Posts tagged ‘Washington’

Did Big Pharma Feed Kids A.D.D. Drugs on Purpose; MI Abortion Debate 2.0 – It’s Not Over-12/17


Did Big Pharma Feed Kids A.D.D. Drugs on Purpose; MI Abortion Debate 2.0 – It’s Not Over-12/17

Did Big Pharma Feed Kids A.D.D. Drugs on Purpose; MI Abortion Debate 2.0 - It's Not Over-12/17

Welcome to Independent Underground Radio LIVE – MICHIGAN’S TOP POLITICO PODCAST – Tuesday, December 17, 2013 @ 11:30am ET Program!

On Today’s Show We’ll Discuss:
-A groundbreaking report in the New York Times over the weekend makes a shocking claim Big Pharma along with groups of willing Doctors, made a push in the 1990’s and early 2000’s to push drugs such as Adderall and Ritalin on children, on purpose.

-Michigan Abortion Debate, ROUND TWO. As a majority of State Republican Lawmakers, plus three Democrats, rushed though a measure to end medical or non-medical based abortions paid by private insurance, round two on this issue is heating up. Can Michigan Women force a general election vote on the measure with 161K that Right to Life is guranteed to lose? We’ll discuss.

-Money on Steroids for Campaign Finance in Michigan? Will Gov. Rick Snyder sign a bill he decried as a Candidate Snyder to triple the States’ Finance Limits?

Independent Underground Radio LIVE FEATURED THIRD YEAR ON BTR Political Talk podcast based out of Ann Arbor covering Michigan and National Politics, breaking news and more.

Host Monica RW is an owner/writer for the popular Independent Underground News website, media consultant for ROJS Media LLC, a experienced grassroots and elected local political leader, and brings her researched Independent opinions to the political issues of the day.

Call into the show with your thoughts and opinions at 347-934-0185 or tweet us @IUNewsTalk.

Join Our Facebook Page: www.facebook.com/rojsradiolive
Follow IU News & Talk On Twitter: www.twitter.com/iunewstalk
Read our Blog Daily: www.rojsnews.com
Listen to Independent Underground Radio LIVE on Blog Talk Radio:
www.blogtalkradio.com/rojsradio

The Injustice: What A Rip-Off Bank Settlement Highlights the Feds’ Foreclosure Flop


The $26 billion settlement that 49 attorneys general wrested from the big banks today is a pittance compared to the damage done—but they were forced to act by inaction in Washington.

Go a head and hate the deal the federal government and 49 of the country’s 50 attorneys general just finalized with five of the country’s largest banks over foreclosure fraud. There’s plenty to dislike about the settlement, starting with the price tag: $26 billion. That’s a slap on the wrist given the reckless, sometimes criminal behavior of the banks, and a pittance compared to the trillions of dollars homeowners collectively lost during the subprime debacle. Wade into the fine print and the deal seems even more disappointing. One settlement site says that it can take up to three years for homeowners to know if they’re even eligible for a cash payment. Victims losing their home in a foreclosure can expect a cash payment of between $1,500 and $2,000—enough to maybe cover the costs of a rented truck and storage once they got the boot.


Be mad, but make sure to be angry at the right people. Bank regulators in Washington, and not the country’s attorneys general, should have been cracking down on banks that were routinely evicting people despite incomplete documentation. It’s the U.S. Justice Department and other federal agencies that should have gone after the banks when they were caught fabricating legal papers and routinely “robo-signing” thousands of affidavits at a sitting. The Obama administration also might have added teeth to HAMP (Home Affordable Modification Program) rather than relying solely on incentives, which explains why HAMP has helped only a small fraction of the 3 million to 4 million homeowners it was created to help.

Bank regulators in Washington should have been cracking down on banks.


The $26 billion settlement that 49 attorneys general wrested from the big banks today is a pittance compared to the damage done—but they were forced to act by inaction in Washington, Susan Walsh / AP Photo

“The attorneys general shouldn’t be here, but Obama fell down on the job,” says Prentiss Cox, who in 2006 led the successful case against Ameriquest, an investigation that cost the lender $325 million in fines, when he ran the Minnesota attorney general’s consumer-enforcement division. (He now teaches at the University of Minnesota Law School). “The Obama administration abdicated responsibility. So while many of us are colossally disappointed with where we are, you can’t blame the AGs. The AGs were at least willing to step to the plate.”

And the AGs did a pretty good job, all things considered. As written, the final deal pertains only to the wrongs the five banks (Wells Fargo, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and GMAC/Ally) committed while booting people from their homes. It won’t tie the hands of any AG seeking to investigate subprime frauds beyond the foreclosure mess. The country’s more aggressive AGs, such as Delaware’s Beau Biden (the vice president’s son) and New York’s Eric Schneiderman, can still pursue claims against the banks over origination (fraud committed when making the subprime loans in the first place) or securitization (the packaging of these loans by the large Wall Street firms and the deceptive means they often used to peddle them to unsuspecting customers).


Attorney General Eric Holder, center, announces a settlement regarding mortgage-loan servicing and foreclosure abuse, at the Justice Department in Washington, Feb. 9, 2012, Cliff Owen / AP Photo

“I’ve said from the start,” Beau Biden told me back in September, “I’m only willing to sign off on a deal if it allows us to continue looking into misconduct in the areas of securitization and origination.” The deal also doesn’t prevent individuals from suing their bank or stand in the way of the many private class-action suits that have been filed over improper foreclosures.

And the deal is about more than just money, even if the dollar amount seems about the only issue most people are focusing on. It’s little solace to those who have already been unfairly booted from their home, but it establishes the steps that any bank must take before seizing someone’s home—or face the consequences of more legal action. It will help those millions of people still facing foreclosure, which has been a priority of old hands in the fight against subprime abuse such as Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

“The most important thing for people like me is fixing the damn system,” Rheingold says. “It’s making sure people who can save their homes have the right to save their homes.” And with the sigh of someone who has been fighting this fight for a long time, Rheingold adds, “I think sometimes we lose sight of what’s possible to achieve.”

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Gary Rivlin is a special correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He is the author of five books, including Broke, USA: From Pawnshops to Poverty, Inc.—How the Working Poor Became Big Business. He has worked as a staff reporter for The New York Times, where his beats included Silicon Valley and New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

Ayn Rand Political Philosophy


 

by Ayn Rand


 

Dumb Voter No More . com

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY -ayn rand

 

Dumb Voter No More . com

What Really Goes On In Washington

Philosophy of Liberty

Where We Went Wrong

What We Need To Do

Limiting Politicians

Democracy vs Freedom

Man’s Rights

FOUNDATION of a FREE SOCIETY

Good Govt Protects Individual Rights

Property and Government

Freedom, Individual Rights, Capitalism

Bankruptcy of a Mixed Economy

FREEDOM and GOVERNMENT

Land of Liberty – Society and Government

Rewards of Economic Freedom

Separation of Economics and State

Flat Tax vs Sales Tax

Library of Liberty

Common Sense Laws

What’s Wrong With Conservatives

FREE MARKETS and LIBERTY

The Law and Plunder

Politicians, Plunder, Wasteful Spending

Constitution and Progressives

Learning From Walter Williams

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY -ayn rand

Capitalism Center

Principles of a Free Society vs The Road to Socialism

Government, Capitalism, Welfare

Income Inequality – World Poverty

Free People Are Not Equal and Equal People Are Not Free

Collectivism-Statism-Socialism-Communism

FREE TRADE

Bloody Politics – Why Socialism Failed

Vision of a Free Society

Proper Government

Foreign Policy

Government Spending – Global Capitalism

Collectivism vs Individualism

Taxes Can Destroy

Capitalism and Selfishness

Man-Government-Liberty-Tyranny

The Basic Issue–Mixed Economy–Seven Principles

Individual Rights

Life , Liberty , Property

Politicians and the Economy

Rights and Limited Government

Good Sites to Visit

Vices and Crimes – A Better Philosophy

Immigration

Constitutional Primer #7 – Property Rights

Right to Own Guns

Majority Limited and Pursuit of Happiness

POLITICS and FREEDOM

The American Revolution – Classical Liberalism

Politics and Plunder – Welfare and Charity

What Is Money – Seperating Money and State

Separating School and State

POLITICS – PART 2

Taxes and Property

The Anatomy of the State

American Government Idea’s

Good Quotes

ABORTION , Questions and Answers

Learn Economics Here

Three Youngsters Drown

INCOME for LIFE

OUR LORD’S PROPHECY PREDICTED AND FULFILLED

JESUS CAME BACK

FUTURISM, FIGURATIVE PRETERISM and LITERAL PRETERISM by W. Hibbard

WERE THE APOSTLES FALSE PROPHETS? by M. Fenemore

Lee’s Bio

GUESTBOOK & LINKS

1. What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

    The basic issue in the world today is between two principles:  Individualism and Collectivism.
   
Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
    Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
    These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.

    2. What Is a Social System?

    A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Isthe power of society limited or unlimited?
    Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws as do not violate these rights.
    Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it wishes.
    Example: Under a system of Individualism, a million men cannot pass a law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill him, they are breaking the law — which protects his right to life — and they are punished.
    Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live is not recognized.
    Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number.
    In the first case, the law represents a moral principle.
    In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no moral principles, and men can do anything they please, provided there’s enough of them.
    Under a system of Individualism, men are equal before the law at all times. Each has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million others with him.
    Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang up on one another — and whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds all rights, while the loser (the individual or the minority) has none. Any man can be an absolute master or a helpless slave — according to the size of his gang.
    An example of the first system: The United States of America. (See: The Declaration of Independence.)
    An example of the second system: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
    Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants or “kulaks” were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-kulak. Under the Nazi system, millions of Jews were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-Semitic.
    The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable and consistent result of the principle of Collectivism. When applied in practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can result in nothing except brutality.
    Keep this in mind when you try to decide what is the proper social system. You have to start by answering the first question. Either the power of society is limited, or it is not. It can’t be both.

    3. What Is the Basic Principle of America?

    The basic principle of the United States of America is Individualism.
    America is built on the principle that Man possesses Inalienable Rights;

  • that these rights belong to each man as an individual — not to “men” as a group or collective;
  • that these rights are the unconditional, private, personal, individual possession of each man — not the public, social, collective possession of a group;
  • that these rights are granted to man by the fact of his birth as a man — not by an act of society;
  • that man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective — as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross;
  • that these rights are man’s protection against all other men;
  • that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society of freedom, justice, human dignity, and decency.

The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document that limits the rights of man — but a document that limits the power of society over man.

    4. What Is a Right?

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist — you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society — you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.
Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer’s permission. He does not hold it by permission — but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot.

    5. What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man?

The inalienable Rights of Men ar

 

.

 
 

For Palin, a Short Ride With Lots of Rumbling


Sarah Palin made a grand entrance at the Rolling Thunder biker rally on Sunday, wearing a black Harley-Davidson helmet and visibly enjoying herself as a crush of reporters and bikers swarmed her motorcycle.

Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, was joined by her husband, Todd, who was wearing a matching helmet, and her daughters, Bristol and Piper. Their arrival at the Pentagon North parking lot turned the lazy Sunday morning into a celebrity affair.

Ms. Palin climbed aboard a chopper, assisted by a member of the Rolling Thunder staff, but was unable to move because there were so many members of the press snapping photos. Organizers eventually brought in police, also on motorcycles, to clear a path.

After moving just a few feet, Ms. Palin got off the bike to sign autographs and talk with the crowd. At one point she could be heard discussing “the missing,” a reference to the soldiers still missing in action — a key part of the Rolling Thunder cause.

Sarah Palin at the

Sarah Palinmade a grand entrance at the Rolling Thunder biker rally on Sunday, wearing a black Harley-Davidson helmet and visibly enjoying herself as a crush of reporters and bikers swarmed her motorcycle.

Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, was joined by her husband, Todd, who was wearing a matching helmet, and her daughters, Bristol and Piper. Their arrival at the Pentagon North parking lot turned the lazy Sunday morning into a celebrity affair.

Ms. Palin climbed aboard a chopper, assisted by a member of the Rolling Thunder staff, but was unable to move because there were so many members of the press snapping photos. Organizers eventually brought in police, also on motorcycles, to clear a path.

After moving just a few feet, Ms. Palin got off the bike to sign autographs and talk with the crowd. At one point she could be heard discussing “the missing,” a reference to the soldiers still missing in action — a key part of the Rolling Thunder cause.

Sarah Palin at the

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 662 other followers