April 24, 2014

 

CONSCIENCE VOID OF OFFENSE

Oh! let us be honest, come what may. Let us walk in the fear of God. Let us, like the blessed apostle, “exercise ourselves to have always a conscience void of offense toward God and man.”

True, it may cost us something. We may have to suffer for righteousness' sake. But what is all this when compared with the deep joy of walking with God in that narrow path on which the blessed beams of His approving countenance ever shine? Is not a good conscience better far than thousands in gold and silver? Our God will take care of us. He will meet all our real need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. Why should we ever devote ourselves to the contemptible “tricks of trade” in order to make money or make a living, when our Father has pledged Himself to care for us all the journey through?

It is very important that the Christian should be thoroughly clear and above-board in all his ways. There should be nothing questionable in any of his transactions — nothing hidden.

March 19, 2014

notifying her of her breach of the note and of the mortgage and stating that she must pay the amount of $21, 094.53 in order to reinstate the loan and to avoid acceleration of the total amount due under the note and the mortgage; a letter dated February 8, 2011, notifying Gray that she was in default of the note and the mortgage and that EverHome was accelerating to maturity the entire unpaid balance of the loan; proof of publication of the notices in the Alabama Messenger, a newspaper of general circulation in Jefferson County; a foreclosure deed dated April 4, 2011, from EverHome to Fannie Mae, which states that the foreclosure sale occurred "at public outcry in front of the Courthouse door in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama, " on that day "between the legal hours of sale" and which includes a certification from the auctioneer that the sale took place on that date at 11:33 a.m.; and a demand for possession of the property sent by Fannie Mae to Gray dated April 4, 2011.

On May 1, 2012, Gray filed her response to the summary-judgment motion, along with her affidavit in support thereof. In her affidavit, Gray averred, in pertinent part:

"I bought the property ... on January 30, 2004, and signed a promissory note with Irwin Mortgage Corporation and executed a mortgage with [MERS] as nominee for Irwin Mortgage Corporation. The note and mortgage are secured by the property.... The mortgage was recorded in the probate records of Jefferson County, Alabama. I am the sole owner of the property in which I currently reside.

"The mortgage and note [were] apparently transferred to EverHome Mortgage Company at some point thereafter; although, I was never notified of said transfer. Prior to the foreclosure EverHome was acting as the servicer of my mortgage loan. The original terms of the note and mortgage required [me] to pay $708.59 each month which included escrow funds for taxes and insurance. My mortgage is a Fannie Mae mortgage and so states on the face of the document. In September 2007, I lost my job due to company layoffs. As a result of my job loss, my household income significantly decreased, and I began having difficulty paying the mortgage payments. Because of the circumstances, I began seeking assistance from the mortgage company regarding my difficulty in making the monthly mortgage payments. In October 2007, I began contacting the mortgage company about making payment arrangements. I tried to get EverHome to assist me, but it refused so I was forced to file a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on March 31, 2008 to save my home. While I was in Bankruptcy, I lost my job in October 2010, and had difficulty again making my mortgage payments and the bankruptcy payments. I got behind with the mortgage payments again and was sent a notice that EverHome intended to foreclose on my home. I again contacted the mortgage company in February 2011 in an effort to save my home and asked for HAMP [Home Affordable Modification Program] modification through EverHome's

loss mitigation program.

"In February and March 2011, I spoke to the mortgage company numerous times about a loan modification or work out plan through their loss mitigation program. They told me they would work with me and that I qualified for assistance and would get a loan modification. However, they did not follow through with assisting me, and I never got the loan modification to which I was promised. I could never get anyone to follow up with the modification despite my repeated calls to the mortgage company. I sent all the requested information to them; however, I never heard from them. I had to keep calling them back regarding my application for assistance. I was told by them that the foreclosure would not go forward as long as they were working with me through the loss mitigation program. Because of these communications with the lender, I was confused about the foreclosure procedure. Further, I relied upon these communications and believed that the mortgage company was working with me to help me keep my home and avoid foreclosure.

"Although, I was aware I was in foreclosure, I never received any notice that a foreclosure sale had been set for April 4, 2011. On Friday, April 1, 2011, I was told by representatives of the mortgage company not to worry, that they were still reviewing my account for a loan modification and that they would postpone any sale until the review was finished. My first knowledge [of] the foreclosure sale was the morning of the sale (April 4, 2011) at approximately 9:00 a.m. when I called the mortgage company to check on the status of the mortgage and was advised that the house had was set to be sold that day at noon and that there was nothing further that they could do to stop the foreclosure sale. They refused to offer me any further help to save my home. I went to the courthouse at approximately 11:20 am the morning of the sale and stood on the front steps of the main entrance of the Jefferson County Courthouse. I stayed there until after 12:30 p.m. and no one ever appeared there to [sell] my house. I later received a letter from the law office of Sirote & Permutt advising me that the house had been sold and asking me to vacate the premises.

"I was never sent nor did I receive any proper notice of default or an opportunity to cure the delinquency. Furthermore, I was never provided with a notice of intent to accelerate as required by my mortgage contract. Paragraph 21 requires that the mortgage company send me a default notice and a notice of intent to accelerate the mortgage indebtedness. I was not provided with a notice of intent to accelerate stating the following elements: (a) the specific default, (b) the action required to cure the default, (c) a date by which to cure the default, and (d) that failure to cure the default on or before the date specified in the notice will cause acceleration of the debt. The notice was required by the mortgage, and was extremely important. I have a meritorious defense to this action. This property was wrongly foreclosed. Even if the

mortgage contract is held to be valid, EverHome has failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract. Since its power of sale and ability to foreclose is conditioned upon the mandates and procedures of the contract, their failure to follow said contract renders the foreclosure sale invalid. EverHome wrongfully foreclosed and attempted to purchase for itself the property on April 4, 2011 without giving me a proper notice of the default, a notice of intent to accelerate, a notice of sale, and an opportunity to cure that default. Prior to acceleration of the debt, I did not receive the required notice outlined in the mortgage document that I was given on January 30, 2004.

"The indebtedness on the property at the time of the foreclosure sale was approximately $75, 000.00. [Fannie Mae] bought the property from itself at the foreclosure sale for $73, 185.89.

"Failure to set aside this foreclosure sale would render a harsh result on me due to my financial situation. I want to keep this property."

Both parties moved to strike the affidavits submitted by the other party. On May 22, 2012, Fannie Mae filed a reply to Gray's response to the summary-judgment motion. Fannie Mae attached an affidavit of the foreclosure-sale auctioneer averring that he had conducted the foreclosure sale on April 4, 2011, "at or about 11:33 AM during the legal hours of sale at the place appointed for foreclosure auctions in front of the main entrance to the Courthouse in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama."

After a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment on June 22, 2012, in favor of Fannie Mae, awarding possession of the property to Fannie Mae and ordering the Jefferson County sheriff to restore possession of the property to Fannie Mae. The trial court found that Gray had forfeited her right of redemption by failing to deliver possession of the property to Fannie Mae after having been given 10 days' written notice.

The trial court did not rule on the respective motions to strike. On July 25, 2012, Gray filed a postjudgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the trial court's judgment; Fannie Mae filed a response to the motion on September 4, 2012. Following a hearing, the trial court denied Gray's postjudgment motion on September 6, 2012. On October 17, 2012, Gray filed her notice of appeal to this court. On May 22, 2013, this court transferred the appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction; that court subsequently transferred the appeal to this court, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 12-2-7.

Standard of Review

"'We review this case de novo, applying the oft-stated principles governing appellate review of a trial

court's grant or denial of a summary judgment motion:

"'"We apply the same standard of review the trial court used in determining whether the evidence presented to the trial court created a genuine issue of material fact. Once a party moving for a summary judgment establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. 'Substantial evidence' is 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' In reviewing a summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and entertain such reasonable inferences as the jury would have been free to draw."'

"American Liberty Ins. Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So.2d 786, 790 (Ala. 2002) (quoting NationwideProp. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C., 792 So.2d 369, 372 (Ala. 2000) (citations omitted))." General Motors Corp. v. Kilgore, 853 So.2d 171, 173 (Ala. 2002).

Discussion

On appeal, Gray argues that the summary judgment entered by the trial court was improper because, she says, there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Specifically, she argues that there was no evidence indicating that EverHome was the owner of the note at the time of the foreclosure sale. We agree. The only evidence regarding the note is a copy of the note indorsed by the vice president of Irwin Mortgage; that indorsement is not dated and does not include the name of the assignee of the note. In Harris v. Deutsche Bank NationalTrust Co., [Ms. 1110054, Sept. 13, 2013] ___ So.3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2013), our supreme court reasoned:

"The Harrises also argue that the power of sale described in the mortgage was given by the Harrises as part of the security for the repayment of the debt evidenced by the note and can be 'executed' only by the trustee if it was the party entitled to the money thus secured. They cite § 35–10–12, Ala. Code 1975, which states that the power to sell lands given in a mortgage 'is part of the security and may be executed by any person, or the personal representative of any person who, by assignment or otherwise, becomes entitled to the money thus secured.' In Carpenter v. First National Bank, 236 Ala. 213, 181 So. 239 (1938), this Court applied the predecessor to § 35–10–12, stating:

"'A power of sale in a mortgage of real estate is a part of the security, and passes to any one who by assignment or otherwise becomes entitled to the money secured. Code 1923, § 9010.

"'But an agent of such holder to whom the mortgage is delivered merely for the purpose of foreclosure, having no ownership of the debt, is not authorized to foreclose in his own name, and execute a deed in his name to the

purchaser. Ownership of the debt does not pass to such agent merely because the note is indorsed in blank. Such foreclosure is ineffective, and a court of equity may take jurisdiction for the purpose of foreclosure.'

"236 Ala. at 215, 181 So. at 240 (emphasis added). The foreclosure deed in this case was executed by the trustee in its own name, not on behalf of the lender, SouthStar, or any other party to which SouthStar may have assigned the note. The deed was effective to transfer title and to foreclose the rights of the mortgagor, therefore, only if the trustee, in its own name, was entitled to receive the money secured by the note at the time it executed and delivered that deed.

"The parties agree in their briefs, however, and we accept for purposes of this case, that the mortgage given MERS 'solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns' did not entitle MERS to the money secured by the mortgage. Accordingly, the subsequent assignment of that mortgage by MERS to the trustee did not accomplish an assignment of that right to the trustee. The trustee in fact concedes that summary judgment was inappropriate in this case and that on the state of the current record there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the trustee received an assignment of the note so as to have entitled it to execute the power of sale in its own name. (It asserts that, if this case is returned to the trial court, it will introduce 'conclusive evidence' of its receipt as early as 2005 of the debt evidenced by the original note signed by the Harrises.) The summary judgment entered by the trial court therefore is due to be vacated and the case remanded for a determination as to whether the trustee received an assignment of the right to receive the money secured by the note, and thus the power to execute the corresponding power of sale in its own name, before executing and delivering the foreclosure deed."

(Footnote omitted.) See also Ex parteBAC Home LoansServicing, LP, [Ms. 1110373, Sept. 13, 2013] ___ So.3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2013) (holding that the right of the foreclosing entity to conduct a foreclosure sale must be proven in order to show that the buyer at a foreclosure sale has superior legal title and a cause of action to eject the debtor). Further, in Coleman v. BAC Servicing, 104 So.3d 195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012), this court explained:

"Alabama law specifically contemplates that there can be a separation. See § 35–10–12 and Harton [v. Little, 176 Ala. 267, 57 So. 851 (1911)]. The Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages takes the position that a note and mortgage can be separated but that '[t]he mortgage becomes useless in the hands of one who does not also hold the obligation because only the holder of the obligation can foreclose.' Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 5.4, Reporter's Note –- Introduction, cmt. a at 386. The Restatement explains: '"The note is the cow and the mortgage the tail. The cow can survive without a tail, but the tail cannot

survive without the cow."' Id. at 387 (quoting Best Fertilizers of Arizona, Inc. v. Burns, 117 Ariz. 178, 179, 571 P.2d 675, 676 (Ct. App.), reversed on other grounds, 116 Ariz. 492, 570 P.2d 179 (1977))."

104 So.3d at 205.

Similar to Harris, in the present case "the mortgage given MERS 'solely as a nominee for [Irwin Mortgage] and [Irwin Mortgage's] successors and assigns' did not entitle MERS to the money secured by the mortgage. Accordingly, the subsequent assignment of that mortgage by MERS to [EverHome] did not accomplish an assignment of that right to [EverHome]." Id. at ___. EverHome presented no evidence indicating that the note had been transferred "by delivery of possession or by written assignment." Coleman v. BAC Servicing , 104 So.3d at 203 ("The promissory note evidencing that debt was a bearer instrument that could be transferred in two ways: by delivery of possession or by written assignment."); see also Ala. Code 1975, § 8–5–24 ("The transfer of a ... note given for the purchase money of lands, whether the transfer be by delivery merely or in writing, expressed to be with or without recourse on the transferor, passes to the transferee the lien of the vendor of the lands."). "'[O]nly the holder of the obligation can foreclose.'" Coleman, 104 So.3d at 205. Because there was no evidence presented that EverHome, the foreclosing entity, was the holder of the note at the time of the foreclosure sale, we conclude that, like in Harris, the summary judgment entered in the present case was improper.

Gray makes several other arguments regarding the propriety of the summary judgment and the denial of her motion to strike. Because we are reversing the summary judgment on the merits, we pretermit discussion of those arguments. See Crews v. McLing , 38 So.3d 688, 696 (Ala. 2009).

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the summary judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Pittman, Moore, and Donaldson, JJ., concur.

Thompson, P.J., concurs in the result only, with writing, which Thomas, J., joins.

THOMPSON, Presiding Judge, concurring in the result only.

In defense of the ejectment action initiated by the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"), Diane Gray argued that the foreclosure deed pursuant to which Fannie Mae claimed to own the property was invalid because there was no authority to conduct the foreclosure sale upon which that deed is based. Among other things, Gray contends that, in support of its summary-judgment motion in its ejectment action, Fannie

Mae failed to present prima facie evidence that either the mortgage or the note had been transferred to EverHome Mortgage Company before EverHome conducted the foreclosure sale.[1]

The record indicates that on May 10, 2007, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"), in its capacity as nominee for Irwin Mortgage Company, the original mortgagee, purported to assign to EverHome the mortgage executed by Gray in favor of Irwin Mortgage Company. However, the power to sell or foreclose is available only to a person or entity entitled to payment of the money secured by the mortgage or note. § 35-10-7, Ala. Code 1975. In Harris v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., [Ms. 1110054, Sept. 13, 2013] ___ So.3d ___ (Ala. 2013), our supreme court held that when an agent, or nominee, of a lender is not entitled under § 35-10-7 to receive the money secured by a mortgage, the agent may not purport to transfer the right to the receive that money on behalf of the lender. In other words, under the facts of this case, if MERS was not entitled to receive the money secured by the mortgage from Gray, it could not validly assign to EverHome the right to receive that money. The language specifying the rights afforded MERS under Gray's mortgage is identical to the language setting forth the rights MERS had under the mortgage at issue in Harris. In Harris, the parties agreed that the language detailing MERS's rights under the mortgage did not entitle MERS under § 35-10-7 to the money secured by the mortgage at issue, and our supreme court accepted that agreement for the purposes of resolving the appeal. ___ So.3d at ___. In this case, there is no such agreement. However, Fannie Mae has not argued that at the time MERS executed its purported assignment of Gray's mortgage to EverHome, MERS had a right to receive the money secured by the mortgage. In the absence of such arguments or evidence, I believe the holding in Harris controls this issue in this case. EverHome could foreclose and transfer the property via a foreclosure deed to Fannie Mae only if, at the time it foreclosed, EverHome had the right to receive the money secured by the mortgage. Harris, ___ So.3d at ___. Under our supreme court's recent holding in Harris, MERS could not properly assign the right to the payment of the money secured by Gray's mortgage to EverHome. Accordingly, I must conclude that Fannie Mae failed to present a prima facie case that EverHome had acquired the right to foreclose on Gray's mortgage by virtue of a purported assignment of that mortgage from MERS to EverHome.[2]

However, the inquiry does not necessarily end when it is determined that a valid or timely assignment of a mortgage did not occur. This court has recognized that a mortgage need not be assigned in order to enable an owner of the debt secured by that mortgage to foreclose under a power of sale. Perry v.Federal Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 100 So.3d 1090, 1095 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012). A promissory note secured by a mortgage that is indorsed in blank may be transferred merely by possession. Id. This

court has explained:

"The promissory note evidencing that debt was a bearer instrument that could be transferred in two ways: by delivery of possession or by written assignment. See Ala. Code 1975, § 8–5–24 ('The transfer of a ... note given for the purchase money of lands, whether the transfer be by delivery merely or in writing, expressed to be with or without recourse on the transferor, passes to the transferee the lien of the vendor of the lands.'); Kevin M. Hudspeth, Clarifying Murky MERS: Does Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Have Authority to Assign the Mortgage Note in a Standard Illinois Foreclosure Action?, 31 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 1, 14 (2010) (stating that 'a plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action obtains the right to enforce the note in one of two primary ways: (1) through proper assignment ..., or (2) through negotiation under the U[niform] C[ommercial] C[ode]').

"'Ownership of a contractual obligation can generally be transferred by a document of assignment; see Restatement, Second, Contracts § 316 [(1981)]. However, if the obligation is embodied in a negotiable instrument, a transfer of the right to enforce must be made by delivery of the instrument; see [former] U.C.C. § 3–202 (1995).'

"Restatement (Third) of Property: Mortgages § 5.4, cmt. b. at 381."

Coleman v. BAC Servicing, 104 So.3d 195, 203-04 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).

As the main opinion indicates, the record on appeal contains a blank indorsement to EverHome of the note executed by Gray and secured by the mortgage.[3] My review of the evidence in the record indicates that Fannie Mae failed to present evidence as to whether EverHome was in possession of the note that was indorsed in blank. Murdock's affidavit speaks only in terms of certain actions being taken by some unspecified entity--perhaps EverHome, although this court may not so speculate--in seeking to accelerate Gray's debt and foreclose based on the purported assignment of the mortgage from MERS to EverHome. EverHome might have been in possession of the promissory note at the time it foreclosed; however, Fannie Mae failed to make a prima facie showing in support of its summary-judgment motion that EverHome was in possession of the note.

Fannie Mae attempted to base its prima facie case in support of ejectment on its claim that it had a valid foreclosure deed. However, Fannie Mae failed to present prima facie evidence demonstrating that EverHome had the authority to foreclose and to issue the foreclosure deed. Accordingly, I conclude that Gray has demonstrated on appeal that the trial court erred in entering a summary judgment in favor of Fannie Mae.

Thomas, J., concurs.

Notes:

[1]In considering this issue, I do not address the argument raised by Gray that some portions of Fannie Mae's evidence was not admissible under Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P.

[2]In support of its summary-judgment motion, Fannie Mae submitted the affidavit of Robin Murdock, the "Vice President for Everbank sbm Everhome." In his affidavit, Murdock stated that, "[o]n May 10, 2007, Irwin Mortgage Corporation executed an Assignment of Mortgage to EverHome Mortgage Company (aka EverBank). A copy of the Assignment of Mortgage is attached as 'Exhibit C.'" The exhibit to which Murdock referred in his affidavit was the May 10, 2007, purported assignment from MERS, as nominee for Irwin Mortgage Company, to EverHome. Fannie Mae submitted no other evidence tending to indicate that Irwin Mortgage Company had executed an assignment of Gray's mortgage to EverHome.

[3]A "blank indorsement" is "an indorsement that names no specific payee, thus making the instrument payable to the bearer and negotiable by delivery only." Black's Law Dictionary 844 (9th ed. 2009).

January 29, 2014

 

END THE DOCTRINE OF CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

 

     Remember Adam and Eve. Satan made them corporate persons destined to suffer the sting of death. Jesus demolished death and robbed the grave of the victory. Let’s follow Jesus. Snap the shackles.   It is free. The debt has been paid. Satan cannot control what he has not created.

     Our currency is debt based charging interest on God’s creation, which He considers an abomination. Read Nehemiah 5 to get the picture.

     Let’s create our own bank that charges no interest. Did not the scriptures identify the one who works not, eats not. Take away the interest some get, who do nothing, and watch them starve as the abominable.

     You say that sounds strange. Read Ezekiel 18:13 to identify the strange. Some don’t want to live any longer than right now even if death come tomorrow.

       Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin established a biblical system that was, over time, stolen by the dead.

       We need somebody alive that is willing to follow Philippians 2:13. Stop looking in Congress or in the White House. They have kicked God out. Ask God for a David. A believing heart makes for a good start.

       Let’s pray.

December 23, 2013

 

 

JFK said

“Today we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom”

 

TODAY

The Minutemen that JFK said we needed, a nation of Minutemen, would be demonized today as “domestic terrorist”. Freedom demands, at least, the removal of the oppressor by way of the ballot box. America is populated by voters who have more than a wet noodle for a backbone, but elect not to exercise that duty.

                                Apathy gives way to dictatorship.

 

“Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

December 23, 2013

 

 

JFK said

“Today we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom”

 

TODAY

The Minutemen that JFK said we needed, a nation of Minutemen, would be demonized today as “domestic terrorist”. Freedom demands, at least, the removal of the oppressor by way of the ballot box. America is populated by voters who have more than a wet noodle for a backbone, but elect not to exercise that duty.

                                Apathy gives way to dictatorship.

 

“Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

November 22, 2013

 

President John F. Kennedy’s Speech on the secret societies

 

Ladies and Gentleman the very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society. And we are, as a people, inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, the secret oaths, and a secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restriction.

Even today there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it.

 

And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

 

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control and no official of my administration whether his rank is higher low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy. That relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence, on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion, instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, and guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silent not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed. No secret is revealed. No president should fear public scrutiny of his program, for from that scrutiny comes understanding, and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary.

 

I’m not asking the newspapers to support administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers, I welcome it.

This administration intends to be candid about its errors. As a wise man once said, an error does not become a mistake until you refused to correct it. We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors. And we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed. And no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solo decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution, not primarily for amuse and entertain not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants, but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers, and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news, for it is no longer far away, and foreign, but close at hand, and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as to improved transmission.

 

And it means, finally the government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security.

 

And so it is to the printing press, to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help, man will be what he was born to be, free and independent.

November 13, 2013

 

 

 

 

 FoxNews 11/13/2013

Why ObamaCare is a fantastic success

 

There are two major political parties in America. I'm a member of the naïve, stupid, and cowardly one. I'm a Republican.
How stupid is the GOP? They still don't get it.

I told them 5 years ago, 2 books ago, a national bestseller ago ("The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide"), and in hundreds of articles and commentaries, that ObamaCare was never meant to help America, or heal the sick, or lower healthcare costs, or lower the debt, or expand the economy,

The GOP needs to stop calling ObamaCare a "trainwreck." That means it's a mistake, or accident. That means it's a gigantic flop, or failure. It's NOT.

This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism.
It's not a failure, it's Obama's grand success.

It's not a "trainwreck," ObamaCare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government.

Obama's hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky -- a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky's stated advice was to call the other guy "a terrorist" to hide your own intentions.

To scream that the other guy is "ruining America," while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again...in every sentence of every speech.. .that you are "saving the middle class," while you are busy wiping out the middle class.

The GOP is so stupid they can't see it. There are no mistakes here. This is a planned purposeful attack.

The tell-tale sign isn't the disastrous start to ObamaCare. Or the devastating effect the new taxes are having on the economy. Or the death of full-time jobs. Or the overwhelming debt. Or the dramatic increases in health insurance rates. Or the 70% of doctors now thinking of retiring- bringing on a healthcare crisis of unimaginable proportions. Forget all that.

The real sign that this is a purposeful attack upon capitalism is how many Obama administration members and Democratic Congressmen are openly calling Tea Party Republicans and anyone who wants to stop ObamaCare "terrorists."

There's the clue. Even the clueless GOP should be able to see that.

They are calling the reasonable people.. the patriots.. .the people who believe in the Constitution ... the people who believe exactly what the Founding Fathers believed.., the people who want to take power away from corrupt politicians who have put America $17 trillion in debt... terrorists?

That's because they are Saul Alinsky-ing the GOP. The people trying to purposely hurt America, capitalism and the middle class.., are calling the patriots by a terrible name to fool, confuse and distract the public.

ObamaCare is a raving, rollicking, fantastic success. Stop calling it a failure. Here is what it was created to do. It is succeeding on all counts:

1.            ObamaCare was intended to bring about the Marxist dream redistribution of wealth

Rich people, small business owners, and the middle class are being robbed, so that the money can be redistributed to poor people (who vote for Democrats).

Think about it. If you're rich or middle class, you now have to pay for your own health care costs (at much higher rates) AND 40 million other people's costs too (through massive tax increases).

So you're stuck paying for both bills. You are left broke. Brilliant.

1. 2.ObamaCare was intended to wipe out the middle class and make them dependent on government.

Think about it. Even Obama's IRS predicts that health insurance for a typical American family by 2016 will be $20,000 per year. But how would middle class Americans pay that bill and have anything left for food or housing or living? People that make $40K, or $50K, or $60K can't possibly hope to spend $20K on health insurance without becoming homeless.

Bingo. That's how you make middle class people dependent on government. That's how you make everyone addicted to government checks. Brilliant.

1. 3.As a bonus, ObamaCare is intended to kill every decent paying job in the economy, creating only crummy, crappy part-time jobs.

Why? Just to make sure the middle class is trapped, with no way out. Just to make sure no one has the $20,000 per year to pay for health insurance, thereby guaranteeing they become wards of the state. Brilliant.

1. 4.ObamaCare is intended to bankrupt small business, and therefore starve donations to the GOP.

Think about it. Do you know a small business owner? I know hundreds of them. Their rates are being doubled, tripled and quadrupled by ObamaCare.

Guess who writes 75% of the checks to Republican candidates and conservative causes? Small Business.

Even if a small business owner manages to survive, he or she certainly can't write a big check to the GOP anymore. Money is the "mother's milk" of politics. Without donations, a political party ceases to exist. Bingo.

That's the point of ObamaCare. Obama is bankrupting his political opposition and drying up donations to the GOP. Brilliant.

1. 5.ObamaCare is intended to make the IRS all-powerful.

It adds thousands of new IRS agents. It puts the IRS in charge of overseeing 15% of the U.S. economy. The IRS has the right because of ObamaCare to snoop into every aspect of your life, to go into your bank accounts, to fine you, to frighten you, to intimidate you. And Obama and his socialist cabal have access to your deepest medical secrets.

By law your doctor has to ask your sexual history. That information is now in the hands of Obama and the IRS to blackmail GOP candidates into either not running, or supporting bigger government, or leaking the info and ruining your campaign.

Or have you forgotten the IRS harassed, intimidated and persecuted critics of Obama and conservative groups?
Now Obama hands the IRS even more power. Big Brother rules our lives. Brilliant.

1. 6.ObamaCare is intended to unionize 15 million healthcare workers.

That produces $15 billion in new union dues. That money goes to fund Democratic candidates and socialist causes -- thereby guaranteeing Obama's friends never lose another election, and Obama's policies keep ruining capitalism and bankrupting business owners long after he's out of office.

Message to the GOP: This isn't a game. This isn't tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism.

This isn't a trainwreck. It's purposeful suicide.

It's not failing, it's working exactly according to plan. Obama knows what he's doing. Stop apologizing and start fighting.

Oh and one more thing... Conservatives aren't °terrorists." We are patriots and saviors. We represent the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. We are the heroes and good guys. Unless you get all this through your thick skulls, America is lost.., forever.

November 08, 2013

 

If FDR could only have been as wise as Daniel Webster….

 

It would be to our everlasting reproach, it would be placing us below the general level of the intelligence of civilized states, to admit that we cannot contrive means to enjoy the benefits of bank circulation, and of avoiding, at the same time, its dangers. Indeed, Sir, no contrivance is necessary. It is contrivance and the love of contrivance, that spoil all. We are destroying ourselves by a remedy which no evil called for. We are ruining perfect health by nostrums and quackery.

 

We have lived hitherto under a well-constructed, practical, and beneficial system; a system not surpassed by any in the world; and it seems to me to be presuming largely, largely indeed, on the credulity and self-denial of the people, to rush with such sudden and impetuous haste into new schemes and new theories, to overturn and annihilate all that we have so long found useful.

 

Our system has hitherto been one in which paper has been circulating on the strength of a specie basis; that is to say, when every bank-note was convertible into specie at the will of the holder.

 

This has been our guard against excess. While banks are bound to redeem their bills by paying gold and silver on demand, and are at all times able to do this, the currency is safe and convenient. Such a currency is not paper money, in its odious sense.

 

It is not like the Continental paper of Revolutionary times; it is not like the worthless bills of banks which have suspended specie payments. On the contrary, it is the representative of gold and silver, and convertible into gold and silver on demand, and therefore answers the purposes of gold and silver; and so long as its credit is in this way sustained, it is the cheapest, the best, and the most convenient circulating medium.

 

I have already endeavored to warn the country against irredeemable paper: against the paper of banks which do not pay specie for their own notes: against that miserable. abominable and fraudulent policy, which attempts to give value to any paper of any bank, one single moment longer than such paper is redeemable on demand in gold and silver. I wish most solemnly and earnestly to repeat that warning.

 

I see danger of that state of things ahead. I see imminent danger that a portion of the State banks will stop specie payments. The late measure of the Secretary, and the infatuation with which it seems to be supported, tend directly and strongly to that result. Under pretence, then, of a design to return to a currency which shall be all specie, we are likely to have a currency in which there shall be no specie at all.

 

We are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no, Sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors, and ruined people.

 

This, I fear, Sir, may be the consequence, already alarmingly near, of this attempt, unwise ([it be real, and grossly fraudulent if it be only pretended, of establishing an exclusively hard-money currency. But, Sir, if this shock could be avoided, and if we could reach the object of an exclusive metallic circulation, we should find in that very success serious and insurmountable inconveniences. We require neither irredeemable paper, nor yet exclusively hard money. We require a mixed system. We require specie, and we require, too-good bank paper, founded on specie, representing specie, and convertible into specie on demand. We require, in short, just such a currency as we have long enjoyed, and the advantages of which we seem now, with unaccountable rashness, about to throw away. [A Redeemable Paper Currency, Speech by Daniel Webster, Feb. 22 1834.]