requirements, & limitations before foreclosure; specifies right to foreclose; requires notice of default; provides right to cure; provides requirements for notice of foreclosure; provides for meeting & meeting requirements to object to foreclosure; provides period of limitation for foreclosure; provides for judicial supervision of foreclosure; provides for right to redeem collateral; provides authority, requirements, procedures, & limitations on foreclosures by auction, negotiated sale, & appraisal; provides for rights after foreclosure; provides for application of proceeds, transfer of title, actions for damages or to set aside foreclosure, possession after foreclosure, judgments for deficiencies, & determinations of amounts of deficiency; provides for effect of good faith by debtor; provides authority, requirements, procedures, & limitations on discontinuation of foreclosure; provides for uniformity of application & construction; specifies relation to Electronic Signatures in Global & National Commerce Act.

Effective Date: July 1, 2010

Substitiuded bill

Committee Substitute 2

Start Date and Time : Monday, April 12, 2010 1:00 PM

End Date and Time : Monday, April 12, 2010 3:15 PM
Location : 404 HOB
Duration : 2.25

Members of the  Civil Justice & Courts Policy Committee that will be voting on this bill are listed here along with their email address and phone numbers.

Call them all then click the links and email each and every one of them

ABOUT THE HORROR STORIES OF A NON JUDICIAL STATE ,

TELL THEM ABOUT ALL OF THE FRAUD THAT IS BEING PRESENTED IN THE COURTS,

and tell them to vote NO on HB 1523

Representative William D. Snyder
District 82
Email Representative Snyder
View  Photo Album
PHONE

772-221-4904

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Stuart
Occupation:
Career Law Enforcement, Retired
Child(ren):
David, John, Laura
Education:
Miami-Dade Community College, A.A., Criminal Justice, 1976; FBI Academy, University of Virginia, 1999; Florida Gulf Coast University
Born:
September 6, 1952, New York City, NY
Moved to Florida:
1954
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Representative Doug Holder
District 70
Email Representative Holder
View  Photo Album
PHONE

941-918-4028

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Sarasota
Occupation:
Real Estate Broker
Spouse:
Shannon Holder
Child(ren):
Channing, Chase
Education:
Middle Tennessee State University, B.S., Political Science, 1990, Former Student Body President, President of Associated Student Body
Born:
December 7, 1966, Marietta, GA
Moved to Florida:
1997
Religious Affiliation:
Episcopal
Recreational Interest:
cooking, family, golf, hunting, music, skiing, tennis, travel
Representative Adam M. Fetterman
District 81
Email Representative Fetterman
View  Photo Album
PHONE

772-873-6500

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Port St. Lucie
Occupation:
Attorney/General Counsel
Spouse:
Mindi J. Fetterman, of Arlington Heights, Illinois
Child(ren):
Noah Louis Fetterman
Education:
Brandeis University, B.A., Anthropology, 1988-1992; Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Lacrosse Club; University of Miami School of Law, J.D., 1995-1998; Editor-in-Chief, University of Miami Business Law Journal; National Mock Trial Team
Born:
October 16, 1970, New Rochelle, NY
Moved to Florida:
1973
Religious Affiliation:
Jewish
Recreational Interest:
camping, canoeing, cycling, surfing
Representative Sandra ”Sandy” Adams
District 33
Email Representative Adams
View  Photo Album
PHONE

407-977-4020

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Orlando
Occupation:
Law Enforcement
Spouse:
John H. Adams, Sr., of Waukegan, Illinois
Child(ren):
John Jr., Sonya, Kathryn
Education:
Columbia College, B.A., Criminal Justice Administration, 2000
Born:
December 14, 1956, Wyandotte, MI
Military:
United States Air Force
Moved to Florida:
1964
Religious Affiliation:
Episcopal
Recreational Interest:
travel
Representative Kevin C. Ambler
District 47
Email Representative Ambler
View  Photo Album
PHONE

813-558-1333

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Tampa
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Mindy Hanopole, of New Jersey
Child(ren):
Jason, Jami
Education:
Cornell University, B.A., 1983, Cornell Interfraternity Council, Judicial Administrator, AFROTC, Phi Alpha Omega Fraternity, President; Southwestern University School of Law, J.D., 1986, Moot Court Honors Board of Advisors
Born:
March 10, 1961, Los Angeles, CA
Military:
U.S. Air Force Reserve, Major, 1991-2005; U.S. Air Force 1986-1991; U.S. Air Force Reserve, Outstanding Judge Advocate of the Year 1991
Recreational Interest:
sailing, skiing, tennis, travel
Representative Carl J. Domino
District 83

Email Representative Domino
View  Photo Album
PHONE

561-625-5176

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jupiter
Occupation:
Investment Manager
Spouse:
Sharon Domino, of Miami
Child(ren):
Mason Carl, Reagan Deeann
Education:
Florida State University, B.S., Accounting, 1966, Student government, Dean’s List, intramural sports, elected to Gold Key and Omicron Delta Kappa; Harvard Business School, M.B.A., 1972, Finance Club, First Year Honors
Born:
April 15, 1944, Quantico, VA
Moved to Florida:
1958
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
golf, reading, spectator sports, tennis
Representative Eric Eisnaugle
District 40

Email Representative Eisnaugle
View  Photo Album
PHONE

407-893-3141

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Orlando
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Carrie Eisnaugle, of Minnesota
Education:
Florida Southern College, B.S., 1996-2000; Vanderbilt University Law School, J.D., 2000-2003
Born:
February 6, 1977, Arcadia, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Representative Luis R. Garcia, Jr.
District 107

Email Representative Garcia
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-325-2501

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Miami Beach
Occupation:
Retired Miami Beach Fire Chief
Child(ren):
Luis Rene, Jorge Luis, Alejandro Luis
Grandchild(ren):
Nicolas Luis, Tomas Alexander
Education:
National Fire Academy, Executive Fire Officer, 1997; Miami-Dade Community College, A.S., EMS Management, 1990; Paramedic Certification, 1977; Emergency Medical Technician, 1974
Born:
December 8, 1945, Marianao, Cuba
Moved to Florida:
1960
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
history, sports
Representative Audrey Gibson
District 15

Email Representative Gibson
View  Photo Album
PHONE

904-353-2180

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jacksonville
Occupation:
Public Relations and Legal Liaison
Education:
Florida Community College, A.A., 1976; Florida State University, B.S., Criminology, 1978
Born:
March 15
Religious Affiliation:
A.M.E.
Recreational Interest:
formula racing, horseback riding, music, sporting events (football, basketball), theatre, weight training
Representative Eduardo ”Eddy” Gonzalez
District 102

Email Representative Gonzalez
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-364-3066

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Hialeah
Occupation:
CAC Florida Medical Center; Business Development Leader
Spouse:
Barbara “Barbie” Gonzalez, of Hialeah
Child(ren):
Evan Mathew, Ethan Angel, Sianna Nicole
Education:
Miami-Dade College, Business Management and Administration, 1992
Born:
November 9, 1969, Cardenas, Matanzas, Cuba
Moved to Florida:
1971
Religious Affiliation:
Roman Catholic
Recreational Interest:
boating, football, softball, swimmin
Representative Tom Grady
District 76

Email Representative Grady
View  Photo Album
PHONE

239-417-6200

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Naples
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Ann Grady, of Gainesville, Florida
Child(ren):
Lauren, Ryan
Education:
Florida State University, B.S., Finance, summa cum laude, 1979; Alpha Lambda Delta Honor Society, Beta Gamma Sigma Honor Society, Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, Editor of College Republican newsletter; Duke University, Juris Doctor with distinction, 1982
Born:
May 14, 1958, Fairview Park, OH
History:
Legislative Page for the House, 1972; House Intern, 1978-1979; R.W. “Mac” Grady, father, Rockledge City Council, 1962-1965, Mayor of Rockledge, 1966-1976
Moved to Florida:
1958
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Recreational Interest:
boating, cars, reading, SCUBA, skiing
Representative Julio Robaina
District 117

Email Representative Robaina
View  Photo Album
PHONE

305-442-6868

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Miami
Occupation:
AT&T Employee
Education:
Miami-Dade Community College, A.A., 1983
Born:
September 1, 1961, Miami, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Catholic
Recreational Interest:
camping, fishing, hunting, mountain biking, SCUBA diving
Representative Robert C.  ”Rob” Schenck
District 44

Email Representative Schenck
View  Photo Album
PHONE

352-688-5005

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Spring Hill
Spouse:
Megan Schenck, of Muncie, IN
Child(ren):
Micheal, Isabella
Education:
Pasco-Hernando Community College, A.A., 1995; University of Central Florida, B.S., 1998
Born:
July 8, 1975, Somerville, NJ
Moved to Florida:
1980
Religious Affiliation:
Methodist
Representative Perry E. Thurston, Jr.
District 93

Email Representative Thurston
View  Photo Album
PHONE

954-762-3743

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Plantation
Occupation:
Attorney
Spouse:
Dawn Board, of Cleveland, Ohio
Child(ren):
Alison Thurston, Perry E. Thurston III
Education:
Morehouse College, B.A., Finance, 1982; University of Miami, J.D., 1987
Born:
January 30, 1961, Pompano, FL
Religious Affiliation:
Baptist
Recreational Interest:
basketball, football, tennis
Representative James  W.  ”Jim” Waldman
District 95

Email Representative Waldman
View  Photo Album
PHONE

954-956-5600

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Coconut Creek
Occupation:
Attorney; General Counsel, Keiser University
Child(ren):
Jacquelyn, Steven
Education:
University of Connecticut, transferred, 1978; University of Florida, B.S.B.A., Finance, 1980; Nova University Law School, J.D., 1985
Born:
March 21, 1958, Washington, DC
Moved to Florida:
1977
Religious Affiliation:
Jewish
Recreational Interest:
golf, scuba diving, skiin
Representative Michael B. ”Mike” Weinstein
District 19

Email Representative Weinstein
View  Photo Album
PHONE

904-213-3005

Biographical Information

City of Residence:
Jacksonville
Occupation:
Prosecutor
Spouse:
Sara Weinstein, of Florham Park, New Jersey
Child(ren):
Scott, Daryl, Danielle
Grandchild(ren):
Logan, Stryder, Mills
Education:
Hartwick College, New York, B.A., Political Science, basketball and baseball teams; California State University, Long Beach, M.S., Criminal Justice Administration; Florida State University, A.B.D., Criminology; University of Florida, J.D.
Born:
February 6, 1949, Livingston, NJ
Moved to Florida:
1975
Religious Affiliation:
Christian
Recreational Interest:
boxing, golf, physical training, working out

Election season is coming up.   We are watching.

Together, we have the power of our collective voices and votes. The Bankers have thrown down the gauntlet. Let’s accept their declaration of war and fight back.

Again, enough is enough.

Contact your representatives today…