The short-lived hault on "Don't ask, don't tell" is becoming a hot topic on the talk circuit today, and the Obama Administration is really feeling the heat. Valerie Jarret was interviewed today on CNN at which time she was asked to respond to the Obama Administrations apparent "lack of support" for getting rid of this Clinton policy. An openly gay soldier accused the Obama Administration and Jarret of using "don't ask don't tell" as a political hot pototo...holding back from supporting it's abolishment in an effort to gain support from centrist voters who may not support gays in the military. All of this at a time when Obama can hardly afford to lose a single voter in this midterm election cycle.
My opinions on this topic are extremely strong...more so than on other topics. The more "protected classes" there are, the more of a mockery we make of our Constitution and the judicial system as a whole. Don't ask don't tell is a protective device really. It's a policy that preserves the privacy of gay soldiers and keeps them safe from problems that will likely arise from gay soldiers serving openly in the military. More importantly, in order to understand why "Don't ask, don't tell" is vital to the sanctity of our military, you must understand the REAL reason why activists in the gay community want it to go away. Basically, if gay men and women serve openly in the military and "something" should happen to them......ANYTHING, they want not only the right to attribute it to their "gay" status...but also the right to be discharged at will for the same. If this vital legislation goes away, the first gay soldier who gets into an altercation for any reason is going to say it's due to sexual orientation. Even if it's not, they'll likely be able to file suit as a result of "discrimination", further exposing the military to losses. In addition, God forbid a soldier should get severely injured or even killed, or better yet even die in the line of fire, there's sure to be some claims that "he was not protected like the other soldiers due to the fact he was "openly gay". Then we introduce "hate crimes" into the mix and it will certainly be a mess. I can also guarantee my readers that gay soldiers who want to go home will fabricate "harassment situations" and make claims in a febrile attempt to be discharged from serving. It WILL happen, trust me.
Don't ask, don't tell had astounding support from both Republicans and Democrats. It was a Clinton policy! Now suddenly Liberals want to politicize the issue out of pure desperation to assure the gay vote. The simple reality ---- don't ask, don't tell is necessary and cannot go away without major revamping of the "what if something happens to gay soldiers" section. And why do other soldiers need to know about any other soldier's sexual preference? How about a new law titled: "Nice to know, NOT Need to know", whereby soldiers who share information of any kind that is not pertinent to "being a soldier" should be sanctioned in some way? Just a thought!
Thursday, October 21, 2010
NPR: Nasty Political Regime
Juan Williams - who earlier this year was labeled a "porch monkey" for comments he made calling for responsibility within the African American community was fired by NPR executives for using his free speech to describe his own personal fears. That's right, Williams appeared recently on Fox News and made a statement that he is only being honest when he says he feels apprehensive still when he sees "people dressed in Muslim garb on an airplane". He went on to give a thorough explaination of how he is "simply being honest" and how political correctness has given way to a "walking on eggshells" approach to journalism whereby people are afraid to speak openly and honestly for fear that what they say may be used against them. Well how right was he in that analysis?
NPR gave a relatively generic statement about the termination, basically saying "Juan Williams' comments are inconsistent with NPR's views and values". You know, the same "views and values" that welcome comments such as "Bush is a mass-murderer" and Sarah Palin and The Tea Party Movement support radical racism. My biggest problem with this entire situation is the simple fact that NPR receives public dollars to promote radical liberal points of view and at the same time, promotes a blatant disregard for the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The real issue here is NPR has been angry for many months about Juan Williams' obvious moderate views. Liberals HATE for any person who claims to be a Democrat to go out and actually agree - to any extent - with Conservatives. Juan Williams has had a huge target on his back since becoming affilliated with Fox News and that's the REAL reason why NPR terminated him. I say Congress should act immediately to pull this partisan organization from the "charity list" and let them get their funding from their "parent company"....you know....the DNC!!!
NPR gave a relatively generic statement about the termination, basically saying "Juan Williams' comments are inconsistent with NPR's views and values". You know, the same "views and values" that welcome comments such as "Bush is a mass-murderer" and Sarah Palin and The Tea Party Movement support radical racism. My biggest problem with this entire situation is the simple fact that NPR receives public dollars to promote radical liberal points of view and at the same time, promotes a blatant disregard for the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The real issue here is NPR has been angry for many months about Juan Williams' obvious moderate views. Liberals HATE for any person who claims to be a Democrat to go out and actually agree - to any extent - with Conservatives. Juan Williams has had a huge target on his back since becoming affilliated with Fox News and that's the REAL reason why NPR terminated him. I say Congress should act immediately to pull this partisan organization from the "charity list" and let them get their funding from their "parent company"....you know....the DNC!!!
Thursday, October 14, 2010
MERS: Know the Name
Much has been reported in recent weeks about the "mortgage crisis" in America. Some are now calling for the complete haulting of foreclosures across the country. Attorneys General across America are lining up to call out the big bad lenders. Well, let me tell my readers what this sitution is really about. Two things really: Politics.............and MERS. I don't believe I need to explain the politics too much, but let's just say that Democrats are attacking this issue for one simple reason...they want to be seen as the saviors. Yes, they know how many millions of people are in trouble with their bloated mortgages and if they paint a picture that "Democrats will stop foreclosures", well, there may be some votes in such empty claims.
Where most people are left in the dark is on who is responsible for the foreclosure mess. When GMAC Mortgage and Chase came out to reveal that some foreclosures may have taken place without proper review, the vision of "paper pushers" came to mind. Even the mainstream media has reported that "executives in the banking sector" are simply allowing homes to be foreclosed upon without looking at documentation for accuracy review. People, this has NOTHING to do with the actual banks. In case you haven't picked up a newspaper in ten years, all bank foreclosures have one thing in common. THE PLAINTIFF. Yes, that's right, no matter what bank holds the note, one organization is listed as the Plaintiff in all foreclosure documents, and that's MERS. MERS is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. Basically, it was put into place under the Clinton Administration to "streamline to process of mortgage servicing. Over the years, it has evolved into much more than that. MERS is bankrolled by a who's who of huge banking and investment firms...some you will recognize because they were the primary recipients of bailout money over a year ago. Fannie and Freddie, Merrill Lynch, GMAC, Countrywide Home Mortgage, Goldman just to name a few. When Barney Frank and company decided to force the mortgage banking industry into the MERS model, it also serves as a segway into mandating that these same lenders provide mortgages to "undeserving borrowers" to make homeownership a reality for ALL. MERS then became a virtual scoring system and tracking device for investors to wage bets by buying, selling and trading interests in mortgages within the MERS model. It all culminated with massive defaults and many of these lenders lost big. When foreclosures became necessary, MERS filed them all...many times without even listing the lender as the Plaintiff on the lawsuit. One legitimate argument is the fact that MERS has no legal right to file legal action against a homeowner without at least listing the bank as a Plaintiff. Due to the massive size of the MERS system (it virtually houses ALL mortgages in America), the company assigned the foreclosure lawsuits to clearinghouse lawfirms who often times filed with the courts and failed to properly serve the Defendants with paperwork. This usualy resulted in default judgments. Even when the Defendant was served with the actual complaint, nowhere in the body of the suit did it mention who was suing the Defendant, only listing MERS as the Plaintiff. In this instance, the homeowner has no idea who they are being sued by.
In the end, although nobody is reporting the story accurately, this is what will come out in the wash. Law 101: you can't file a legal action against anyone unless you have a legal claim and the losses sustained are YOURS. Well, MERS is not a licensed mortgage lender in ANY state in the United States, therefore they cannot be listed as the sole Plaintiff in a legal foreclosure action. You haven't heard the last of this situation and the primary reason why you haven't heard the story reported accurately is simple....the US Government and it's many banking partners are all part of this collossal failure called MERS, which will go down as the cause of this entire mortgage crisis....and you read it here first.
Where most people are left in the dark is on who is responsible for the foreclosure mess. When GMAC Mortgage and Chase came out to reveal that some foreclosures may have taken place without proper review, the vision of "paper pushers" came to mind. Even the mainstream media has reported that "executives in the banking sector" are simply allowing homes to be foreclosed upon without looking at documentation for accuracy review. People, this has NOTHING to do with the actual banks. In case you haven't picked up a newspaper in ten years, all bank foreclosures have one thing in common. THE PLAINTIFF. Yes, that's right, no matter what bank holds the note, one organization is listed as the Plaintiff in all foreclosure documents, and that's MERS. MERS is the Mortgage Electronic Registration System. Basically, it was put into place under the Clinton Administration to "streamline to process of mortgage servicing. Over the years, it has evolved into much more than that. MERS is bankrolled by a who's who of huge banking and investment firms...some you will recognize because they were the primary recipients of bailout money over a year ago. Fannie and Freddie, Merrill Lynch, GMAC, Countrywide Home Mortgage, Goldman just to name a few. When Barney Frank and company decided to force the mortgage banking industry into the MERS model, it also serves as a segway into mandating that these same lenders provide mortgages to "undeserving borrowers" to make homeownership a reality for ALL. MERS then became a virtual scoring system and tracking device for investors to wage bets by buying, selling and trading interests in mortgages within the MERS model. It all culminated with massive defaults and many of these lenders lost big. When foreclosures became necessary, MERS filed them all...many times without even listing the lender as the Plaintiff on the lawsuit. One legitimate argument is the fact that MERS has no legal right to file legal action against a homeowner without at least listing the bank as a Plaintiff. Due to the massive size of the MERS system (it virtually houses ALL mortgages in America), the company assigned the foreclosure lawsuits to clearinghouse lawfirms who often times filed with the courts and failed to properly serve the Defendants with paperwork. This usualy resulted in default judgments. Even when the Defendant was served with the actual complaint, nowhere in the body of the suit did it mention who was suing the Defendant, only listing MERS as the Plaintiff. In this instance, the homeowner has no idea who they are being sued by.
In the end, although nobody is reporting the story accurately, this is what will come out in the wash. Law 101: you can't file a legal action against anyone unless you have a legal claim and the losses sustained are YOURS. Well, MERS is not a licensed mortgage lender in ANY state in the United States, therefore they cannot be listed as the sole Plaintiff in a legal foreclosure action. You haven't heard the last of this situation and the primary reason why you haven't heard the story reported accurately is simple....the US Government and it's many banking partners are all part of this collossal failure called MERS, which will go down as the cause of this entire mortgage crisis....and you read it here first.
Mass Race for Governor Heats Up
The battle between Governor Deval Patrick and Republican candidate Charlie Baker has taken on a national appeal. Patrick, a virual Obama clone who literally used the same "together we can" campaign signs to run for governor back in 2006 is losing steam and fast. Last week, independent Tim Cahill made accusations at both camps for trying to "sabotage his campaing". Let me give you the facts on this one. Cahill ran "with" Patrick the first time around. Cahill is a DEMOCRAT, make no mistake about that. He has always been a Democrat. He threw his hat in the ring in this particular election as an Independent, but in reality, he is the "Perot" candidate. Yes, I firmly believe that all of this fabricated "hostility" that he supposedly has for Patrick is virtually a hoax. His true purpose in this election is to pursuade some centrist voters away from Charlie Baker, which is essentially a vote for the liberal Patrick. It's that simple.
Charlie Baker is a success story. He is an educated businessman who made Harvard Pilgrim Health Care the enormous success that it is today. He has a long track record of fiscal responsibility, and regardless of Patrick and Cahill's false claims that Baker had anything to do with throwing money away on the "big dig project", truth be told, he was brought in on that project some 15 years after the money was thrown into the Charles River. There was no fixing that situation. Deval Patrick is a collossal failure when it comes to running the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He has raised taxes on 8 occassions after vowing to "not raise taxes" as part of his many broken campaign promises. He has created one of the most bloated state budgets in the history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- a state where government employees outearn private sector employees by almost 60%. State employees can also retire at the ripe old age of 55 in Massachusetts which is simply outrageous, given the size of most state pensions.
Massachusetts can't sustain this outrageous spending spree that Patrick and Cahill are enjoying at the expense of the local taxpayer, and to the burden of future generations. I have a good feeling that the voting public will elect Charlie Baker as the next Republican Governor of Massachusetts.
Charlie Baker is a success story. He is an educated businessman who made Harvard Pilgrim Health Care the enormous success that it is today. He has a long track record of fiscal responsibility, and regardless of Patrick and Cahill's false claims that Baker had anything to do with throwing money away on the "big dig project", truth be told, he was brought in on that project some 15 years after the money was thrown into the Charles River. There was no fixing that situation. Deval Patrick is a collossal failure when it comes to running the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He has raised taxes on 8 occassions after vowing to "not raise taxes" as part of his many broken campaign promises. He has created one of the most bloated state budgets in the history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- a state where government employees outearn private sector employees by almost 60%. State employees can also retire at the ripe old age of 55 in Massachusetts which is simply outrageous, given the size of most state pensions.
Massachusetts can't sustain this outrageous spending spree that Patrick and Cahill are enjoying at the expense of the local taxpayer, and to the burden of future generations. I have a good feeling that the voting public will elect Charlie Baker as the next Republican Governor of Massachusetts.
O'Reilly's "View" Shocker
Bill O'Reilly appeared on the ABC talk show "The View" today and was met with hostility from none other than Whoopie Goldberg and Joy Behar. O'Reilly uttered a remark about why Americans are against the mosque at Ground Zero project, stating that he believes it is because "Muslims were responsible for the 911 attacks" and it's insensitive to build a mosque at that particular location. Suddenly Goldberg became angry, challenging O'Reilly's claim which he stated was based upon survey information. Behar, ever the "grandstander" got up and walked off the stage and Goldberg quickly followed. Barbara Walters actually appeared angry at the two liberal hosts who left the stage, claiming that this is "a problem when people can't sit down and discuss their disagreements". O'Reilly remained seated, however Walters peppered him until he said he was sorry if he made it seem like he spoke out against "all Muslims". When the two liberal loons heard his "sorry" comment, they returned, stating that it was "only because you said you were sorry for the prior comments".
I personally find it amazing that Goldberg and Behar can't share the same stage with a man who was basically saying that Americans feel angry about the erection of a mosque in a place where muslim extremists murdered 3,000 innocent Americans. When they allow construction to begin on a new Christian center in downtown Baghdad, let me know. I don't think I'm alone when I say tolerance is a "two way street".
I personally find it amazing that Goldberg and Behar can't share the same stage with a man who was basically saying that Americans feel angry about the erection of a mosque in a place where muslim extremists murdered 3,000 innocent Americans. When they allow construction to begin on a new Christian center in downtown Baghdad, let me know. I don't think I'm alone when I say tolerance is a "two way street".
Monday, September 20, 2010
MS-DNC and the Media Double Standard
Call me crazy, but I guess the sudden urge to feel "more intelligent" got the best of me, prompting The Constitutional Mom to put on Keith Olberman for a fleeting moment. Well, it was no real surprise to me that he has dedicated virutally the entire hour of his "festival of misinformation" to attacking The Tea Party Movement and Christine O'Donnell, Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware. Olberman is now reporting that O'Donnell is a "former practicing witch" folks. I'm sure glad they are practicing what they preach at MS-NBC. I am, of course, referring to the coverage of the Shirley Sherrod fiasco whereby a clip of video was allegedly "taken out of context". As my readers may recall, the liberal media protected Sherrod as if she "didn't" say anything racist, which let's face it, SHE DID. Well these geniuses got their hands on a silly video clip furnished by none other than lefty goon Bill Maher. In the clip, O'Donnell jokes that she once "was exposed to witch craft through friends who were into that stuff at the time". Conveneintly, this is the only part of the video that the mainstream idiots are showing. What they refuse to air is the context that O'Donnell said this in, which was not only "jokingly", but she was making reference to something that happened when she was in HIGH SCHOOL!!! A boy took her to a weird witch craft party as a teenager and she thought it was all very strange and that was the end of it....no story. Why is this NOT an event that calls for an apology? Olberman repeatedly refers to O'Donnell as "the former witch", and "the Christian Tea Party Candidate who was once into devil worship". I know I'm not the only one out there who believes this is outrageous.
And if O'Donnell is so unqualified and such a "non-threat" to the liberal candidate, Coon, then why is the mainstream media so dedicated to this story. The answer is simple...they're afraid of any candidate who receives the endorsement of The Tea Party. Also interesting is their ability to rip apart this woman's past, particularly her finances. At a time when Americans are strapped in debt, over their proverbial heads in mortgages that oft times outweight the actual property's worth, God forbid a seemingly average person seeks political office. Someone who so very obviously knows what it's like to be trapped under heavy debt and seeking employment in a dreadful marketplace. I am not endorsing O'Donnell as a candidate, but I'm also not judging her for having a "not so great" financial record. Honestly, it makes her more representative of what's out there, including those whom she seeks to represent. Any other day of the week, the radical left is on the attack of anyone who enjoys fiscal success, labeling them "the wealthy elite". The bottome line is, no matter what the background, if the candidate poses a threat to the liberal agenda, the radical left will attack on every front, regardless of conviction. They're that inconsistent and certainly that misguided. If nothing else, it certainly will be interesting to see what happens in Delaware in November.
And if O'Donnell is so unqualified and such a "non-threat" to the liberal candidate, Coon, then why is the mainstream media so dedicated to this story. The answer is simple...they're afraid of any candidate who receives the endorsement of The Tea Party. Also interesting is their ability to rip apart this woman's past, particularly her finances. At a time when Americans are strapped in debt, over their proverbial heads in mortgages that oft times outweight the actual property's worth, God forbid a seemingly average person seeks political office. Someone who so very obviously knows what it's like to be trapped under heavy debt and seeking employment in a dreadful marketplace. I am not endorsing O'Donnell as a candidate, but I'm also not judging her for having a "not so great" financial record. Honestly, it makes her more representative of what's out there, including those whom she seeks to represent. Any other day of the week, the radical left is on the attack of anyone who enjoys fiscal success, labeling them "the wealthy elite". The bottome line is, no matter what the background, if the candidate poses a threat to the liberal agenda, the radical left will attack on every front, regardless of conviction. They're that inconsistent and certainly that misguided. If nothing else, it certainly will be interesting to see what happens in Delaware in November.
Monday, September 13, 2010
New posts coming
The Constitutional Mom will be back this week with new posts and endorsement, including stories on Massachusetts Republican candidate for Governor Charlie Baker; an exposee on Barney Frank and his ties with Fannie and Freddie, which fueled the fire that is the "mortgage crisis"; A look at what you should know about Hedge Funds; and of course a look at the many candidates running across the nation in November. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
