Posted on 10/02/2011 8:34:56 PM PDT by Watchdog85
The radicals who are pushing the “Days of Rage” and “Occupy Wall Street” protests are blossoming in other venues. Most of them fit the definition of “useful idiots,” but they’re too ignorant a lot to even recognize that they’re being used. This whole movement is an astro-turf operation being put on by the socialist and communist front in this country. Their leadership has seen the hand-writing on the wall, as the vast bulk of the country is unhappy with the Marxist reflexes of President Obama. What they’re attempting now is to complete the revolution, and with each passing day, the situation grows more dangerous. Whether this is a dry run, or the main event is impossible to determine, but one thing is becoming more abundantly obvious: These protests are not nearly so dangerous as the ideology that now drives and propels the protesters in their rage against capitalism.
In my youth, the so-called Cold War was the focus of the struggle between liberty and statism. When the Cold War ended, the communist elements in this country came out of the woodwork and began to push their notions safely in public. Most people viewed them as impotent kooks, but their basic ideas are attractive to some, fundamentally flawed though they may be. Examined closely, what you discover is that their ideas are a collection of platitudes, but they do not answer any of the fundamental questions confronting humanity, except in one sense: What the pleasantries of their ideology leaves hanging in ambiguity is the method by which they are to achieve their utopia, and the answer is always the same: Brutal, naked force and coercion.
In the first instance, it is common for people confused about philosophy and politics to fall into the trap of believing that all systems rely upon coercion and force. This is only true when considered in the most superficial manner, but upon closer examination, a stark truth is revealed: Freedom and tyranny apply violence or its threat under very different situations. In a system based upon liberty, violence may be used only as a response to some form of aggression. In any form of statism, violence and its perpetual threat become the sole means of maintaining order.
In liberty, it is assumed that all people have certain unalienable rights that are a precondition of their existence. These are generically the rights to life, liberty, property, and volition. In any system of liberty, it is assumed that these are the requisites of a successful life. The only way in which they are yielded is by one’s own choices. To murder or steal are to violate the rights of others, and these are methods by which to yield one’s rights. Living one’s life by one’s efforts and at one’s own expense, while avoiding the violation of the rights of others should bring no negative consequences from society. Such a system can flourish with minimal government provided its people are of a character to abide by these rules. Only the system of capitalism meets the needs of liberty.
In any form of statism, it is supposed that men have no unalienable rights, and that the interests of individuals are always superseded by the state. There is no presumption of even the right to life or property, and both are subject to immediate disposal by the state. In this way, in any such system, people are perpetually subject to the arbitrary whims of the will of the state, an invisible, indefinite monster with no limits of any kind. This sort of system appeals to the immoral because it forces them to be good according to some standard they are willing to accept because it suits them, and it suits them so well only because they suspect initially that they will never be the subject of its demands.
Infamous celebrity and potential tyrant, Roseanne Barr recently stated that a limit on wages of one-hundred million dollars ought to be the standard, and any who wouldn’t yield their wealth beyond that amount ought to be beheaded. Notice that she’s a good deal wealthier than most of us, but she doesn’t imagine ever attaining one-hundred million in wealth, so she’s willing to set the bar somewhere safely out of reach above herself. Unfortunately for her, what she doesn’t realize is that somebody lower than she on this economic ladder will naturally suggest that one million dollars is sufficient, and that she too must be subject to beheading. That person may be beheaded by yet another person who says one-hundred thousand is enough, and so on, until you get all the way down to the person who suggests that any who have anything ought to be subject to this punishment for “excessive wealth.”
Statism is an official, government-compelled race to the bottom, with coercion and violence as its sole methodology. The protesters now rising in demonstration in New York, and in Boston, and elsewhere around the country understand this quite well. Their presence isn’t aimed at any peaceful purpose, but instead to state their threats by sheer volume. They don’t even realize that they are to be used as fodder when things get out of hand. When the real violence begins, those who led them will slip out of the way, and avoid culpability and consequence leaving their dirty work to the mindless mob that believes in the tyranny of the mob. This has been the great object of everything Barack Obama has undertaken as President, and his economic policy is designed to create this environment. In order to become the greater tyrant he intends to become, he is waiting for a signal, and it’s already starting: “Make it stop.”
This is their goal. They wish to push the American people to make that appeal to government. If violence begins in earnest, the calls for the federal government to step in will escalate. This is the excuse for which Obama now waits. Many among us now watch and wonder, believing this cannot go so far as to set aside all we had known in our America. It’s your job to tell them, you who had known better, that the purpose of this spectacle is to steal their rights and all the liberty they had known. It’s time for some frank talk with our friends, family, and neighbors. It’s time to switch off the football game long enough to make this clear to people who haven’t been paying sufficient attention, lest they be drawn in too. It won’t take much to push us over the edge now, and if we are to prevent it, we must prepare them for what is coming, to save their lives along with our own. Yes, it has become as important as that. Yes, it’s time to talk with those around you, and while it may be uncomfortable at first, you may also be surprised at how well they understand. The defense of the Republic should begin belatedly now, and it must begin with you.
The relevant section of the article says:
O’Brien had a forensic audit performed on 2,000 documents filed in 565 mortgage assignments on 473 “unique” mortgage cases by J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America. Among the findings were that owners could be determined only on 60 percent of the properties, and particularly problematic were those that had MERS paperwork or were owned by federal government-sponsored entities, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
Of all the assignments examined, only 16 percent were valid, and another 8.7 percent were questionable. Seventy-five percent were invalid. The audit found 27 percent of the invalid assignments were fraudulent, 35 percent had been processed by robosigners, and 10 percent violated the Massachusetts Mortgage Fraud Statute.
The story is about a limited survey in Massachusetts and the findings are broken down and reported in such a way that you cannot tell what qualifies as "valid" or "invalid", but of the invalid 75%, 27% of those were found fraudulent (again, an undefined term in the report) but amounting to less than 19% of the total sample.
So you are drawing a distinction between 16% are valid and 16% are correct and valid? HUH?
**********************
This report may be more to your liking ..
You don’t get it. I am pointing out that the Florida Bar report doesn’t say what you said it says. You represented that it found invalid documents without noting that it was talking about around 500 loans in MA and the percentage of the ones identified as invalid was actually a tiny fraction, rather than 84% as you suggested.
The article you link to again does not show that the issues are endemic to the whole system as you imply. Most of what took place was sloppy, careless attempts to keep track of and service thousands of loan documents as they made their way through a whirlwind of assignment, securitization, etc. not a widespread criminal enterprise. And the couple of billion dollars worth of mortgages they are talking about are a drop in the bucket of a multi-trillion dollar industry over the same period.
I’m not an apologist for the crap that was going on and it was crap, but you are trying to inflame the situation with wild claims and generalizations that misrepresent the facts and the extent of the problem. This is something more expected from the bug-eyed and deranged left, not objective thinking conservatives.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Govt-report-Fannie-knew-of-apf-903176030.html?x=0
Gov’t report: Fannie knew of ‘robo-signing’ in ‘03
Investigator says Fannie knew of alleged improper foreclosure practices in ‘03 but didn’t act
tweet24
Email
Print
..
Topics:
Legal / Law Matters
.
Derek Kravitz, AP Real Estate Writer, On Monday October 3, 2011, 9:51 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Mortgage giant Fannie Mae knew about allegations of improper foreclosure practices by law firms in 2003 but did not act to stop them, a government watchdog says.
Similar allegations are the subject of a probe by state attorneys general into how lenders and law firms ignored proper procedures to handle a crush of foreclosure paperwork.
An unnamed shareholder warned Fannie Mae of alleged foreclosure abuses in 2003, the inspector general for the agency that regulates Fannie says in a report being released Tuesday.
Fannie Mae responded by hiring a law firm to investigate the claims in 2005. The law firm reported in 2006 that it had found foreclosure attorneys in Florida “routinely filing false pleadings and affidavits.”
Give me a figure for the percentage of times this happened and the people didn’t owe the money. That’s the only case of theft. Otherwise, I can’t help you understand that, as much as media reports (and you) try to make it sound like a massive rip-off and people being deprived of their homes for no reason, it just isn’t the case in the vast majority of foreclosures. I’m not excusing it. I’m defining it accurately.
Give me a figure for the percentage of times this happened and the people didn’t owe the money.
******************************************
The banks never give a full accounting... If I help you out and make your car payment this month should you expect to have your car repossessed because my name was on the check? That’s the situation we have ... It can’t be said with certainty in any case I know of what the actual amount owed is ,,, but I have seen dozens if not hundreds of cases where the banks voluntarily dismiss their own case when it appears as if they might have to provide REAL VERIFIABLE NUMBERS.
Take anyone with a loan in any “trust” that was paid off by AIG ,, The loan was paid off in full by the syndicate creating the certificates that were being sold to investors... The loan if in default was covered by insurance sometimes at up to 30X the loan amount , when the trust as a whole defaulted (about 20% of the loans bad) then AIG stepped in and paid for ALL of it in full again ...
HOW MANY TIMES MUST THE LOANS BE PAID IN FULL FOR YOU TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE PAID?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.