Saturday, March 20, 2010

World's Smallest Political Quiz

World's Smallest Political Quiz
The ORIGINAL Internet Political Quiz
Take the Quiz now and find out where you fit on the political map!

Personal Issues
(Choose A if you agree, M for Maybe, D if you disagree.) A M D
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet. 
Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft. 
There should be no laws regarding sex for consenting adults. 
Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs. 
There should be no National ID card. 
Economic Issues
(Choose A if you agree, M for Maybe, D if you disagree.) A M D
End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business. 
End government barriers to international free trade. 
Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security. 
Replace government welfare with private charity. 
Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more. 

Dark Clouds Over California Three 90 Days Moratoriums Foreclosures Housing Problem

This year we have had 3 moratoriums on homes in California. This is scare for all homeowners because you really are not clear on how bad the real estate market is. Sell your home list it ASAP I can find one cheaper and better then the one you live in.BankOWN Write something about yourself.
"California Department of Corporations spokesman Mark Leyes said the state can't force or guarantee loan modifications. But the law is rooted in another state power that gives it leverage with lenders."
The next wave is coming~~~~

By Jim Wasserman, Sacramento Bee, California  Saturday, Jun. 13, 2009
After a severe economic storm of more than 365,000 California foreclosures since early 2007, the state's long-awaited 90-day foreclosure moratorium law goes into effect Monday.
But it doesn't mean foreclosures will stop.
Supporters acknowledge the state is likely to see thousands more foreclosures before the crisis subsides. The law, indeed, goes into effect as lenders are ramping up repossessions following expiration of earlier moratoriums, according to housing trackers.
But the California Foreclosure Prevention Act, passed as Assembly Bill X2 7 by lawmakers in February and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, raises a new hurdle in the foreclosure process.
Backers say it will make lenders try harder to keep borrowers in homes. Starting Monday, loan servicers must prove to the state they have comprehensive loan modification programs in place - or be denied rights to foreclose on their own schedules.
"You have voluntary programs that they don't have to do," said Assemblyman Ted Lieu, a Torrance Democrat who was the author of the bill. "This creates an enforcement mechanism to force them to do it. The hammer is the 90-day foreclosure moratorium, which they all hate."
The law will largely press lenders to follow the Obama administration's Making Home Affordable Program that began in March. That encourages lenders to cut interest rates or rewrite loans to 40-year terms to get payments below 38 percent of a borrower's monthly income. Other options include reducing principal and tacking missed payments to the back of the loan. Under the law, California officials also can encourage short sales or deeds in lieu - options in which banks accept less than owed - for borrowers who want to leave or don't qualify for modifications.
"The vast majority of large servicers should have no trouble complying. They have already complied with similar requirements at the federal level," said Dustin Hobbs, spokesman for the California Mortgage Bankers Association.
As the nation's first statewide moratorium law of its kind, according to Lieu, hopes are it will "slow down the rate of foreclosures."
"For some people there's not much that can be done," said the lawmaker. "But there are a fair number of people on the bubble ... if they can get some assistance, they can stay in their home."
California Department of Corporations spokesman Mark Leyes said the state can't force or guarantee loan modifications. But the law is rooted in another state power that gives it leverage with lenders.
"What we do have control over is the legal process by which foreclosure is executed in this state," he said. Hence, adding 90 days to the process for those that don't comply.
Lieu said, "Not all banks are doing it at the same level. Some have good (modification efforts), some have bad ones and some have none."
Lenders have received widespread criticism for being overwhelmed by the foreclosure crisis and slow to rewrite loans despite receiving billions of dollars in federal assistance. Borrowers and nonprofit loan counseling agencies alike have complained of frustrating delays and snafus in the process.
The new law represents a third evolution of California's response to a housing crisis that has severely damaged the economy and devastated local and state government budgets. In late 2007, Schwarzenegger entered into a voluntary agreement with subprime lenders to modify more loans.
Last summer, he signed Senate Bill 1137, which temporarily slowed banks' foreclosure machinery, making them work harder to contact borrowers and offer alternatives.
But foreclosures, while down in recent months, have continued in hard-hit California, especially in the capital region.
The region suffered almost 4,000 new foreclosures in January, February and March, and another 12,000 households are well behind on payments, according to Bay Area tracker ForeclosureRadar.
In summary, here's what will happen starting Monday:
• Lenders will submit applications to the state outlining their loan modification programs. That gives them a 30-day exemption from a moratorium.
• If the state OKs a lender's program, the firm is permanently exempt from the 90-day delay on foreclosures.
• If the state rejects the program as inadequate, a lender has 30 days to upgrade it and be reconsidered.
Leyes said consumers will be able to see a list of lenders that comply with the state's requirements by mid-July.

Call The Bee's JXX WXXXXXXXX, (XXX) XXX-XXXX. Read his blog on real estate, Home Front, at

The region suffered almost 4,000 new foreclosures in January, February and March, and another 12,000 households are well behind on payments, according to Bay Area tracker ForeclosureRadar.

                                            Process for a Wachovia Short Sale Approval
1. End the Stress!!! Obtain Listing Agreement with Shirley Husar
2. We will Contact your Local Short Sale Manager as soon as listing is obtained
3. Shirley Husar will notate in Wachovia system that the property is listed in the MLS "Wachovia Short Sale"
4. Shirley Husar will conduct a "pre-contract" interview with you the Seller
5. Send HUD and ratified contract to local Short Sale Manager via email, once received
6. Receive Approval or Minimum "NET" required from Wachovia within 7-10 days!
7. Obtain settlement letter from any junior lien holder(s)
8. Close in 45 Days or Less!

Once it is determined a true hardship exists,  Shirley Husar Senior Wachovia Fast Track Agent Online Team of Short Sale Specialists work directly with the Wachovia Short Sale Department to help you the homeowner reach a timely agreement. We have a direct line of communication with the Short Sale negotiator in the area and can get approval in as little as 7 days.
Call S------ H---- TODAY       X XXX XXX-XXXX

Time immemorial

Time immemorial is a phrase meaning time extending beyond the reach of memory, record, or tradition, indefinitely ancient, "ancient beyond memory or record".[1] The phrase is one of the few cases in the English language where the postmodifier is an adjective - some other legal terms such as attorney general and court martial follow the pattern, largely due to the influence of Norman French. Modern historians, anthropologists, and others have often criticized the use of the term as a view of contemporary conditions as without history, i.e. as essential and unchanging in nature.

but i think it come from "TIME AND MEMORIAL"  because "time and again" is a prepositional phrase that ends in a preposition, replacing the word 'again' with a noun. That's why the annotation reads:

"The phrase is one of the few cases in the English language where the postmodifier is an adjective ...."

, and that would be just poor grammar, even for a snippet.

Friday, March 19, 2010


March 17, 2010

Liberals keep complaining that Republicans don't have a plan for reforming health care in America. I have a plan!

It's a one-page bill creating a free market in health insurance. Let's all pause here for a moment so liberals can Google the term "free market."

Nearly every problem with health care in this country -- apart from trial lawyers and out-of-date magazines in doctors' waiting rooms -- would be solved by my plan.

In the first sentence, Congress will amend the McCarran-Ferguson Act to allow interstate competition in health insurance.

We can't have a free market in health insurance until Congress eliminates the antitrust exemption protecting health insurance companies from competition. If Democrats really wanted to punish insurance companies, which they manifestly do not, they'd make insurers compete.

The very next sentence of my bill provides that the exclusive regulator of insurance companies will be the state where the company's home office is. Every insurance company in the country would incorporate in the state with the fewest government mandates, just as most corporations are based in Delaware today.

That's the only way to bypass idiotic state mandates, requiring all insurance plans offered in the state to cover, for example, the Zone Diet, sex-change operations, and whatever it is that poor Heidi Montag has done to herself this week.

President Obama says we need national health care because Natoma Canfield of Ohio had to drop her insurance when she couldn't afford the $6,700 premiums, and now she's got cancer.

Much as I admire Obama's use of terminally ill human beings as political props, let me point out here that perhaps Natoma could have afforded insurance had she not been required by Ohio's state insurance mandates to purchase a plan that covers infertility treatments and unlimited ob/gyn visits, among other things.

It sounds like Natoma could have used a plan that covered only the basics -- you know, things like cancer.

The third sentence of my bill would prohibit the federal government from regulating insurance companies, except for normal laws and regulations that apply to all companies.

Freed from onerous state and federal mandates turning insurance companies into public utilities, insurers would be allowed to offer a whole smorgasbord of insurance plans, finally giving consumers a choice.

Instead of Harry Reid deciding whether your insurance plan covers Viagra, this decision would be made by you, the consumer. (I apologize for using the terms "Harry Reid" and "Viagra" in the same sentence. I promise that won't happen again.)

Instead of insurance companies jumping to the tune of politicians bought by health-care lobbyists, they would jump to the tune of hundreds of millions of Americans buying health insurance on the free market.

Hypochondriac liberals could still buy the aromatherapy plan and normal people would be able to buy plans that only cover things like major illness, accidents and disease. (Again -- things like Natoma Canfield's cancer.)

This would, in effect, transform medical insurance into ... a form of insurance!

My bill will solve nearly every problem allegedly addressed by ObamaCare -- and mine entails zero cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, a free market in health insurance would produce major tax savings as layers of government bureaucrats, unnecessary to medical service in America, get fired.

For example, in a free market, the government wouldn't need to prohibit insurance companies from excluding "pre-existing conditions."

Of course, an insurance company has to be able to refuse new customers with "pre-existing conditions." Otherwise, everyone would just wait to get sick to buy insurance. It's the same reason you can't buy fire insurance on a house that's already on fire.

That isn't an "insurance company"; it's what's known as a "Christian charity."

What Democrats are insinuating when they denounce exclusions of "pre-existing conditions" is an insurance company using the "pre-existing condition" ruse to deny coverage to a current policy holder -- someone who's been paying into the plan, year after year.

Any insurance company operating in the free market that pulled that trick wouldn't stay in business long.

If hotels were as heavily regulated as health insurance is, right now I'd be explaining to you why the government doesn't need to mandate that hotels offer rooms with beds. If they didn't, they'd go out of business.

I'm sure people who lived in the old Soviet Union thought it was crazy to leave groceries to the free market. ("But what if they don't stock the food we want?")

The market is a more powerful enforcement mechanism than indolent government bureaucrats. If you don't believe me, ask Toyota about six months from now.

Right now, insurance companies are protected by government regulations from having to honor their contracts. Violating contracts isn't so easy when competitors are lurking, ready to steal your customers.

In addition to saving taxpayer money and providing better health insurance, my plan also saves trees by being 2,199 pages shorter than the Democrats' plan.

Feel free to steal it, Republicans!


Thursday, March 18, 2010

Health Care Bill Will Pass This Weekend: House Democrats

Health Care Bill Will Pass This Weekend: House Democrats

Published: Thursday, 18 Mar 2010 | 12:15 PM ET
Text Size
By: Reuters
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Thursday predicted weekend passage of a sweeping health care overhaul that budget analysts said would hit President Barack Obama's fiscal targets and cut the U.S. deficit over 10 years.
Cost of healthcare
Lilli Day | Photodisc | Getty Images

House Democratic leaders finished work on a package of changes to Obama's top domestic priority that the Congressional Budget Office estimated would expand insurance coverage at a cost of $940 billion over 10 years but cut the deficit by $138 billion in the same period.
At the White House, Obama said the health care bill represented "the most significant effort to reduce deficits since the Balanced Budget Act in the 1990s."
After weeks of wrangling over the package to make the numbers come out favorably, House leaders presented the final changes to Democrats at a morning caucus and will post them online later on Thursday.
"It took some time but we are very pleased," House Nancy Pelosi told reporters after the meeting. "There are even more savings than the Senate bill."
The changes are meant to ease concerns of Obama and House Democrats about the Senate's version of the bill, which had a budget savings of $118 billion over the first 10 years.
The changes include expanding subsidies to make insurance more affordable and more state aid for the Medicaid program for the poor.
They also would eliminate a controversial Senate deal exempting Nebraska from paying for Medicaid expansion costs, close a "doughnut hole" in prescription drug coverage and change the threshold on a tax on high-cost "Cadillac" insurance plans.
"I don't think I'd call it a Cadillac tax now," said Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "I'd call it a Rolls Royce."
The overhaul would extend coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans and ban insurance practices like refusing coverage to those with pre-existing medical conditions.
Democrats said they expected to put together the 216 votes needed for passage of the bill. The final vote, which is likely to be close, is now expected on Sunday.
Under the procedure planned for passing the overhaul, the House would vote this weekend on whether to approve the Senate's bill. The changes sought by Obama and House Democrats would move in a second separate bill.
"I think we'll see a lot of people's votes come together in the next few days," Representative Robert Andrews said.
Copyright 2010 Reuters. Click for restrictions.

Virginia AG Warns Pelosi: Don't Bypass Direct Vote

Virginia AG Warns Pelosi: Don't Bypass Direct Vote

Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli says the so-called "deem and pass" rule would expose President Obama's signature domestic initiative to a constitutional challenge.
RICHMOND, Va. -- Virginia's attorney general urged U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi not to use an arcane parliamentary tactic to pass health care reform without a direct vote, warning in a letter Wednesday that the move might be unconstitutional.
Republican Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, who last month went to court to oppose the federal plan to regulate greenhouse gases, said in the letter that using the so-called "deem and pass" rule would expose President Barack Obama's signature domestic initiative to a constitutional challenge.
Cuccinelli joins other Republicans who have opposed the possible maneuver, which both political parties have used in the past. Under the procedure, the Senate-passed health bill would be "deemed" to have passed if House members vote in favor of a rule governing another bill.
"Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill," Cuccinelli wrote in the letter to the Democratic speaker. "This is an improper purpose under the bicameralism requirements of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, one of the purposes of which is to make our representatives fully accountable for their votes."
Cuccinelli's letter comes less than two weeks after he weighed in on another hot-button issue, gay rights. The first-term attorney general advised Virginia's public colleges to rescind any anti-discrimination policies covering gay people, saying they could not offer such protections without General Assembly approval.
The letter prompted protests on college campuses. Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell sought to quell the uproar by issuing a written directive barring state discrimination based on sexual orientation. His directive is just a policy statement and does not have the force of law.

Idaho to Sue Feds Over Health Care Mandate 

Idaho to Sue Feds Over Health Care Mandate

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue the federal government if Congress passes health care reform.
BOISE, Idaho -- Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.
Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.
With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.
Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.
"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."
Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.
"Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Christie Herrera, the group's health task force director.
Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation. He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.
"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.
Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called the lawsuits frivolous.
Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year.
Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.
"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."
At the White House, spokesman Reid Cherlin declined to comment Wednesday night.

121 Walgreens Stores to Stop Taking New Medicaid Patients

121 Walgreens Stores to Stop Taking New Medicaid Patients
More than a hundred Walgreens drugstores will stop accepting new Medicaid patients next month because the company claims it is losing money, the Seattle Times reported Thursday.
More than a hundred Walgreens drugstores will stop accepting new Medicaid patients next month because the company claims it is losing money, the Seattle Times reported Thursday.
Citing "continued reduction in reimbursement" payments, Walgreens said it made the decision to stop taking new Medicaid patients at 121 stores in Washington state.  The drugstore chain claims the state's Medicaid program reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications given to Medicaid patients, according to the newspaper.
The policy change will reportedly go into effect April 16.
In February, Bartell Drugs made a similar move, opting to stop accepting new Medicaid patients at 57 of its stores in Washington state.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Parable of the Tares

Parable of the Tares

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Parable of the Wheat and the Tares by Abraham Bloemaert, 1624.
Jesus tells the Parable of the Tares in the Gospel of Matthew and in the noncanonical Gospel of Thomas. It refers to the coming of the Son of Man, when angels will separate the evil ones ("tares" or weeds) from the worthy (the wheat), and the evil ones will be destroyed.
The parable fits Matthew's theme of division and judgment.[1] The parable addresses concerns of the early Christian community (the fate of false Christians).
The parable is also known as the Parable of the Weeds, Parable of the Wheat and Tares, Parable of the Wheat and Weeds, or the Parable of the Weeds in the Grain.
The Greek word translated "tares" is ζιζάνια (zizania), plural of ζιζάνιον (zizanion). This word is thought to mean darnel (Lolium temulentum), a ryegrass.[2]
Some suggest that this word instead refers to some vetch species, perhaps motivated by the King James Version translation of ζιζάνιον as "tares", a common name for vetch.[3]



[edit] The parable

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? From whence then has it tares? He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay: lest while ye gather up the tares ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Matthew 13:24–30, KJV
A few verses later, an explanation is given:
Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 13:36–43, KJV
Another version appears in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas (Patterson-Meyer Translation):
Jesus said, "The Father's kingdom is like a person who has good seed. His enemy came during the night and sowed weeds among the good seed. The person did not let the workers pull up the weeds, but said to them, 'No, otherwise you might go to pull up the weeds and pull up the wheat along with them.' For on the day of the harvest the weeds will be conspicuous, and will be pulled up and burned."

[edit] Interpretation

The meaning is quite complex: This is not just a heaven/hell exhortation to repentance, but an explanation of God's patience with the world's unbelief. The parable of the tares is also meant to explain the cause of hypocrisy within the Christian church. For mere social reasons, some who are actually nonbelievers put on a religious front. But their actions and attitudes often indicate that they are not real Christians.
Nevertheless, God is patient in judgment. Just as the man in the parable does not want his servants to accidentally root up the wheat, Jesus does not want his followers to conduct judgmental witch hunts for "hypocrites" in the church.
This theoretically prevents the expulsion of church members who live in open rebellion of orthodox interpretations of God's law.
Another interpretation is that the parable explains the history and plan of the world. The world is the field in which the seed was sown. That is, the world is God's creation that He made good. The evil one came and planted bad seed — that is, he led humans into sin. The present state of the world is that there exists good seed — those who ultimately stop rebelling against God and accept His grace — and bad seed — those who refuse to accept and instead persist in rebellion. The reason God did not just destroy everybody who was in rebellion of Him (the bad seed) is that some people exist who have not yet accepted His grace, but someday will. These people would be uprooted if harvested too early. Instead, He is bringing the world to a point (the harvest) in which everybody will have made their final decision and can then be sorted fairly.
Christians who oppose the Death Penalty use this parable to say Jesus did not favor executing anyone, for you deny them the chance to accept his grace and condemn them to an early hell. Christians who advocate the Death Penalty cite Matt. 10:29 (" sparrow shall not fall on the ground without your Father"), and Eph. 1:11 ("...God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will"), in order to deny that an "early hell" is possible.
Some who believe in a post-tribulation rapture (second coming of Christ) feel that this text supports their belief. “The tares are removed first and burned, then the remaining wheat are taken last,” supposing this refers to the rapture occurring after the lost are already in hell.
Roger Williams, a Baptist theologian and founder of Rhode Island, interpreted the Parable of the Tares to support government toleration of all of the "weeds" (heretics) in the world, because civil persecution often inadvertently hurts the "wheat" (believers) too. Instead, Williams believed it was God's duty to judge in the end, not man's. This Parable lent further support to Williams' Biblical philosophy of a wall of separation between church and state as described in his 1644 book, The Bloody Tenent of Persecution.[4]


-view CSL mobile version -

Webring Translator Thingamajig

Well, you've scrolled to the bottom, press start and help CSL for free!