Tag Archives: Massachusetts

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.  https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens


What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”

There will be NO Private Property in America until we Stamp out Bank/Servicer Mortgage Fraud

I only VERY rarely recommend a website, but without hesitation or reservation I recommend “Mortgage Servicing Fraud” 


and “Deadly Clear”: http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com

IF the United States Congress were in truly in the service of the people, instead of the service of the Banks, Congress would be holding non-stop “Committee of the Whole” hearings about why Americans are losing their homes.  But Congress does not in fact represent the people, but only the vested special interests which Congress helped to create.  

The American people should stand up and elect members of Congress who swear their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the Bible, to the people that they will investigate and punish the continuous, massive Mortgage Servicing Fraud which has been ongoing to greater or lesser degree since at least 1989 (Bush I).  We forget that Bush I was the President who earnestly pushed for Nuclear War and the rule of the United Nations in a “New World Order.”  In other words, Bush I (and Bush II) lived and worked in the service of World Communism while disguised as “Conservative Capitalist Republicans” endorsing central banking practices that trace their origins to Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, and Mayer Amstel Rothschild.  

Congress created the national banking associations monster (working closely with the banks and the Federal Executive, of course, since at least 1912).  Now to redeem American Democracy, Congress should force disgorgement of each National Banking Association’s wealth and compel divestiture and reconveyance to the Bank’s primary victims of all wrongfully foreclosed property.  I calculated, as did April Carrie Charney, in 2004-2006, that 80-90% of all Florida and Texas mortgages were held and serviced illegally.   In California, the figure cannot be less than 99.999%, allowing only for the tiniest fraction of “hard money” loans and mortgages with notes lawfully held by REAL private lenders.   I lack sufficient familiarity with practices in any other states to be certain of an exact figure.  Impressionistically, Louisiana and New Mexico seem to have a much greater number of hard money loans than any other states, from what I have seen and experienced.  New Jersey probably comes  close to California’s numbers.  Massachusetts and Arizona more likely approximate Florida’s.  

But the bottom line is obvious: nationwide, probably 90% of all mortgage foreclosures conducted since the late 1990s were and are illegal.  Undoing these is beyond the capacity of any state or federal court system at the present time.  Congress may need to create and appoint a special set of courts to unravel the mortgage mess created and growing exponentially ever since 1989-1994.

I would certainly push for the creation of such a special Court system carefully and properly to investigate the mortgage servicing and securitization fraud of the past quarter century, and to begin to restore the Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees of private property to reality.  

We are actively soliciting contributions to make such political reform possible.  Please send to Lincoln-for-Congress or the VINDICATIO TRUST ℅ Michael Lenaburg at 3579 East Foothill Boulevard, #544, in Pasadena, California 91107 or ℅ Charles Lincoln at 287 South Robertson Boulevard, #476, Beverly Hills, California 90211 (Fax 310-492-5342). 

Yea, Verily, Verily, I say unto you—Not all who Wander are Lost….

It's All I REALLY miss about Living in Lago Vista, though

I miss the raccoons who used to gather on my front and upper decks in Lago Vista, Texas.  This is a hot summer, this summer of 2013 but I guess they have survived hotter.  Still, I hope they are doing OK while I’m here in New Orleans, not providing the copious bags of Wysong Canine Growth Food, supplemented with grapes and watermelon, carrots, and huge “kiddie” pools for drinking and splashing around in.  I would often have over 30 raccoons per might visiting my upper and lower decked and sometimes almost 100.  They would send the word out through their “coonie” networks and bring in friends and relations from everywhere in Lago Vista, Point Venture, and the Travis Peak (Balcones) National Wildlife Preserve northwest of town. So raccoons are clearly NOT solitary animals but they socially communicate information concerning abundant or attractive food supplies through networks which can reach farther and farther away from the source.  Or at least, that is my hypothesis based on observation in Lago Vista, NW Travis County, Texas.  And in general, Raccoons are marvels of adaptation.  I have watched photographed them in the heart of Beverly Hills 1 block south of Wilshire and 2 blocks east of Rodeo Drive and inside Harvard Yard in front of Lamont and Widener Libraries in Cambridge, Mass.  A long time ago, back in the 1980s, Massachusetts had a promotion featuring one of their “Bergmann’s Rule-Effect” (larger mammals in colder climates) Gigantic Raccoons featuring on various signs, posters, and even bumper stickers and keychains saying “From Massachusetts with Love”

If anyone has one of those old Massachusetts Raccoon posters, mugs, or promotions, I would be interested in purchase or exchange for other memorabilia…..


By James Corbett   Global Research, April 17, 2013

By James Corbett   Global Research, April 17, 2013



















America's War on Terrorism

Patriot’s Day 2013—April 15 Ennui in Boston—why I feel numb and no longer care (I hadn’t even notice four and a half months had already gone by again….)

Of course it’s a sad thing when anyone dies….. except, exactly why is it sad? Death is, after all, absolutely the only, the one single thing that all of we sons of Adam and daughters of Eve know for sure that we have in common.  Why should we be sad about that which is certain and inevitable?  Are we sad when the sunrises or sets?  

Nihil nisi bonum de Mortuis, wrote Marcus Tullius Cicero (without explaining how he felt about death after they posted his head on a spike in the Forum Romanun after Julius Caesar’s Assassination—it makes no sense to me why Mark Anthony and his allies wanted to killed Cicero—the great orator was basically critical of everybody….equal opportunity negative rhetoric was quite his specialty “Cicero was a real pompous ass” as top Newcomb Classics scholar Sarah Willard used to say back in my undergraduate days… To which my aunt Mildred replied, “what a marvelously astute young lady.”)  Cicero clearly was a pompous ass, but I wish we had just a few like him around these days….

To say that death comes too early to some—well, the miseries of old age don’t come to them at all.  Perhaps they are saved from betrayals by those they love, who instead of turning against them from greed or boredom will remember them fondly if they died young.  John F. Kennedy was simply not destined to become a grumpy old man.  Marilyn Monroe never had to worry about wrinkles or men not asking her out anymore…. Princess Diana never lost her saintly regal aura as she almost certainly would have had she actually settled down to live (in sin or otherwise) with Dodi Fayed.  An early death surely saves some people from fates much worse than death and thereby grants them imperishable fame.

But “terror” in the United States has become mind-numbingly tiresome and dull.  Thirty years ago, “domestic terror” basically didn’t exist—the occasional postal worker would “go postal” (= go berserk), riots would happen from time to time.

But every four months now, or so it seems, it’s time for another “tragedy” and we are expected dutifully either to ululate in public or at least go about wailing and gnashing our teeth in private.  July 2012—Batman in Aurora, December 2012—Newton School Children—April 2013—I can’t believe I hadn’t gotten the rhythm of it—every four and a half months we need a terroristic event, don’t we?  

I guess it keeps the blood circulating for some people, but not for me anymore.  It’s just a crashing bore: another chance for police to “boost security worldwide”, engage in “clamp down” in every city, and be extra-vigilant in their surveillance of the ignorant masses.  And talking of ignorant masses: did you hear that George W. Bush is now taking painting lessons in Dallas?

The newspapers from Paris-to-Portland talk of the tragedy, tragedy, tragedy, the pain and the tears—but who can cry for Argentina or America anymore?  I cannot.  I absolutely know that all these events are staged theatre and the use of real blood instead of ketchup or some other red tint on the sidewalks doesn’t make it any less theatrical—just a bit more primitive and sacrificial, perhaps, “Blood of the Lamb” and all that.  

I read with almost dull non-challance that the Boston Police had tweeted an announcement in the Boston Globe that there was going to be a “Bomb Explosion Exercise”, just as there was a North Atlantic Air Exercise on 9-11-01, just as there were tunnel exercises in London 0n 07-07-05.  Who cares?  

We who are awake and alert know that the government makes up the news as it goes along to suit its own purposes and those who have not realized or accepted this by now are free to cry for the runners of the Boston Marathon if they want to. 

In 1992, I thought that Ruby Ridge was a terrible tragedy—my wife was pregnant and my son was born so I was somewhat distracted that month, but I thought it was a terrible thing that the government had done.  And the conversations of just a couple of years ago with friends in Washington about how domestic terrorism was the next big threat now that the Cold War was over never entered my mind at that point.

I was likewise mesmerized in front of the TV at Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp’s West Palm Beach chambers in April 1993 during the Mount Carmel/Branch Davidian Crisis as we all watched Waco waft up in smoke fanned by ATF flame-throwers.  Judge Ryskamp had been involved in the Miami legal scene for several decades and he had absolutely nothing good to say about then Attorney General Janet Reno…. but she was not prosecuted.  Only the “little people” who survived the government onslaught were ever accused of any wrongdoing, naturally.  Little people always get in the way, you know… of big projects.  Although what the big project was in Waco in April 1993, I’m still not sure.  Perhaps it was sowing the seeds of that much needed campaign of domestic terrorism which would reshape and sustain the government after the cold war….

Two years later, the explosion and collapse of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City was shocking.  I was attending a Rotary Meeting luncheon at the time and it was so utterly boring the news from straight up north on I-35 was almost a relief….much as I hate to say so.  Maybe that goes back to the whole “we need terrorist attacks to keep our blood circulating” concept noted above.

My mother, I guess, was perhaps wiser than I was, or at least more jaded.  Her question was: if they’re going to be anti-government terrorists, why couldn’t they do something useful, you know, like blow up the IRS?  It doesn’t help anything to blow up a Federal Building.  What happens in a Federal building anyhow?  (I hate to say it but I have only the vaguest notion myself…they apparently have child care facilities there is all that came to like after OKC).  I guess the answer to my mother’s question became fully apparent only after 9-11-01: real terrorists would take out real targets, but phony fake false-flag government terrorists only take out buildings that no one really cares about anyhow….

With a hey, ho, the wind and the rain for the rain it raineth every day…

In the summer of 1998, my son and I were on Holiday in Chicago.  We had a fantastic suite at the old Chicago Hilton on Michigan Avenue overlooking Grant Park and the Lake.  It was really one of the best suites I’ve ever had anywhere—tons of space for a five year old to run around and play in, and a three way view of Michigan Avenue North, East, and South.  So when the news of the bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam detained us in the room, and we had to explain to Charlie why we were glued to the tube….it was hard to explain to a little boy what it was all about.  It’s hard to explain to anyone what it’s all about, isn’t it?

September 11, 2001, was an epic day for me in many ways.  It started out with…well, some evidence of paranormal phenomena in my home and family life, progressed to a long drive listening to Lohengrin, and I only became aware of what was going on when I arrived at my destination at the Southwesternmost “Pinnacle” Campus of Austin Community College…. (The ACC Pinnacle Campus, 7748 Highway 290 West, Austin, Texas 78736, is one of eight campuses in the ACC District service area).  I was supposed to teach something about Political Anthropology and Cultural Evolution, but the television screens taught us all much more about those subjects.

I didn’t exactly know why but from the very moment it all started I could not think of anything except that Osama bin Laden was going to be the new Guy Fawkes…. this was all well over four years before V-for-Vendetta came out—it was originally scheduled to be released on Guy Fawkes’ Day in 2005, but it was delayed until the Spring of 2006 I think.  

By noon of 9-11-2001, I suppose my destiny as a “9-11 truther” was already fixed in stone—although I didn’t become aware of the movement or actively involved until 2003-2004.  But by noon of 9-11-2001, I knew I could see no aeroplane wreckage at the Pentagon.  NOT A SCRAP, and I knew it was quite simply physically impossible that an aeroplane actually hit the Pentagon, so what happened?  By that afternoon, when Building 7 came down—I was deeply puzzled but I didn’t know anything about controlled demolition…..so I couldn’t form the scenario in my head completely.  

By that evening I could tell that George W. Bush’s reelection campaign had already started.  I later found out my mother had come to exactly the same conclusion.  To paraphrase both Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt simultaneousely, the 43rd U.S. President George W. Bush had nothing to offer except Fear Itself, and nothing to fear except blood, toil, sweat, and tears….  And I suppose that’s why a couple of months later GWB went on television to tell everyone to go have a Merry Christmas and be “patriotic” by going out and doing lots of Christmas shopping.  I think my grandfather would have dropped dead, had he not died 21 years before that… he was always scandalized by America’s “crass materialism in time of war”, having been for a couple of years in charge of regional gas rationing and similar forms of organized, Patriotic, sacrifice during World War II, in which he heartily participated although he had not initially believed War was necessary—and his elder sister Marguerite was  an “active pacifist” associate of the anti-war Bund.

I guess the last time I was sad about any of these events was after the Madrid train bombing mostly because I had taken the exact same route and knew how beautiful the train route was and how completely unwarlike the Spanish people were, whatever their ancestors in the 1930s or 1450s-1590s might have been like.

So 7-7 in London was just “predictable” as were the bombings in Djakarta and I didn’t even bother to keep up, honestly.  2011 rolled around and I just commented to my friends, including William Rodriguez, a former janitor/custodians at the World Trade Center whom I had gotten to know through the Truther movement and from working with Philip J. Berg, “Well, Norway can expect to have it’s own Patriot Act within about 60-90 days, want to make a bet how long it will take?”  

Quite simply, it has become absolutely impossible to believe ANYTHING the government or mainstream media says.  “You got the CBS, and the ABC, you got Time and Newsweek, they’re the same to me—-PUZZLING EVIDENCE, PUZZLING EVIDENCE” to quote from the wild-eyed Texas Pastor in “True Stories” (David Byrne & the Talking Heads’ 1986 masterpiece, the clarity and depth of whose brilliance has only grown with time, even as the Texas Sesquicentennial of Special-Ness has receded into dim memory).

So, sorry folks: here are my great hopes about the possible results of the 15th of April in ’13:  (1) I hope that the commemorations of Paul Revere’s Ride on the 18th, and of the Battles of Lexington & Concord on April 19, will go ahead as normally scheduled, because THOSE were all very important events, (2) I hope that as a real result of the “tragedy” of the Boston Police Department’s Bomb Explosion Exercises which took place yesterday (whoever they decide to try to pin the blame on eventually—I wonder how much they have to pay to Patsies or their families these days???? I hope it’s a lot—I hope they pay in Gold and Silver in fact…), I do hope that as a real security measure, they will now forever BAN Urban Marathons.

Urban Marathons really have no purpose except to create traffic congestion and major driving problems for ordinary folks, whether it’s Boston or LA or you name it.  Healthy, safe MARATHONS could and should be run WAY OUT IN THE COUNTRY.  In rural agricultural areas or forests or on seaside roads snipers will have to hide behind trees or in cornfields or rocks and will be easily visible. Any potential attackers will be all the more visible and apparent because  very small (if any) crowds will ever assemble to watch, so that if bombs are set off, they may disturb the vegetation, but little else.  Now THIS (the abolition of Urban Marathons) would be a REAL security improvement AND a real advance in Urban life in America generally.

Here endeth my most severely curmudgenous meditations on this most solemn day.  To the victims of the Patriot’s Day Marathon “terrorist attack” in Boston, and their families, I’d say: “You got a lucky break—yesterday you were absolute nobodies, today you’re either the ‘honored dead’ or the ‘worthily wounded’ and you can count on a lifetime of government honors, support, and assistance—just like the victims of 9-11” (oh, uh, er, um, well, uh—maybe you’ll do better than they did, actually, I’ll give you a thumbs up on that one—the victims of 9-11 (see, e.g. the “Jersey Girls/Jersey Widows”) for the most part got screwed).

Bastille Day 2012: Civilized Memories of the Moonrise Kingdom in a Savage Land

No day on the calendar more appropriately juxtaposes civilization and savagery than July 14, Bastille Day.  If any nation in the world epitomizes the height of human civilization, well, I suppose that would be England until Tony Blair became PM, but both before the insertion of “Great” in the title of the United Kingdom of England & Scotland was added to “Britain” by the Act of Union in 1707 and since that word is no longer really warranted, especially since the House of Lords no longer has any hereditary peers or judicial functions, there has been and still remains “La France.”  

Much moreso than the American Revolution which preceded it barely by 24 years, hardly a generation, the French Revolution really marked the beginning of the Modern World, of truly modern history in all its blood and gore relating to ideological warfare.   The great ideals of the scientific and philosophical enlightenment coupled with the barbaric rejection of Christianity; the concepts of liberté, egalité, fraternité, however unrealistic they are, coupled with massive official murder and senseless bloodshed—all of those things are commemorated on July 14—the greatest of all the remaining Midsummer Fires that Sir James G. Frazer described as the Aryan heritage of Europe in the Golden Bough (whose brilliant Third and final original Edition Celebrates its centennial this year).

So last weekend and this, I listened to my gendarme and lieutenant (both appropriately Francophone titles) Peyton Yates Freiman, who told me that I had to see Wes Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom with Bill Murray because it was the most “relevant” film of the year.  Last weekend I had the misfortune to see the movie paired with Oliver Stone’s Savages and the contrast was almost too great.

Savages—set in Southern California where I now spend most of my time and in Orange County in particular, which I associate with the Savagery of Orly Taitz and her husband Yosef, not to mention Steven D. Silverstein, among many others—is so “relevant” to the modern world as to be deeply depressing.  Oliver Stone artfully created a dual ending to blunt the nightmarish effect of the plot in its most obvious line—which led directly into bloody death and destruction of all the major characters—into a pro-establishment (if hardly credible) pean to the weak-minded DEA Agent credibly played by John Travolta.  Savages was a “Brave New World” movie, regardless of which ending you choose to believe as the most realistic—it is amoral, devoid of decency of any kind on the part of any person—it does not exactly “glorify” the drug traffic but it doesn’t raise any standards of—anything.  Savages belongs to the “Reign of Terror” aspect of the quatorze juillet.   

Yesterday, I reproduced on these pages Guillaume Faye’s depressing commentary on the role of the sexual revolution in the death and decay of modern Western Civilization.  Savages was an extraordinary movie (in some significant part) about the end product of the sexual revolution: total sexual liberation, specifically a romantic threesome which might pass as “polyamory” in Huxley’s Brave New World and modern 1980s and afterward sense.

By contrast, Anderson’s Moonrise Kingdom pledges allegiance to a world that is all but gone, vanished, which has essentially been murdered by the sexual revolution and liberation epitomized in Savages.  The first time I saw Moonrise, last week, was in the company of my rather sentimental and deeply feminine friend Min, who passed out/knocked herself out (intentionally fainted?) during Savages (because it “came to close to home” for her comfort) and she focused on the warming and endearing feel of Moonrise Kingdom.

This week, for a second viewing, I was alone and finally I realized what Peyton meant by “relevance”: Unlike Oliver Stone’s work Moonrise Kingdom is TOTALLY SUBVERSIVE.

Now there was a time when Oliver Stone made people think and challenged the status quo, but I think that phase of his life ended in 1991 with his magnificent JFK.  The transformation of Stone into a supporter of the establishment and status quo was already apparent in the final entry of his Vietnam Trilogy Heaven and Earth (1993) but his W. kowtowed so cravenly to the 43rd President that it made me ill and I had to leave the theatre when I saw it.

No such worry about Moonrise Kingdom—it brilliantly pits the vitality of youth and young love against the wooden and legalistic stupidity of elders.  Yet the young love in this kingdom is as moral and Christian as Romeo and Juliet. Love comes first and foremost and all hints of sexuality are wonderfully awkward and childishly mishandled in very credible, realistic ways.  Min appreciated this innocence the first time round but I didn’t realize just how deeply ethical, romantic, and moral it all was until seeing it alone on Friday the 13th.

I’m just overwhelmed now that I realize how well this movie really did show the brilliance and triumph of true love over law in a manner that Richard Wagner would have appreciated and congratulated.  The marriage ceremony is patently and admittedly ILLEGAL—but the fact that it takes place at all—in front of a cross in a camp chapel no less—for a pre-teen couple who met during a Church production of “Noah’s Flood” is in this day and age counter-revolutionary for sure. (The Church called “St. Jack” is a major setting of critical moments in the movie.  It is operated in part by white-robed nuns who might be Episcopalian [e.g. in the Anglican Order of Saint Helena] or RC, albeit they operate a whitewashed wood-framed “Puritan” Church with a bell tower of the type so typical of the fictionalized New England setting—a mythic Island of “New Penzance” whose map ever so slightly resembles the layout of Nantucket).

One need only compare and contrast this with the apparently, at least architecturally, authentic Gothic Church which played a key part at the beginning and end of Snow White and the Huntsman.  This Church not only lacked even a single cross but did not allow to its (again, classically dressed) Christian Clergy the utterance any prayers which made any mention of the people I admire most (the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who had apparently taken the last train to the coast).  I would have to examine the film frame-by-frame but I think there was even something resembling a menorah in the Church—slightly horrifying considering there was no cross.  (In all fairness, Kirsten Stewart is allowed to recite the “short version” of the Lord’s Prayer and Thor, I mean Chris Hemsworth, as the Huntsman all but expressly compares Snow White (while he believes her dead) to the Virgin Mary when he predicts that she will “be a Queen in Heaven and sit among the Angels”—but overall, overt Christianity is shockingly suppressed EVEN in portrayals of obviously Christian Churches!).

But Moonrise Kingdom was all about real moral optimism and virtuous rebellion against stifling legality and convention.  It is a movie which I think could be shown for young teen viewers and discussed for its ethical stance everywhere that White American Christians still live and cherish the values of….well, an America that increasingly seems not to exist anymore.

It remains to be seen whether Moonrise Kingdom is an epitaph on a world that is as “Gone with the Wind” as the Confederate world of the Old South or whether it symbolizes the existence of a real resistance to the Brave New World with a live heartbeat in America.

Either way—directly contrary to Mark Anthony—I stand here to praise the values embodied in Wes Anderson’s film, not to bury them.   The young Kara Hayward actually IS a brilliant new actress, from Massachusetts, and a member of Mensa they say.   The credits also indicate that this is her, and her “Romeo” Jared Gilman’s, first appearance on what they used to call the “celluloid screen” but is now apparently just pixels like everything else.  Even the music of Moonrise Kingdom starting and ending with Henry Purcell, reminds us that “restoration” of a moral and constitutional regime is possible even after the disastrous dislocations of civil war politically motivated ideological  savagery.   Only a very small amount of 1960s music (French at that) insinuates its way into the world of Suzy Bishop and Sam Shakusky—most of it is Classical and reminiscent of everything that I grew up with—a bizarre bipolarity of Restoration Baroque and Hank Williams which I thought was oddly out of place in New England—but then my parents loved the Kingston Trio and brought Northern “Folk” from Massachusetts to New Orleans for their wedding.

The reality of the world on this July 14, 2012, is that it IS a savage place. The English Civil War (prior to the Restoration of Charles II and the “Cavalier” music and poetry of Henry Purcell and those who came with it) was certainly savage, although not as bad as the French Revolution.  The American Revolution was strangely quiet and conservative, certainly there were a few martyrs and senseless killings on both sides, but in a muted way, nothing as extravagantly awful as the Show Trial of Charles I and his execution, nor anything even remotely like the French Revolutionary bloodbath.

 La Marseillaise celebrates both the beauty of the dreams of the French Revolutionary Patriots and the gore of the war and terror of 1789-1799, when Napoleon Bonaparte took charge as First Consul and thus ended both the revolution and the terror.   The pair of movies, Savages and Moonrise Kingdom portrays the same dichotomy in the world—the real world and the ideal world, and their joint appearance in theaters this summer reminds us of the short time from 1965-2012—a mere 47 years, and how much can go wrong in the world in such a short time.

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: 


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.