Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Manual Diaz Was A CRIMINAL

I'm sure that most of you have heard of the Anaheim, Ca. police shooting a certain     Manual Diaz as he was fleeing.  If not, you can read about it here:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/manuel-diaz-fatal-shooti_n_1696646.html

What gets me about this whole thing is when the media interviews family, friends, and neighbours of Diaz, they say things like, "He was such a nice guy." or "Everybody liked him." and crap like that.  

Why don't his family, friends, and neighbours tell the truth?  Diaz was a criminal.  He was a known - not suspected - but known member of a violent Mestizo street gang.  He was a convicted thief and drug dealer.  He also has been convicted of assault, and a suspect in a shooting.  

Now I'm not saying the cops were justified in shooting him in the back as he ran away.  But come on people.  The way some tell it, the cops killed an innocent man in cold blood.  That's pure horse manure.  Diaz was anything BUT innocent.  He was a convicted criminal, and a piece of garbage.

I also want to say I'm NOT defending the cops.  As a National Socialist, I know full well what the cops are. They are here to "Protect And Serve - The One Percent".  For the 99 percent, they are nothing but ZOG's enforcers.  They are more like commandos than cops.  They certainly dress like commandos.

The days of the "friendly neighbourhood cop" twirling his baton as he walks his beat and saying "good morning" to passersby is long gone.  Today's cop is armed to the teeth with automatic weapons, pepper spray, tasers, and body armour.  It used to be that that sort of equipment was reserved for the Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) team, but now it's standard issue.

Is this really necessary?  If you want to intimidate and control the citizenry, it bloody well is.  But if the cops truly wish to "Protect And Serve" ALL the people, it's a little on the overkill side - except like I said for the SWAT teams.

But back to Mr. Diaz.  He was unarmed when he was killed.  Do I feel bad that a convicted criminal was killed while fleeing the police even if he was unarmed?  No way.  But consider this:  When the cops opened fire on this scum, surely SOME of the rounds fired missed him.  What if they hit a child playing nearby?  What if they hit you or me?  If they had hit me, and I survived, when asked if I needed an ambulance, I'd reply, "No, I want a lawyer!"

So if any law officer should read this, I'm saying that if you shoot at a fleeing suspect, whether he's armed or not and you accidentally hit me, you better pray I DON'T survive, because if I do, I'll sue you, your department and the city for so much, I'll be able to donate a fortune to the ANP, and still have plenty left over to live comfortably without working another day in my life.  That's fair warning officers.

Reminder:  On September 1, 2012, the URL of Sense And Sensibility will change to:  www.anp14california.blogspot.com

Dan  88!

Monday, July 30, 2012

EU should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief

By Brian Wheeler

The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.
Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.
He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.
He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.
Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".
'More open'
An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the "key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states", he added.
"It's impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated."

Start Quote

At the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice”
Peter SutherlandUN special representative for migration
The UN special representative on migration was also quizzed about what the EU should do about evidence from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that employment rates among migrants were higher in the US and Australia than EU countries.
He told the committee: "The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.
"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."
Mr Sutherland recently argued, in a lecture to the London School of Economics, of which he is chairman, that there was a "shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states" and the EU's ability to compete at a "global level" was at risk.
'No justification'
In evidence to the Lords committee, he urged EU member states to work together more closely on migration policy and advocated a global approach to the issue - criticising the UK government's attempt to cut net migration from its current level to "tens of thousands" a year through visa restrictions.
British higher education chiefs want non-EU overseas students to be exempted from migration statistics and say visa restrictions brought in to help the government meet its target will damage Britain's economic competitiveness.
But immigration minister Damian Green has said exempting foreign students would amount to "fiddling" the figures and the current method of counting was approved by the UN.
Committee chairman Lord Hannay, a crossbench peer and a former British ambassador to the UN, said Mr Green's claim of UN backing for including students in migration figures "frankly doesn't hold water - this is not a piece of international law".
Mr Sutherland, a former Attorney General of Ireland, agreed, saying: "Absolutely not. it provides absolutely no justification at all for the position they are talking about."
'UK support'
He said the policy risked Britain's traditional status as "tolerant, open society" and would be "massively damaging" to its higher education sector both financially and intellectually.
"It's very important that we should not send a signal from this country, either to potential students of the highest quality, or to academic staff, that this is in some way an unsympathetic environment in which to seek visas or whatever other permissions are required... and I would be fearful that that could be a signal."
Mr Sutherland, who has attended meetings of The Bilderberg Group, a top level international networking organisation often criticised for its alleged secrecy, called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
Mr Sutherland also briefed the peers on plans for the Global Migration and Development Forum's next annual conference in Mauritius in November, adding: "The UK has been very constructively engaged in this whole process from the beginning and very supportive of me personally."
Asked afterwards how much the UK had contributed to the forum's running costs in the six years it had been in existence, he said it was a relatively small sum in the region of "tens of thousands".
In other words, according to this Jew Sutherland, the only way we can "prosper" is to destroy all races, and become one mulatto race.  Not me, comrades.  I'd rather be a poor White than a rich mulatto.
Normally, I don't even like to bother with stories like this, but this really irked me - especially since the one who is advocating this is not only a Jew, but a card carrying Judeo-Capitalist big businessman, whose only concern is $$$.
When I was a kid, I wanted to be a paleontologist and dig up dinosaurs.  My mom kept telling me I would never be successful doing that.  To her, a person's success in life was dependent upon how much money he or she made.  I disagree.  I would rather do a low paying job (as long as I could support myself and my family) that I loved, rather than a high paying job I hate.
I say Sutherland is a liar.  Even if he is right, and that the only way to financial prosperity is through complete multiculturalism and the destruction of all races, the price for that prosperity is just too high.
There are so many things far more important than crass materialism.  One's culture, traditions, family, honor, and loyalty to one's Folk, to name a few.
But as we all know, Jews only see three colours:  Black, white, and green.  Better make that four.  They can see gold too. lol
My thanks to Comrade Raymond Bxxxxxxx for sending me this story.
Reminder:  The URL of this blog will change to www.anp14california.blogspot.com on Septrmber 1, 2012.
Dan  88!

Sunday, July 29, 2012

California Denies Illegal-Alien Accommodations in 2012

By Van Esser, Thursday, July 19, 2012, 10:52 AM EDT

A number of state and local jurisdictions enacted immigration-enforcement measures in 2012 or fended off attempts to accommodate illegal aliens. Alabama revised its enforcement law without significantly weakening it while Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and three local governments enacted enforcement laws. Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Hawaii, Washington State and, so far, California denied illegal aliens the public benefits advocates demanded.
Not an enforcement-oriented state by any stretch of the imagination, California produced several defensive battles this year. And more are in the offing.
Pro-illegal alien Assembly members introduced state-based guest worker legislation for the agricultural and services industries. The bill would have authorized the state to grant work and residency permits to illegal aliens if certain criteria were met and the feds approved. The trouble is, the federal government has no authority to authorize state guest workers programs. Our California members fought back with calls and faxes and the measure’s sponsor removed the bill from consideration. The pro-enforcement side won.
The Assembly also considered a constitutional amendment that, if approved by the legislature and California voters, would have set up a program similar to the DHS’ prosecutorial discretion policy. The program would have given illegal aliens immunity from deportation and the implicit ability to work, with federal government approval. This legislation is unconstitutional as well because the federal government cannot empower states to decide who can or cannot be deported. NumbersUSA members engaged on this measure, too. Assembly Democratic leaders decided to let the clock run out on the measure rather than bring it up for a vote. The pro-enforcement side won.
Still under consideration this year in California is a bill that would prevent law enforcement agencies from honoring ICE immigration detainers unless an illegal alien was convicted of a serious felony or had an outstanding warrant. The measure directly challenges the federal Secure Communities program, which allows ICE agents to ask police departments to hold any illegal alien under a detainer. The bill passed the state Senate and will soon head back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote. If the Assembly concurs, it will be sent to Governor Jerry Brown.
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
Well, every now and again we get a nice surprise.  However, let's not get over-enthused.  California has yet to get really tough on enforcement.  What's going on here is that Gov. Brown is making massive budget cuts to public health care for children, and shortening the school year by three weeks.  Considering that, if he was seen to be giving any benefits at all to illegals, and denying benefits to OUR children, he'd be in deep doo-doo with the voters.
California has always been a haven for illegals.  It's only because of monetary reasons that the state is no longer as "hospitable" as it used to be.  The only real way to handle this problem is through both cutting off all public services to illegals, job sources, and deportation.  If the Federal government won't do it, then the states should.
Arizona is facing a lot of heat from ZOG over this issue.  If all states, or at least the states that face this problem more than others such as New Mexico, Nevada, and Texas all stood together against ZOG on this - including California and Arizona, then the Feds would have to take notice.
Unfortunately, most people are afraid of "alienating" the Mestizo community to do what has to be done.  Add to that the fact that  big business doesn't want it's labor force cut off.
Since illegals have been cut off from the state gravy train, the corporate farms up in the Central Valley are already complaining they're have trouble finding enough workers.  Boo-Hoo.  Maybe if they paid a decent wage, more American citizens would be willing to take that kind of work.  The idea of being an agricultural worker doesn't thrill me, but if that's what I had to do to support my family, then that's what I'd have to do.  It's honest work, and that's what counts.
Correction:  I inadvertently gave the wrong URL to our Arizona blog.  The correct URL is:  www.anp14southwestaz.blogspot.com
Reminder:  The URL of this blog will change to www.anp14california.blogspot.com on September 1, 2012.
Dan  88!

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Jewish Summer Camp in Pennsylvania 'Terrorized'; Five Charged

By ALON HARISH | ABC News – Thu, Jul 26, 2012

Five people face charges for allegedly terrorizing a Jewish summer camp in Pennsylvania.
Jewish Summer Camp in Pennsylvania 'Terrorized'; Five Charged
In three separate episodes earlier this month, three adults and two juveniles caused property damage as they sped dangerously through Camp Bonim in Wayne County in a pickup truck, shouting anti-Semitic epithets and firing paintball guns at campers and staff, District Attorney Janine Edwards said in a press release. The three adults were arrested Wednesday morning and face felony and misdemeanor charges, including ethnic intimidation, terroristic threats and assault.
"These children were terrorized and in fear for their lives by the actions of this group," Edwards said in the release. "The vicious, cruel and obscene nature of the language hurled at the campers is unspeakable. Luckily none of the children suffered any serious physical injury, however, the emotional damage is immeasurable.
A judge arraigned Tyler Spencer, an 18-year-old from Linden, Tenn., and set his bail at $200,000. Spencer is accused of attempting to hit campers as he drove the Ford-350 pickup truck carrying the group. Spencer's alleged accomplices, Mark Trail, 21, and Cassandra Robertson, 18, both of Wayne County, were held on $20,000 bail. A 17-year-old and a 16-year-old face juvenile court cases.
In the first episode on July 14, Spencer told police that he drove in circles at a high speed to damage several fields on the Bonim campus, according to a police affidavit obtained by ABC News. When he returned with the same group of passengers the next day, Spencer said they ripped the camp's mailbox out of the ground before driving into the camp.
Police said Mark Trail then yelled racial slurs such as "You f***ing Jews go back where you came from" and "I'm gonna kill you, you f***ing Jews." During that episode, 18-year-old camper Alan Rosen was struck in the leg by a shot from a paintball gun while walking near the camp's synagogue, according to the affidavit, filed by Pennsylvania State Trooper John Decker.
At around 2:30 a.m. the next morning, campers saw the group doing "360s" in the camp's quad area before the truck came chasing after one of them, according to the affidavit. The campers told police the truck only missed them by about 10 feet.
"Because of what goes on out there in the world, people get scared quick, and that's what they were trying to accomplish," said Dovid Presser, Camp Bonim's director.
Though the incidents quickly became the "talk of the camp," he said, most of the camp's 300 children, which age from 6 to 20, did not appear terribly concerned for their safety in the days that followed. The camp's administrators, though, took the incidents very seriously, he said. A caretaker called Honesdale, Pa., police after the group's first intrusion on July 14, according to the affidavit.
On July 16, one day after the last incident at Camp Bonim, Spencer was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly driving into a counselor from the camp outside a local Turkey Hill store, breaking his leg. Spencer fled the scene, and was caught later that day by New York state police near Hancock, N.Y.
According to the affidavit, New York state police said the truck matched the description provided by Honesdale, Pa., police of the truck involved in the Camp Bonim crimes and the truck's occupants admitted to both those crimes and the hit-and-run at the Turkey Hill. Trail and Robertson gave Pennsylvania state police written statements acknowledging their guilt in the incidents at the camp and store.
Presser said the camp community was relieved to learn that the group had been apprehended, and that he was impressed with the way law enforcement handled the case.
"They did whatever they could. We could see right away that they were working on it," he said. Wayne County is home to more than 30 summer camps, many of them drawing children from around the Northeast. District Attorney Edwards said in a statement to the press that her office "want[s] it known that Wayne County citizens value our camps. We want our camps to be safe."
The group is also being charged with damaging the grounds of an elementary school in nearby Waymart, Pa.
What a bunch of retards.  These people are certainly not National Socialists.  They never said they were, nor even White Nationalists.  They're just a group of hateful mental cases, and we're ALL better off that they're busted.
Comrades, acts like this are just plain senseless.  Did it accomplish anything?  No it did not.  None of the children were seriously hurt, the camp is still operating, and the perps are now in jail.  Indeed, it only served to remind everyone that there is still Anti-Semitism in this country and to raise sympathy for the Jews.  The Jews are already experts at gaining sympathy.  Whites don't need to help them - which is exactly the result that was achieve.
I say again, that Joe Average Jew is NOT our enemy.  Who cares how they worship?  I don't.  So they don't accept Christ as their Savior.  That's between God and them - not us.  
As for the rest of it, most of your typical Jews just want to work and care for their families, and not bother anybody.  Anyone who still thinks that all Jews are rich has no idea what they are talking about.  It's true that a greater percentage of Jews are wealthy than Aryans, but still, most Jews are not rich.  Indeed, many of them are going down the financial tubes just as we are.
The real enemies are the Judeo-Capitalists - the majority of whom are White, and their sock-puppets in government.  Judeo-Capitalist doesn't mean Jews who are capitalists.  It means Jewish-style capitalism, which is based on an old system called a Kehillah.  Henry Ford talked about this in detail in his book, "The International Jew."
If you haven't read this book, I suggest you do so.  It explains exactly what they are, and clears up some common misconceptions - especially about the Jews who aren't wealthy.
You can download it off the main website.  It's over 600 pages long, but it is a compilation of articles Ford wrote for the Dearborn Independent newspaper over a two year period.  One chapter, one article.  If you look at it that way, and take it one article at a time, even slow readers can get through it.
Reminder:  The URL of this blog will be changed to www.anp14california.blogspot.com on September 1.
Dan  88!

Friday, July 27, 2012

Important Correction

The date the URL of this blog will be changed to www.anp14california.blogspot.com will be September 1, nor August 1.

We decided six days was not enough advanced notice, so I'm extending the time an extra month.  I'll still be putting up a mirror blog with the old URL to direct people back here.

Also, our new Arizona blog is up now.  Their URL is www.anp14arizona.blogspot.com  Please bear in mind that they are just getting started.

I'll be back with my regular-type posts tomorrow.  Thanks for bearing with me.

Dan  88!

Thursday, July 26, 2012


In accordance with a new ANP policy, I'll be changing my URL to www.anp14california.blogspot.com on August 1, 2012.  I don't know exactly when on August 1 that I'll do this, but it will be sometime on the first.

Eventually, all ANP state blogs will do likewise.  They will be www.anp14nameofstate.blogspot.com

There are several reasons for doing this.  First, when someone Googles ANP, the state blogs will come up too.  If someone Googles National Socialism for their state, the appropriate state blog will also come up.  Plus, it looks more professional and organized to have the URLs more or less uniform, and people will know which one covers their state more easily.

I will make daily reminders until then.  Plus, I will put up a mirror blog with the current URL of www.americannaziparty.blogspot.com  and will post the new URL of www.anp14california.blogspot.com to direct people who miss my announcements, but there will be no further updates or posts on the mirror.  It will be just to redirect people back here.

I hope this doesn't cause too much confusion or inconvenience.  Thank you.

Dan  88!

Wednesday, July 25, 2012

Wealthy Stash $21 Trillion in 'Pirate' Banks

By Robert Frank | CNBC – Mon, Jul 23, 2012 12:08 PM EDT

There are two banking systems for the wealthy. Private banks. And "pirate" banks.
"Pirate banks" form a large and fast-growing virtual banking system that has helped the wealthy hide more than $21 trillion offshore, according to a new report from the left-leaning Tax Justice Network USA.
That hidden wealth is costing governments $280 billion a year in lost tax revenue, the report says.
The report says much of that wealth is held by fewer than 10 million of the global super-wealthy and is handled by the world's 50 largest banks. Today's "pirate banking" clients include everyone from "30-year-old Chinese real-estate speculators and Silicon Valley software tycoons to Dubai oil sheks, Russian presidents, mineral-rich African dictators and Mexican drug lords," the report said.
"The 'pirate banking' system now launders, shelters, manages and, if necessary, re-domiciles the riches of many of the world's worst villains, as well as the tangible and intangible assets and liabilities of many of our wealthiest individuals," said the report.
The report states that the top 50 banks managed more than $12 trillion in cross-border invested assets from private clients, trusts and foundations. While the report doesn’t break down how much if any of those flows are illegal, it states that “they are key players in many havens around the globe, and key enablers of the global tax injustice system.”
The report was written by James Henry, a former economist for McKinsey & Co.
Of course, determining how much wealth is hidden overseas is an imprecise science. And many conservative groups contest the estimate.
The problem, says Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is that the estimate is based on a series of assumptions aimed at making people "believe that much of cross-border investing is all about tax evasion and that all this money should go to government, and that this would be a good thing." The real problem facing governments, Mitchell says, is spending not revenues.
The Tax Justice Network used data from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, central banks and national accounts to model capital flows for 139 countries. It supplemented this with other data on transfer prices and reserve currencies, along with consulting firm research on offshoring.
All that data-crunching resulted in the estimate that the world's wealthy have between $21 trillion and $32 trillion stashed offshore, and that the world's top 50 banks collectively manage more than $12 trillion of that money. Smaller banks, investment banks, insurance companies, hedge funds and independent money managers oversaw the rest.
The $21 trillion to $32 trillion estimate does not include real estate, yachts, thoroughbreds or gold bricks, which could also increase the number.
The report says that traditional offshore havens like Switzerland and Singapore hold substantial amounts. But much of the offshore fortune is held in a "virtual country" - a network of complicated cross-border entities designed to shelter wealth.
An asset may be "owned by an anonymous offshore company in one jurisdiction, which is in turn owned by a trust in another jurisdiction, whose trustees are in yet another jurisdiction," the report said.
As this story is on Yahoo news, some of you may have already read it, but it is so outrageous and morally criminal, I want to make sure as many see this as possible.
Comrades, this is exactly the type of message we have to get to the people.  Spreading the word is one of the ANP's mission goals.
Also, this is exactly why the Judeo-Capitalists want to destroy us.  A National Socialist state would stop these shennanigens in a heartbeat.  
Now there really is no way to get rid of us entirely.  National Socialism, just like all other socio-political ideologies is an idea in the mind.   If it is suppressed, it hides away and grows stronger until it is ready to try again.  Rather than wipe us out, the Judeo-Capitalists and their ZOG sock puppets try and control NS by using the all too common Hollyweird Nutzis like the NSM and Aryan Nations to discredit and hinder true National Socialists like the ANP.  
Another tactic they use is sort of a double bluff, also known s playing both sides of the field.  They use an organization that "APPEARS" to be true National Socialism on the surface.  But if you look closely (which most people tend not to do) you can see them for the phonies they are.  I'm speaking of the NSALP.  I've been told they have disbanded, but their site is still up and running.  If they are still running, I'm sure they'll let me know if they read this.  If not, the site will come down if no one pays the hosting fees when they come due.
The only National Socialist group you can count on is the ANP.  We have been around for over ten years.  Our chairman was a member of the original ANP.  We have a lobbyist.  We've run people for office, and had a few victories - all serving under-the-radar for the time being.  We have annual and regional events.   We're starting more blogs, and they will serve specific states or regions.   
BTW, I will be organizing a new California event soon.  Nothing specific until I contact our Ca. Supporters and see who can come and when.
What are you waiting for?  If you are not already an Official Supporter, you could be for only 33 cents a day, which includes a subscription to our monthly hard copy magazine, "The White Worker".  Or for $20 a year (less than $2 a month), you can just subscribe.  Lot's of great stuff in there - none of which can be found on our blogs.  
It's up to you.  No one is going to do it for you.
Dan  88!

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Local Small-Time Judeo-Capitalists Are Scaring The Hell Out Of Wall Street!

From an Unlikely Source, a Serious Challenge to Wall Street

By Matt Taibbi

July 21, 2012 "
Rolling Stone" - - Something very interesting is happening.

There’s been so much corruption on Wall Street in recent years, and the federal government has appeared to be so deeply complicit in many of the problems, that many people have experienced something very like despair over the question of what to do about it all.

But there’s something brewing that looks like it might be a blueprint to effectively take on the financial services industry: a plan to allow local governments to take on the problem of neighborhoods blighted by toxic home loans and foreclosures through the use of eminent domain. I can't speak for how well the program will work, but it's certainly been effective in scaring the hell out of Wall Street.

Under the proposal, towns would essentially be seizing and condemning the man-made mess resulting from the housing bubble. Cooked up by a small group of businessmen and ex-venture capitalists, the audacious idea falls under the category of "That’s so crazy, it just might work!" One of the plan’s originators described it to me as a "four-bank pool shot."

Here’s how the New York Times described it in an article from earlier this week entitled, "California County Weighs Drastic Plan to Aid Homeowners":
Desperate for a way out of a housing collapse that has crippled the region, officials in San Bernardino County … are exploring a drastic option — using eminent domain to buy up mortgages for homes that are underwater.
Then, the idea goes, the county could cut the mortgages to the current value of the homes and resell the mortgages to a private investment firm, which would allow homeowners to lower their monthly payments and hang onto their property.
I’ve been following this story for months now – I was tipped off that this was coming earlier this past spring – and in the time since I’ve become more convinced the idea might actually work, thanks mainly to the extremely lucky accident that the plan doesn’t require the permission of anyone up in the political Olympus.
Cities and towns won’t need to ask for an act of a bank-subsidized congress to do this, and they won’t need a federal judge to sign off on any settlement. They can just do it. In the Death Star of America’s financial oligarchy, the ability of local governments to use eminent domain to seize toxic debt might be the one structural flaw big enough for the rebel alliance to exploit.

The plan only makes sense in the context of America’s overall economic paralysis. Right now the economy is stuck in a standstill, largely because of the housing bubble. Five or six or ten years ago, when Wall Street was cranking out trillions of dollars of cheap home loans so that they could later be chopped up, pooled, and sold to unsuspecting investors in the form of high-grade securitized bonds, millions of ordinary people jumped on the housing comet, buying big houses for big money.

The problem is, if you bought a house for $300,000 then, it might be worth $200,000 now. When you’re $100,000 in debt, you’re not rushing out to buy washing machines, new cars, new DVD players. As Paul Krugman put it in his column today:
There’s no mystery about the reasons the economic recovery has been so weak. Housing is still depressed in the aftermath of a huge bubble, and consumer demand is being held back by the high levels of household debt that are the legacy of that bubble.
Then there’s the other problem. Even if you manage to keep making your payments on your house, your neighbor might not. Whoever used to live next door has left after a foreclosure: there are squatters building a meth lab in the basement now. Two more houses are being boarded up down the street. So now the value of your house is getting lower and lower every day. No matter how fast you make your payments, your debt situation is still going to be moving in the wrong direction.

Instead of letting everyone be slowly ground into dust under the weight of all of that debt, the idea behind the use of eminent domain is to pull the Band-Aid off all at once.

The plan is being put forward by a company called Mortgage Resolution Partners, run by a venture capitalist named Steven Gluckstern. MRP absolutely has a profit motive in the plan, and much is likely to be made of that in the press as this story develops. But I doubt this ends up being entirely about money.

“What happened is, a bunch of us got together and asked ourselves what a fix of the housing/foreclosure problem would look like,” Gluckstern. “Then we asked, is there a way to fix it and make money, too. I mean, we're businessmen. Obviously, if there wasn’t a financial motive for anybody, it wouldn’t happen.”

Here’s how it works: MRP helps raise the capital a town or a county would need to essentially “buy” seized home loans from the banks and the bondholders (remember, to use eminent domain to seize property, governments must give the owners “reasonable compensation,” often interpreted as fair current market value).

Once the town or county seizes the loan, it would then be owned by a legal entity set up by the local government – San Bernardino, for instance, has set up a JPA, or Joint Powers Authority, to manage the loans.

At that point, the JPA is simply the new owner of the loan. It would then approach the homeowner with a choice. If, for some crazy reason, the homeowner likes the current situation, he can simply keep making his same inflated payments to the JPA. Not that this is likely, but the idea here is that nobody would force homeowners to do anything.

On the other hand, the town can also offer to help the homeowner find new financing. In conjunction with companies like MRP (and the copycat firms like it that would inevitably spring up), the counties and towns would arrange for private lenders to enter the picture, and help homeowners essentially buy back his own house, only at a current market price. Just like that, the homeowner is no longer underwater and threatened with foreclosure.

In order to make MRP work, Gluckstern and his partners needed to find local officials with enough stones to try the audacious plan. With so many regions in such desperate straits thanks to the housing mess, that turned out to be not as hard as perhaps might have been expected.

First in line was San Bernardino County in California, not coincidentally located at ground zero of a subprime bubble blown to gigantic proportions by Southern Californian mortgage giants like Countrywide and Long Beach. San Bernardino is more or less a poster child for the mortgage crisis; more than half of its homeowners are underwater on their homes, unemployment is past 12%, and the city of San Bernardino recently had to file for bankruptcy.

It’s not surprising, then, that local officials like Acquanetta Warren, mayor of the city of Fontana, were receptive to the eminent-domain plan.

“Sooner or later,” Warren told the New York Times, “all these people who are upside down on their homes are just going to leave the keys out on the door and say forget it. This was supposed to be the promised land, and now we have people waiting in some kind of hellish purgatory.”

San Bernardino County officials, along with two of its bigger cities (Fontana and Ontario), have set up the legal mechanisms needed to condemn and seize home loans, but the details of the plan haven’t been completely worked out yet. Still, officials say about 20,000 homeowners in San Bernardino would be eligible for the program; how many will get to use it is unknown.

In the meantime, other counties in other parts of the country are considering the plan. MRP has been courting local officials in Nevada, Florida, and in parts of the Northeast. In New York, officials in Suffolk County on Long Island, where 10% of homes are underwater, are seriously considering the plan.

The role of MRP and the presence of businessmen like Gluckstern in this whole gambit is going to tempt some reporters to pitch this story as a purely financial story, and certainly it does have interest as a business headline.

But MRP’s role aside, this is also a compelling political story with potentially revolutionary consequences. If this gambit actually goes forward, it will inevitably force a powerful response both from Wall Street and from its allies in federal government, setting up a cage-match showdown between lower Manhattan and, well, everywhere else in America. In fact, the first salvoes in that battle have already been fired.

For instance, the Wall Street trade association, SIFMA, this past week issued a denunciation of the eminent domain plan that includes a promise of a legal challenge. “We believe the MRP proposal is unlikely to survive a judicial challenge,” one of SIFMA’s lawyers wrote. Other trade groups are lining up to describe the tactic as illegal or "unconstitutional."

More insidiously, however, SIFMA pledged that its members will not allow future home loans originated in counties that use the eminent domain tactic to participate in something called the To-Be-Announced (TBA) markets for mortgage-backed securities. Explaining this would require a sharp detour into a muck of inside-baseball mortgage terminology, but the long and the short of it is that SIFMA is promising to make it difficult for any community that tries this tactic to obtain private mortgage financing in the future.

Essentially, SIFMA is promising a kind of collusive financial lockout of uncooperative communities. The threat would appear to be a high-handed form of redlining that raises serious antitrust questions, but in a way, that kind of response is to be expected.

Ultimately, the MRP tactic will be a fascinating test case to see exactly how much local self-determination will be allowed by the centralized financial oligarchy and its allies in the federal government.

If through boycotts, collusion, federal pressure and other forms of encirclement, local governments can be stripped of their right to condemn blighted property, we’ll know that the guts have been cut out of the very idea of regional self-rule. It will be fascinating to watch. At the very least, this story has the potential to be the first true open, pitched battle between Wall Street and the homeowners and communities who have been the primary victims of financial corruption.


Comrades, this is not actually anything new.  Just as Big-Time Judeo-Capitalists are partners in crime with the Federal and State Governments, the small-timers have been in cahoots with local governments just as long.  The only real difference is that what is being proposed by these "small-timers" has the Big Boys running scared.

Don't be fooled.  This is just another money-making scheme by so-called entrepreneurs.   The only real difference is that we'll be debt slaves to people whose headquarters are fairly close by, rather than in New York or Delaware.  The politicians who will be getting the kick backs will be in the county seat, instead of Washington.

I tend to agree with Wall Streets lawyers that this will be challenged in court, and they will win.  After all, Washington is not going to let some local government high jack their gravy train.

Besides, under the current system,  from the Oval Office, to the town council room (which is in the general store) of Punkin' Hollow, USA, is rotten to the core.  I don't trust ANY of them.  However, I might be willing - under certain circumstances to trust a local government part-way, but I would still be very careful and extremely suspicious.

I suppose however, that if I had a house and I was going to lose it to the Big Boys, I might give this plan a try figuring that it doesn't matter.  If I'm going to lose my house, it really doesn't matter to whom - I'd still lose it.

BTW, this already happened to me back in 2008.  I lost my house thanks to those crooks at Countrywide, which was mentioned in the above article.

Also, don't forget I live in San Bernardino County, right next to the City Of San Bernardino which is indeed filing for bankruptcy.  My town of Rialto is considering doing likewise.  I'll get a bird's eye view of how this program works - IF Wall Street let's it see the light of day.

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but that phrase "eminent domain" has always worried me.  Local governments have been known to use ED to take people's land at ten cents on the dollar, and sell it to a private developer at FULL price, and said developer builds a shopping mall.  

Never forget, when Judeo-Capitalists are involved, someone is going to get the shaft, and it's usually the 99%, so don't anybody get excited about this just yet.  

As the old saying goes, "Burn me once, shame on you.  Burn me twice, shame on me!"

Dan  88!

Monday, July 23, 2012

House committee forces Napolitano to reveal huge holes in her amnesty plan

By Chris Chmielenski, Friday, July 20, 2012, 11:50 AM EDT

On Thursday, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano faced Members of the House Judiciary Committee who are likely the most outspoken critics of her policy memorandum that provides amnesty through the use of prosecutorial discretion to at least 1.4 million illegal aliens. When the policy was first announced, several questions were left unanswered due to its ambiguity. While Members of the committee asked for answers to many of those questions, Secretary Napolitano dodged, avoided, and redirected her way through the more than two-hour hearing.

Secretary  Napolitano was subject to considerable examination from the Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegly, Immigration Subcommittee Co-chairman Steve King, and Reps. Randy Forbes, Trey Gowdy, and Ben Quayle. Reps. Bob Goodlatte and Jason Chaffetz also criticized Secretary Napolitano for her handling of the 287(g) program and her testimony on border security.

While many of the Members asked specific questions about the policy, its implementation, and its legality, Rep. Gallegly turned the policy into a jobs issue. He tried to get the Secretary to quantify how many illegal aliens would receive work permits under her memorandum, but in his first attempt, she dodged the question.

"Yes, they will be able to apply for work authorizations," Napolitano said when asked about how many would receive work permits.

Rep. Gallegly asked again -- "How many would receive work authorizations?"

"Again, they can apply for work permits, but they're going to have to meet standards for being eligible for work authorization. The linkage between deferred action and work permits goes back to the 1980s. That's a long standard," Secretary Napolitano said.

Rep. Gallegly asked for a third time -- "Is it going to be 2-3 people or 200,000-300,000 people? You know, we've got a lot of people out of work right now."

"If I might back up a moment because this was an issue that I thought of deeply before I wrote my memorandum as jobs for Americans is very important," she said. "My conclusions were that there are lots of different ways to stimulate job creation, some are before the Congress now. But we shouldn't balance the American economy on the backs of children."

Would the fourth time be the charm? -- "How many people who will qualify for this will be allowed to work when we have 14 million Americans who are out of work?"

"Don't know."

She doesn't know. 

So after deep thought and a month's time since announcing the policy, Secretary Napolitano has no idea how many illegal aliens may be able to join the workforce as a result.

Chairman Smith questioned Secretary Napolitano on an issue that was immediately identified after its announcement -- documents. Secretary Napolitano's memorandum doesn't address what documents could be used as proof for eligibility, but during a conference call shortly after the announcement, USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas said, "We will consider whatever documents the individual submits to us." Since the President and other supporters of the policy have emphatically directed focus on the students who would qualify, Chairman Smith asked whether they would be required to submit school transcripts.

"DHS does not currently plan to require individuals to provide a certified school transcript. It seems to be that that's the only way some of these individuals that are in the country can prove that they are eligible under these provisions. Do you plan to require applicants to provide that certified school transcript or not?" Smith asked.

But a month after the announcement, Secretary Napolitano said, "[w]e're still working through the details on that. Our plan is to accept different types of documents."

"How can you still be working through those details when from my understanding already a thousand individuals have been granted status under these provisions?" Smith asked.

"We're working through USCIS what records they have to produce. ICE had several people already in removal proceedings and have looked at those cases," she said.

"So certified school transcripts may or may not be required?" Smith asked.

"I think that's fair to say."

Interesting that a policy that was sold to the American people as helping exceptional students brought here by their parents at a very young age doesn't even require proof of school transcripts. 

Chairman Smith's question brought up another point - about 1,000 illegal aliens have already been granted prosecutorial discretion. Secretary Napolitano answered in the affirmative to that question even though many of the policy's finer details haven't been worked out.

Chairman Smith also brought up the question of Advanced Parole. Advanced Parole is a policy that allows aliens to leave and re-enter the United States. When they re-enter the U.S. legally, they would no longer be subject to the 3- and 10-year bars that an illegal alien who is removed would face. Chairman Smith's concern is that Advanced Parole would make them eligible for a green card if they have a pending application. 

Secretary Napolitano drove home the point that this is "deferred action on a case-by-case basis". (She used that phrase three times during Chairman Smith's questioning alone.) She did concede, however, that "particular individuals" could receive Advanced Parole.

Rep. Randy Forbes doesn't usually say much during committee hearings and markups, but on Thursday, he took off his Congressman's cap and put on his attorney's cap. His questioning of Secretary Napolitano was methodical and purposeful and was more reminiscent of what you'd see in a court room than a committee hearing room. He started by holding up and reading from a sign that contained Pres. Obama's quote from March 28, 2011 where the President stated he did not have the authority to allow illegal aliens to stay. The President said that he could not change the laws on the books through executive order.
Rep. Forbes asked Secretary Napolitano if any laws had changed since the President made that statement. "No." 

He asked if she felt the President was correct in what he had said. "As a general matter, yes."

He then pulled out his old copy of Black's Law Dictionary, which is THE authoritative source for lawyers, and read the definition of an executive order -- "an order issued by or on behalf of the President regarding a law or treaty." He then asked Secretary Napolitano about the apparent contradiction between the President's 2011 statement and her memorandum.

"It was under my authority as secretary of the department and setting the priorities for enforcement of the nation's immigration laws," she said.
"Is it your opinion, Madame Secretary, that the authority you issued this under has greater authority than the president of the United States?" Forbes asked. 
Secretary Napolitano didn't answer the question directly, but said, "There is broad authority going far back about the ability of a prosecutor to set priorities." 

Both Reps. Steve King and Ben Quayle asked Napolitano how Members of Congress should draft laws that they "really want enforced" but she had no suggestions. Of course, the questions were asked more to make a point rather than to generate a serious response.
Rep. King also brought up the idea of a lawsuit during his questioning. He has maintained the idea that he plans on suing the Administration if they implement the memo. He said it was the idea of offering work permits that he believes overstepped their authority.
"There is a separation of power. The executive branch cannot legislate by executive order by memorandum. ... I do not [accept the use of prosecutorial discretion] when it deals with a work permit that’s ordered to be issued that doesn’t exist in the United States Code. That is the province of Congress. So I thank you for being here today, but we will see each other down the line in litigation."

Rep. Trey Gowdy focused his questioning on whether the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to offer prosecutorial discretion to an entire class of cases, and she responded by emphasizing the case-by-case aspect of the policy. Rep. Gowdy then asked why she even wrote the memo if she already has the ability to use prosecutorial discretion.  

"This memo gave you no more authority than what you had before you drafted it," he said.

Other topics were discussed. Rep. Bob Goodlatte expressed his frustration at the agency's decision to terminate 287(g) agreements in Arizona and its recent rejection of Virginia's application for the 287(g) program. Secretary Napolitano said the program is "unproductive and very expensive", so he asked why then the Department lists so many 287(g) success stories on its website.

"I would tell the people working the website to take them down. The program doesn't work the way that Congress intended," she said. She followed through with that promise. Before the end of the hearing, the success stories were no longer on the DHS website.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz questioned Napolitano on border security, focusing specifically on the Tucson sector in western Arizona. She said that her department has virtually stopped all illegal crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border. She backed that up with crime statistics from Phoenix. But Rep. Chaffetz noted that crime was up 6% in Phoenix from 2008-2009 and in Nogales, which is the biggest city on the border in the Tucson sector, crime increased 92% from 2009-2010. Napolitano said she would look into it.

CHRIS CHMIELENSKI is the Director of Content & Activism for NumbersUSA 

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.
I wonder how much this hearing cost the taxpayers? I mean, we're paying for this nonsense.  Let's take a look at what we have here.
On one side, we have Napolitano and the Obama administration who are trying to legalize millions of foreign works to take even more jobs from American citizens, and for those who can't find work, they'll drain our already over burdened social programs even more.  Why?  Two main reasons.  One is to build up the Democratic Party.  Every single illegal who eventually becomes a citizen because of these policies will join the Democratic Party.  After all, everyone knows the Democrats are the working man's friends, right?  Everyone also knows the Republicans hate non-Whites.  The second reason is to accelerate the deterioration of the middle class and make the 99% into Neo-Serfs.
On the other side, we have the Republicans who want to keep things exactly as they are.  They oppose amnesty because as long as the illegals stay illegal, they can pay them less, and very few will complain about it out of fear of deportation.  Also, they make a good show of making the 99% believe they are the voices of reason  out to save the American Dream.  They fail to mention that the 1% is made up of mostly Republicans - although there is a fair share of Democrats as well, such as the high and might Kennedy family.  Most wealthy Jews tend to be Democrats as well - with a few exceptions such as Republican Rupert Murdoch of FOX.
Comrades, don't be fooled.  Whatever the outcome of this charade, it will not be for OUR benefit.  The elite are only out for themselves.  They just disagree which way is the best way to go.  Should it be amnesty, or keep things as they are?  However it works out, WE are the ones who will pay the price.
The worse things get, the better for our movement, so I hope the side that will harm us the most prevails.  The sooner the Sheeple get desperate enough, the sooner they will turn to an alternative way.  That way is National Socialism and the ANP.  The more support we receive, the better prepared we will be to lead the way when the time comes.
Dan  88!