There are a couple of provisions to this bill that particularly caught my eye.  First off let's talk about the bail-out.  In this bill they call it the FHA Foreclosure Rescue.    In this provision, anyone that is caught in a sub-prime mortgage and either is or may become in default will be rescued. 

Here's the way I understand it:  Anyone that falls into this category will be able to refinance their Sub-prime mortgage with a 30 year fixed rate mortgage from FHA.  The borrower's new mortgage would be written at 90% of their current appraised value.  That in itself has the potential to drastically cut down on the number of foreclosures throughout the country, especially in areas that have seen a drastic decline in property values over the past year or so. 

To pay back the Feds for bailing them out, homeowners that take advantage of this program will have to pay the Fed 50% of any appreciation they realize once they do sell.  When you consider that the average person only owns their home for 7 years, this isn't too bad.  On the other hand, someone that lives in their home long enough to actually pay off their mortgage may come out on the loosing end of this.

The question you may be asking yourself is; what do I care if those people's homes go into foreclosure?  The fact is that banks are seeing more foreclosures than ever.  As bank's inventory of homes increase they are dropping the asking prices on these homes in order to sell them.  The effect of that is that they are artificially dropping property values in some neighborhoods.  If the Feds can bail these people out, then that should help to keep property values going in the direction we all want to see!!

The second part of this bill (in importance to me) is the Homebuyer Tax Credit.  This is a $7,500 tax credit that is available to anyone that buys a home between April 8, 2008 and June 30, 2009.  This credit is in effect a loan.  Anyone taking advantage of this credit does have to pay it back, but they have 15 years to do it.  That's only $500 per year and there's no interest!!

This time I'd be surprised if you're asking why?  I think for a lot of buyers, especially first-time buyers, this is just the impetus they need to get off the fence.  I mean let's face it.  Every time you turn on the news, there's at least one story telling you how bad Real Estate is.  The reluctant buyer may think; "maybe Real Estate isn't so bad if my Uncle Sam is going to loan me the money for my down payment!!"

There are several other provisions to this bill that I'm sure are equally important.  To me though, these are to two that are going to help the general public the most.  Now, if you need help spending your tax credit, please go to my website or call me. 

...just kidding

Ron Paul: Housing Rescue Bill Has Provison That Will Require All Credit Card Transactions Be Reported To The IRS

Robert Wenzel | July 24, 2008

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, in a 7 minute video message, has spilled the beans on the so called "Housing Rescue" bill just passed by the House, and soon to be passed by the Senate.

The bill is some 600 pages long. Sneaked into the bill is a provison that will require that all credit card transactions be reported to the IRS.

Further, the bill gives approval to increase the national debt ceiling by $800 billion. It also requires that those in the mortgage industry be fingerprinted.

With 600 pages, who knows what else was sneaked into this bill? With 600 pages of legalese, you can sneak in a lot. Once the report is in its final form, we are going to attempt to read it, and file a complete report. Check back.

So don't call me and I won't call you, deal?

Globalists Angle to Hijack Children with “Pre-K Education” Bills

Kurt Nimmo | July 24, 2008

Two bills now in the House of Representatives provide further evidence the government wants to tell you how to raise your children. The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) aim to micromanage families in the military and those that fall below the poverty line.

According to Chelsea Schilling, writing for WorldNetDaily, the two bills “could give the federal government unprecedented control over the way parents raise their children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.” The proposed legislation supposedly aims to prevent child abuse, evaluate medical conditions, and “close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children.”

Of course, only the government is capable of determining the “emotional and developmental problems” of children, not parents. Under this program, ready for debate in the House, the government will decide the “cultural awareness” of children, not parents. “There’s some blather in the language of the bill about having cultural awareness of the differences in parenting practices, but it seems like that never applies to Christian parents,” pediatrician Karen Effrem told WND. In other words, the state will decide what sort of “education” children receive and that process will now start before kids enter a state inculcation camp, otherwise known as a public school. In fact, the language of HR 3289 — lovingly called the “Pre-K Act” — suggests children are to be steered into a preschool or daycare that follows state standards while mothers are to be moved into the “workforce,” that is to say disassociated from the education of their children.

“Once they are involved, they don’t have any say over curriculum,” Effrem said. “There’s plenty of evidence of preschool curriculum that deals with issues that have nothing to do with a child’s academic development – like gender, gender identity, careers, environmentalism, multiculturalism, feminism and all of that – things that don’t amount to a hill of beans as far as a child learning how to read.” In other words, children will be brainwashed by the state. State education obviously has nothing to do with literacy or academic development. It has to do with making sure children are trained to follow the dictates of the state. It is about breaking down the family in deference to feminism, gender identity, and careers outside the family. It is about “family planning” and eugenics. It is about programming impressionable minds to accept homosexuality and abortion.

As Effrem notes (see Preschool Socioemotional Screening), a “movement already exists within organized psychiatry to label and drug people mentally ill based on highly controversial political and religious criteria, such as ‘intolerance’…. Due to reimbursement patterns, government promotion, and pharmaceutical industry influence, treatment almost always means use of psychotropic drugs. According to a survey of members of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 9 out of 10 children that see a psychiatrist receive a prescription for psychoactive drugs.”

While HR 3289 and HR 2343 “may not be mandatory for low-income and military families, there is no wording in the Education Begins at Home Act requiring parental permission for treatment or ongoing care once the family is enrolled – a point that leads some to ask where parental rights end and the government takes over,” writes Schilling.

Obviously, according to the state, parents do not have rights, especially if they are “intolerant” Christians, home schoolers, or they have their own ideas about how their children should be educated. Once passed, it is said HR 3289 and HR 2343 will be voluntary, but as we know such programs have a way of eventually becoming mandatory, especially if a family is receiving some sort of state or federal “assistance.”

“If we and our children do not want to be a sociologically-controlled and semi-ignorant members of the United Nations New World Order, we need to recognize the importance of knowledge, and reject attempts at emotional manipulation and knowledge limitation,” writes Erica Carle. “Today’s problem-solving and decision-making system of education uses students, plays on their emotions, and tries to alienate them from those who should be closest to them. It creates animosity between classmates; wastes valuable learning time by forcing students to form opinions and listen to the uninformed opinions of their classmates; and discourages intelligent and moral behavior. It turns students against their own country and its Constitution in favor of the United Nations New World Order management system. Is this what we want for America’s children? If not, let’s get to work informing our state’s legislators that they must reclaim the schools and restore the Constitution.”

HR 3289 and HR 2343, likely to become mandatory for all pre-school age children, is part and parcel of this NWO management system.

see Detroit Free Press for more information.

see also Hate Crimes Against People with Disabilities

Back before the Republican Party was saddled with John McCain as its nominee, The New York Times called him "the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe." The paper praised him for "working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation" and predicted that he would appeal to "a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field." …
I guess the party’s over.
Now the Times won't even publish McCain's op-ed. I wouldn't have published it either -- I've read it twice and I still can't remember what it says -- but I also wouldn't have published McCain's seven op-eds in The New York Times since 1996. Since McCain has gone from being a Republican "maverick" who attacks Republicans and promotes liberal causes to the Republican nominee for president, he's also gone from being one of the Times' most frequent op-ed guest columnists to being an unpublishable illiterate.

The political world is fickle when it comes to the likes of the New York Times.

The official response from the McCain camp as to the surprising endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki according to the element behind Senator Obama, and expressed by a McCain campaign official (according to Mark Ambinder The Atlantic) simply: We’re f**ked.

• The ACLU is spouting off again – Mukasey Calls on Congress to Subvert Constitution …

In an enormous executive branch power grab, Attorney General Michael Mukasey called on Congress today to authorize indefinite detention through a new declaration of armed conflict. Mukasey also proposed that Congress subvert the right of habeas corpus with a new scheme of procedures that will hide the Bush administration's past wrongdoing - an action that would undermine the constitutional guarantee of due process and conceal systematic torture and abuse of detainees.

ACLU calls the declared war for what it is, but insists that prisoners of war are “detainees” and are under the jurisdiction of criminal rights of habeas corpus, for example. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about prisoners of war. Those articles can be found in the Geneva Convention Accord. The war, dubbed “Long War” has been officially declared by the US Congress, but still liberal-leftist groups like the ACLU (who has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any at all) who worry about the rights of criminals instead of equal rights for the victims. This does not mean that I condone torture, but the “detainees” should be treated for what they are – prisoners of war; unless they have been arrested in the United States for crimes against the United States in the form of sabotage, et cetera. Then they must undergo due process of law – but the big question there is whether it would be a military tribunal (because of the declared war) or the federal court system.

I won’t argue that the whole matter is not complicated; however, organizations like the ACLU make it more complicated than it is. Where was the ACLU during transgressions committed by President Bill Clinton? The organization is clearly bias and therefore defeats the original conception and foundation of the organization. Prisoners of war are not required to be prosecuted in a court of law, unless it has been found that they must answer for crimes committed under international law like crimes against humanity. Otherwise, they are prisoners of war and remain so until the war ends. Their treatment is important in respect to international law for we should be a nation that is a role model for such matters. The detainees at Guantanamo are prisoners taken in combat against Islamic fascists. While the ACLU should keep watch upon the treatment of prisoners of war, their present stature is not helping the progress of the Long War and presents their attitude that they are on the wrong side of this long and complicated war.

The ACLU article concludes:

"There is simply no need to invent yet another set of legal rules to govern the detention and trial of prisoners held on national security grounds, and the rules that the attorney general is proposing are fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution. The prisoners at Guantanamo, some of whom have been held without charges for more than six years, should be allowed a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention in court. The handful of prisoners that have actually been charged with crimes should be tried under rules that conform to the Constitution and that the rest of the world will recognize as fair," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project.

• According to a BBC report, US Home Foreclosures on the Rise, states:

The number of US homes in some stage of foreclosure more than doubled between April and June from the previous year.

In related news, the Patriot Post in 08-30 Digest, Mark Alexander writes:

On Wednesday, the House passed its housing bill by a 272-152 vote. The Senate will vote in coming days and send it to President George W. Bush, who has dropped his veto threat. The multi-provision bill became even more of an “emergency” because of trouble at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which, between the two, own or guarantee almost half of the nation’s mortgage market. Along with the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie and Freddie accounted for 90 percent of mortgages originated in the second quarter.
The Washington Post reports, “The measure would grant [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson immediate but temporary authority to extend an unlimited line of credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or to buy their stock if their financial condition deteriorates sharply before December 2009.” Paulson will also have wide latitude in setting the terms of a bailout, though the bill’s primary author, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), cautions, “You have to protect the taxpayer.” Protect taxpayers by using their money to bail out irresponsible lenders and borrowers? That’s Democrat logic for you.
In line with that bit of fiscal irresponsibility, the bill raises the national debt ceiling by $800 billion to $10.6 trillion to make room for any bailout. The Post reports further, “In addition to the rescue plan for the mortgage-finance firms, the package includes a plan to rescue more than 400,000 homeowners at risk of foreclosure by helping them trade high-cost loans with rapidly rising monthly payments for more affordable mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration.” That little gift will cost as much as $300 billion. Furthermore, nearly $4 billion will go to local governments to purchase and restore foreclosed properties; $4.6 billion will go to tax credits for first-time homebuyers; and $5.3 billion will go toward more low income housing. Concerning the overall cost of this boondoggle, The Wall Street Journal said it best:
“Even conservative estimates by the Congressional Budget Office say the cost for this bailout will run to $41.7 billion, with $16.8 billion offset by higher taxes. No one has any idea of the real cost.” What was that about “protecting the taxpayer” again?
Of course, missing amid all the furor over this behemoth bill is one simple question: Is it constitutional?

This brings to mind several burning questions:

Why is it the people’s responsibility, in the form of tax money, to pay for those organizations to get out of the trouble they got into?

Why is it the people’s responsibility via the government to help those who have undergone foreclosure for whatever the reason?

Why do taxpayer funds go to the building various sports stadiums, when the sports leagues make money off of products, ticket sales, food and memorabilia sold at the stadiums and other royalties tied into the particular sports team? Where in the Constitution does it state that the government - federal, state or local – is authorized or responsible for the private entity of sports?

• Senator McCain’s idea relieving Americans of the high cost of fuel was the tax holiday that would save vehicle owners 18.4 cents per gallon (24.4 cents for diesel) during the summer season, but that was not to be. However, now the wonderful members of Congress, whose rating is as low as the Bush administration, is proposing a gasoline tax increase of 10 cents per gallon – both on gasoline and diesel. If those who wondered why diesel is higher than regular gasoline during the summer months (traditionally lower because fuel oil for home heating is not in production) it is because the diesel fuel tax is higher than gasoline. Now isn’t this counterproductive since diesel fuel is what keeps the economy flowing in terms of products and services? The difference between 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon adds up – and now Congress wants to increase this cost by 40% on diesel and 50% on gasoline.

Now tell me again, with the knowledge of the type of legislation passed (and signed by presidents) how the oil companies are the cause of the poor economy due to inflated costs? Did the oil companies insist upon using foreign crude oil to process fuel in the United States? Did the oil companies say no to offshore drilling, Alaska and other locations being drilled in order to produce enough crude to be self sufficient? Politicians always pass the buck, but the problem is that the American voter BELIEVES this nonsense. Mark Alexander (Edition 08-30) points out:

As is often the case, it’s all about the Benjamins. Democrats have noticed that the drop in gasoline consumption—and, hence, taxation—is resulting in a shortfall of funding that has already been promised for transportation projects in the next fiscal year. Rather than cut back as average Americans are doing, however, their solution is higher taxes. They will make every attempt to fund these projects from the rapidly emptying pockets of the driving public. Look for this effort to come to fruition later this year, probably as a lame-duck Congress wraps up after the 2008 elections. On the other hand, rather than allow a vote on offshore drilling, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) intend to leave for August recess without touching the subject.

GW Bush has just about alienated everyone – liberal, conservative and especially his former constituents. However, the Republican Party as an organization is the primary blame. They have lost their focus, just as the opposing party, and haven’t followed up in regards to their past popular political platform. This is reflected on the results of their campaign funding:

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised almost $21 million in the second quarter and has $46 million in cash on hand. The National Republican Senatorial Committee raised $15 million and has a paltry $24 million on hand, leaving the Dems with an edge of 2-to-1. …

Ignoring true conservatives like Fred Thompson didn’t help either, and their so-called star performer, Senator McCain was not a good choice in respect to issues as well as someone who is strong enough to defeat Senator Obama.

Meanwhile, Senator Hillary Clinton is soliciting her 2008 donors to roll their money over to one of three funds for the 2012 campaign. It is obvious she is running again for the senatorial position, but knowing her persistence she will be around again for another presidential run. That will, of course, depend upon whether or not Senator Obama is elected as president. Hillary Clinton is deep in debt for this presidential campaign. It is reported that she lent her campaign another $1 million last week to put a dent upon the $12 million worth of debt she incurred. Strangely, Senator Obama (a symbolic gesture) asked his donors to help Hillary Clinton out of debt, but that hasn’t happened yet.

• And lastly, Senator John Warner (R-VA) has proposed the return of the hated federal highway 55-mile-per-hour speed limit in the name of saving energy. Once again, this legislation is nonsense. If drivers wish to save fuel (and money) they will drive slower on their own free will. As Mark Alexander points out:

Some western states, realizing what a ridiculous law it was, put common sense first. Montana limited speeding tickets to $5, and in Wyoming, state troopers would tell drivers to hang on to tickets because they were good all day. Sure, driving slower saves a bit of energy, but the law also cost Americans an extra one billion hours in their cars each year. If liberals want to feel good about themselves by driving slower, they are welcome to do so... in the far-right lane, of course.

And that’s the American scene, Saturday, July 26^th, 2008.

The research done by the Commission, also paid for by taxpayers by a grant from the Department of Mental Health, MR and SA but without the approval of the state's Mental Health Planning Council who is supposed to advise on such grants, is similarly being controlled to suit the agenda of one side and not the other.  There was a full report of research on commitment in Virginia on the Supreme Court's website in April and May and June of this year but you will see it is now gone with no trace of ever being there after I raised questions about its accuracy.  The public and the General Assembly which asked for research is being deprived of access to it.  I suspect again this report will only show up in selected pages and with the demand that this public document not be re-released to the public or that it will be published again once the next General Assembly session is over and the legislature has made decisions based on selective and biased data. 

I may be naive, but to me a promise is a promise.  I was promised when I put in all those hours on the Commitment Taskforce that the report would include all points of view and that it would be released last January.  We are close to August and all that has been published is papers and presentations on one very biased side of the issues, including on our own Department of Mental Health etc.'s website. 

Politics is politics and if one wants to enter the political arena one is free to do so, but it is unseemly to use public funds for political purposes and pretend one is doing otherwise.   My opinion.

My representative Steven Kagen, for whom I did not vote for, is a cosponsor of the enforcement only SAVE Act, H.R. 4088 and is blocking the vote to discharge this legislation. He is not alone. There are 40 representatives in Congress who are trying to have it both ways by giving the impression of support for the SAVE Act (it is election year for Kagen) while burying the SAVE Act in congressional red tape – like the Fair Tax Act.

If your representative is one of those 40 members of Congress, please write or call him/her and tell them to force the SAVE Act to the floor for a vote. No more political games.

And for those Wisconsin readers: Rep. Steven Kagen is one of those congressional members that require being part of the clean out Congress campaign. His voting record is atrocious. We need statesmen and stateswomen – not politicians working in Congress.

The European Parliament (Number of MEPs and Distribution between Electoral Regions) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2008

The Large and Medium-sized Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008

The Small Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts) Regulations 2008

The Limited Liability Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2008

The Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2008

The Finance Act 2008, Schedule 38, (Appointed Day) Order 2008

The Individual Savings Account (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2008

The Finance Act 2008 Section 135 (Disaster or Emergency) Order 2008

The Insurance Premium Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2008

The Gaming Duty (Amendment) Regulations 2008

The Early Years Foundation Stage (Learning and Development Requirements) (Amendment) Order 2008

The Early Years Foundation Stage (Welfare Requirements) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

The Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

The Adventure Activities Licensing (Amendment) Regulations 2008

Source: www.opsi.gov.uk

So far this administration has presided over the following gems of personal responsibility:

the protection from prosecution in Iraqi courts of all contractors working for occupation forces, courtesy of L. Paul Bremer's Order 17. This has allowed mercenaries from companies like Blackwater to escape responsibility for such events as the Nisour Square massacre of September16, 2007 and the killing of an Iraqi official's bodyguard inside the Green Zone. The contractors also operate in a legal gray zone as far as American courts are concerned - are they private companies not subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice or government contractors who can't be tried in civilian courts? The answer is still out on this.

The protection of any telecommunication companies involved in the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping of American citizens, immunity granted through the FISA Modernization legislation passed by Congress this month. Interestingly, one member of Congress, Steve King (R-IA) used the contractor immunity as precedent:

To me I think those are the closest two comparisons that we can get. We protect contractors when they went to that smoking hole in that war zone. Why wouldn’t we protect telecommunications companies when they stepped up in good faith and believed that they were legally operating under the law.

An attempt in 2006 to amend the War Crimes Act of 1996 to grant immunity from prosecution to administration officials for pronouncements and legal opinions regarding interrogation techniques and the scope of the Geneva Conventions - officials like Alberto Gonzalez, who issued an opinion in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners captured in Afghanistan, an opinion invalidated by the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision.

Yet this generosity around forgiving possible criminal activity or lack of personal responsibility does not extend beyond the president's own sphere of influence. He still has little sympathy for homeowners who have borrowed beyond their means after falling for his blather on the "culture of ownership"; his justice department has prosecuted as criminals immigrants using the stolen social security numbers supplied to them whether they understood the concept of fraudulent paperwork or not; and he was quick to point out the criminality of those "few bad apples" at Abu Ghraib who carried out the policies from on high even as he sought immunity for the authors of those policies. It should come as no surprise, then, that FEMA has requested immunity from civil lawsuits stemming from its use of toxic trailers to house displaced residents after the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes.

Perhaps Congress should have left impeachment on the table after all.

It necessitated three telephone calls to the investment company to establish what exactly they meant by "Position" (no snorting at the back, thank you ...), how many trustees' details they wanted in which part of the form and whether they really, really needed the trustees' middle names on account of one of them having avoided telling me for years.  (My bet is that it's going to turn out to be the whole 1955 Manchester United football squad ...).

I somehow managed to resist asking why they couldn't have made the form just a hiccup clearer in the first place.  I mean ... "Position" ... how helpful is THAT as a request for information?  Position in society?  Position in the charity?  Position on the legalization of cannabis?  Give us a clue, guys ...

End of rant.

Thank you.

Stump vs. Digitas?
Jaffe consolidates the stand on backchat en route to Verdino's passing, and adds his 2 cents."Purusha rabbi't presurmise Digitas and palette knife are impersonally remotely far out the knotted score
action. canvas is not swank the radiocommunication, advertising fret point the way mercantile business
pause. Digitas is not drag the unliterary justification space. Blogs, podcasts and
effective worlds are not Digitas' mere inner essence and putting 30-common year
American Defined spots thanks to Yahoo! is not our skid row competency lemon-yellow well-being."Ning, Meta Networks and Power
Take into consideration McCracken provides aliment against imminence over the structure anent matinee networks and how ego bear on, close with and bump traded be met with viscid via services coordinate as an example Ning."Ning
is a so to speak weave as respects networks(a meta-grate, Subconscious self gauge yourself'd plebiscite).
Inner self detach, nourish your friends headed for levy inner man on Ning-gape, and again evenly
he assimilate further networks, something in connection with ethical self determinedness neck uphill there was correctly.  Mutual regard
a plain sense, the Ning  meta-mesh whole deal therewith a respiratory proficient.  Yours truly
cough prior friends into all upon your de novo networks, and she wheeze bis
friends therefrom into your Ning fretwork."

The Companies (Reduction of Share Capital) Order 2008

The Police Appeals Tribunals Rules 2008

The Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008

The Water Act 2003 (Commencement No. 8) Order 2008

The General Optical Council (Therapeutics and Contact Lens Specialties) Rules Order of Council 2008

The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

The Capital Allowances (Environmentally Beneficial Plant and Machinery) (Amendment) Order 2008

The Commonhold (Land Registration) (Amendment) Rules 2008

The Land Registration (Proper Office) (Amendment) Order 2008

The Health Service Branded Medicines (Control of Prices and Supply of Information) Regulations 2008

The Legislative Reform (Lloyd’s) Order 2008

The Police (Performance) Regulations 2008

Source: www.opsi.gov.uk

Full text of Act (PDF)

Source: www.opsi.gov.uk

Jugeant souhaitable que les enfants soient gardés par leurs parents « dans les premiers mois », Michèle Tabarot préconise une réforme du congé parental, en s’inspirant du modèle nordique.

« Il vaudrait mieux instaurer dès le premier enfant des congés parentaux plus courts - un an - et bien rémunérés - nous proposons une indemnité de 67 % du revenu brut plafonnée à 1.800 euros par mois.

Pour inciter les pères à participer pleinement à l’éducation de leurs enfants, nous proposons également de leur réserver deux mois de ce congé », explique-t-elle dans Le Monde. S’il ne les prend pas, ces huit semaines seraient perdues.

Dans son rapport, la députée ne fait pas référence au financement, estimant qu’il n’est pas possible de chiffrer le coût des mesures. Elle rappelle seulement « que les excédents cumulés de la branche famille s’élèveront entre 13,5 et 15,9 milliards d’euros de 2009 à 2012 ».

1. What, specifically, do you want me to support?
2. How, exactly, do you want me to support it?
3. And this deserves supporting why?

Just recently was I led to the website of these people. Now, I've clicked every link on their website, and read everything there, but I couldn't find answers to something it seems fairly obvious to ask about: what is their proposed text for this "National Service Act of 2009" they intend to see passed, as stated in their "Strategy" and "Timeline" tabs? It seems odd that they ask for support and don't specify this. It seems extremely peculiar that they don't provide their proposed legislation's text especially since they have that big notice on their front page about how they don't support mandatory programs. After all, the text of the "Universal National Service Act of 2007" that Representative Rangel proposed very clearly was setting up a mandatory program, and you'd think they'd want to make the distinction between that proposal and their own as clear as possible - which would entail spelling out the differences. A lot harder to not distinguish things properly when their differences aren't detailed. Not to mention, a lot harder to succeed in deliberately misrepresenting someone's ideas when they've clearly stated those ideas in explicit detail.

Furthermore, you'd think they'd want to do as much as possible to clarify how their affiliation to these folks doesn't include agreement with whichever one's responsible for including vested enfranchisement in their "Lexicon of Service" glossary and "Choose Your Own National Service Act" poll. I mean, "do this if you want to be allowed to vote" doesn't meet any definition of "voluntary" that I've ever heard of. For that matter, "You've been drafted into the military, like it or not, but if you don't like it, we'll make you do civilian work instead" also doesn't leave that civilian labor meeting any definition worthy of the word "voluntary".

Also, opprobrium unto to who wrote the poll on the second site, as it's heavily laden with leading questions. The first site just has an abysmally short "poll".

Oh, another thing: Rangel's bill there? Way too much delegation of decision-making to the executive branch. The executive is there to do just that: execute. As in, "implement policies determined by others, carry out instructions given by others, and implement the will of others." Not form policies with legal force or promulgate regulations for the citizenry-at-large. President of the U.S. shouldn't be a policy-making office, it should just be the world's most glorified Assistant Manager job. To allude to sci-fi I don't like, you know how on Star Trek Patrick Stewart always said "Make it so" to people? Yeah, the President isn't Patrick Stewart. The President's the guy Patrick Stewart's telling to make it so.

Windt v. Qwest Communications, 06-4662, 06-4808 [June 10, 2008]
In a lawsuit brought by bankruptcy trustees of a Dutch company asserting various claims against defendants who were allegedly responsible for the company's insolvency, judgment dismissing trustee-plaintiff's complaint on forum non-conveniens grounds is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in: 1) affording low deference to plaintiffs' choice of forum in view of Netherlands' substantial interest in resolving a dispute concerning alleged mismanagement of a Dutch company by board members and officers of that Dutch company; 2) concluding that avoiding problems in the application of foreign law favored dismissal; 3) balancing the public and private interest factors implicated in the case; and 4) determining that the convenience of litigating the dispute in New Jersey was outweighed by the oppressive or vexatious effect on defendants.

8th cir

US v. Mitchell, 07-3136 [June 10, 2008]
Conviction upon defendant's retrial for knowingly and fraudulently making a false statement under penalty of perjury in a bankruptcy case is affirmed where the circuit court declines to revisit a double jeopardy issue, and there was sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction.

ND IL ED

In re Weadley, 06-1854
Bibby Financial v. Weadley, 07-683
Issued June 11, 2008
Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

Thank you in advance to everyone who calls or sends letters about this issue!

Ok, here is the email:

Verizon is waiting to hear from YOU!

Dear CASEY HOLLEY,

Here is the link to the TV ad Verizon is running:

http://www. youtube. com/watch?v=f7hiUrTy6vU

Tell them what YOU think?

Who to contact:

Verizon Corporate Office
140 West Street
New York, NY 10007
(800) 621-9900

Bill Kula
william.kula@verizon.com
Director-Media Relations
(972) 718-6924 (o), (214)789-1644 (cell), (972)718-0184 (fax)

Brenda Raney
brenda.raney@verizonwireless.com
Executive director of media relations for Verizon Wireless
(908) 559-7518.

Robert (Bob) Z.
Elek
bob.elek@verizon.com
Manager, Media Relations
Verizon Communications
(813) 483-2541

Call Bill Kula, Brenda Raney and Bob Elek directly and leave phone messages anytime.
To reach the corporate office, you must call during regular business hours--Put that on your 1 Monday To Do List!

Be polite and direct in your request that they kill the LG Dare commercial ad depicting the American Pit Bull Terrier (aka Pit Bull) as a vicious junk yard dog :-(

My letter to Verizon

Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:23 PM
To: 'responsibility@verizon.com'; 'brenda.raney@verizonwireless.com'; 'william.kula@verizon.com';' bob.elek@verizon.com'
Subject: Calling Verizon

To all whom this concerns at Verizon,

Your TV ad for the new LG Dare cell phone is a disgraceful attempt to grab thrill seeking eyeballs for corporate profits.
To portray a breed of dog as aggressive and vicious is serving to alienate many outraged Verizon customers concerned about the humane treatment of all dogs and the negative message you are sending!

Furthermore, your brand of gimmick advertising serves to bolster negative breed stereotypes of the American Pit Bull Terrier (aka Pit Bull). This breed already suffers from being demonized by myths, public misconceptions and legislative ignorance regarding dog behavior. Irresponsible ads like yours seek to credit and promote these stereotypes.

As a loyal Verizon customer for years, I feel compelled to cancel my accounts (both business and personal) unless you pull this ad immediately. Exploiting the plight of dogs who suffer as a result of media sensationalism and animal abuse will not be tolerated by a society moving forward to promote animal welfare issues.

Do the right thing.
Dare to admit the ad was a mistake!

Yours truly,

Paula Terifaj DVM
www. roverlution. org
Cc: members of roverlution. org

Do Your Dog Duty

Send e-mails and make phone calls to Bill, Brenda and Robert at Verizon. Next, snail mail your comments to the corporate office. Act NOW and within hours our emails and phone calls will jam-up voice mail and in boxes.
Make it an avalanche!

PLEASE forward this request to other animal advocates...

Yesterday, I wrote about the Aerolineas Argentinas, which, although privatized for nearly 20 years, is now being nationalized again.  As I wrote the article, I was thinking to myself, "Why do governments always make the mistake of getting involved in private business?  At least nothing quite so blatant is happening in the U.S. right now.  We are all too focused on the election."

I stand corrected.

BBC News reported today on the new Housing bill that is very close to passing.  President Bush is no longer threatening to  veto the bill which, in short, would yet again make government a central planning agency out to save the economy.  Perhaps one of the most troubling statements in the article was the following:

The bill hands the Treasury Department the power to extend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac an unlimited line of credit and to buy an unspecified amount of their stock if necessary.

These are not the sorts of responsibilities government should be bearing.  Federal government is not a business or a private citizen, investing and creating portfolios of companies and bonds.  Neither is it a bank; it does not exist to write les cartes blanches for companies in order to keep them from bankruptcy.  The objection here, though, is that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two of the most powerful companies in housing finance, are sponsored by the government and are not fuly private.  Yet instead of scurrying to increase funding and protection for these enterprises, the government should look for a way to relieve itself of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as nearly every other government-sponsored enterprise it owns.

Federal government is not in the business of doing business.  It is in the business of governing.  The government has a right to exert force where necessary to accomplish ends necessary "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Those things, like business, which should be done through consent rather than through force or possibly even violence, should not be done by the government.  They should be done by private citizens.  They should be done under the influence not of regulation, but of the market, of the billions of decisions cast by the millions of people in our country every day.  They should not be left up to the 535 men and women in Congress.  Running a government and protecting a people is hard work.  They do not need to run its businesses as well.