Smith, Perry To Be CAP Speakers

Smith, Perry To Be CAP Speakers — Tom Smith and Congressman Scott Perry will be the speakers at a reception sponsored by Citizens Alliance Pennsylvania, 2-3:30 p.m., April 19 at the Governors Ballroom, Radisson Penn Harris Hotel, 1150 Camp Hill Bypass, Camp Hill, Pa. 17011.

Smith was last year’s Republican nominee for U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania. Perry, who has a Bronze Star for service in Iraq, represents Pennsylvania’s 4th District in Congress.

For tickets or information call Leo Knepper at 570-617-2994 or email him at leo@empowerpa.org

 

Smith, Perry To Be CAP Speakers

Obama Torpedoes Economy

Obama Torpedoes Economy

Forbes, FOX, Bloomberg, Congress – anyone? Do you see the pattern? America’s economy is not self-destructing, it is being dismantled. Amid bad unemployment numbers, high food and fuel prices, a devalued dollar, the already devastating impact of Obamacare on businesses and hiring, President Barack Obama is again pressuring banks to make bad housing loans to people with weak credit. Obama’s new push for substandard loans portends a repeat of the housing loan disaster that led to the 2008 crash that tanked the economy when the Democrats held full control of both the House and the Senate.

Obama’s policy of coercing banks to make questionable loans under-minds a still fragile U.S. economy and sabotages potential recovery. Zachary A. Goldfarb reports in the Washington Post that “…critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.” Ed Pinto, of the American Enterprise Institute and former Fannie Mae executive is quoted as saying: “If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from.”

To understand who and what originally sent the economy into a tailspin, details are laid-out in the article that I wrote on the topic, Bloomberg: DEMS Behind Housing Scam:

In regard to the devastating housing fraud that helped collapse the U.S. economy, a Reuter’s headline read: “U.S. Sues Bank of America for Alleged Mortgage Fraud.” According to Reuters, President Barack Obama’s Justice Department “filed a civil mortgage fraud lawsuit against Bank of America, accusing it of selling thousands of toxic home loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that went into default and caused more than $1 billion of losses.”

In reality, it is a prime example of President Obama and the Progressive Democrats’ adeptness at avoiding responsibility and deflecting blame. Democrats continue to elude culpability in initiating the housing collapse that thrust the economy into a nose dive. Liberals count on voters lacking enough information to connect-the-dots as they point accusingly at their partners-in-crime. Americans have been told by Obama’s sycophantic media that it was the fault of greedy bankers, mortgage brokers and Wall Street derivatives – some of which came into play once the set-up, the opportunity for greed baited the bad players into joint accountability.

The question the American people should ask is: Who were the masters of the economic collapse, the architects whose scheme worked so well that they virtually escaped the blame?  Though they now deny it, Democrats led by Barney Frank (D-MA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Greg Meeks, (D-NY) are on video, in effect, in support of glutting the housing market with unsustainable mortgages in the form of bad loans. Historically, it will go down as one of the liberal Democrats’ all-time big lies to the American people. In Capital, Azi Parbarah reported in 2011 that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pointed the finger squarely at the Democrat-controlled Congress as instigating America’s financial collapse:

“If there is anyone to blame for the mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of the financial industry, it’s not the “big banks,” but Congress. [They] were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.” Bloomberg added, “It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”

What Bloomberg failed to mention is that Obama, himself, adamantly demanded that banks make more loans to low-income borrowers. Sub-prime loans became the great American rip-off. Obama and the Democrats strong-armed lenders to give loans to people who could not repay them. Grateful new homeowners were to then obligingly ply the Democrats with their votes.

The ugly and inevitable consequences forced the poor, mostly Hispanics and Blacks, out of their unaffordable homes through wide-scale foreclosures. Home prices fell, construction workers lost jobs, the housing industry began a free-fall and America’s AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time since 1917. The result: The worst economy in recent memory. Today, America bears the brunt of the Democrats’ manipulation of the housing market resulting in lost homes, lost jobs, and a destabilized economy.

Obama is again pressurizing banks into questionable loans. The result will be déjà vu with a far worse ending. The administration may point to improved housing and stock markets, but both remain tenuous for the average American. The job market remains tentative and any veteran of the stock market knows that Wall Street is no longer in the hands of the Bulls and Bears, but the wolves.

Again, Forbes, FOX, Bloomberg, Congress – anyone? The captain of the Titanic did not have this much warning.

Sharon Sebastian is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites.

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism — Bob Guzzardi has received the email below  from Northampton District Attorney John Morganelli concerning what appears to be an attempt to manipulate the law to extend the term of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief  Justice Ron Castille and four other Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justices who will be turning 70 by invalidating the Constitutionally mandated retirement age of 70  (six of the remaining unconvicted justices will be gone in eight years under the mandatory retirment rule so there is a lot of self-interest in the mandatory retirement case as DA Morganelli points out.)

There are solid reasons to retain the mandatory retirement age, not the least of which is restraining the power of government by diluting the power of a few.

Supreme Court Justice Castille and Justice Max Baer will be seeking retention in November 2013.

Morganelli is a Democrat. He also happens to be right on this issue.

From District Attorney John Morganelli:
Pennsylvania’s Constitutional Crisis: Will Judicial Self-Interest Trump the Constitution?

Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution and protect our constitutional form of government.  But what happens when judicial self-interest collides with the Constitution? Pennsylvania may be  on the precipice of a constitutional crisis.

In 1989 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld Pennsylvania’s Constitution which prohibits a judge to remain in office after the age of 70. Since then,  numerous judges have  retired at 70. But recently, a number of jurists  filed lawsuits challenging the restriction.  Then, the Chief Justice, who coincidentally  turns 70 next year, announced that he would seek retention for another 10 year term on the high court even  though next year would be his last if the age restriction remains in place. Next, the eyebrows of many attorneys were raised when the Supreme Court  reached down, bypassing the lower court, and agreed to hear and expedite one of those cases. Is there  anyone who actually believes that despite the clear precedent, all these judges  suddenly woke up one morning and, independently of each other,  decided to sue?

When these actions were filed,  many lawyers questioned  “why” when similar challenges had always failed. A previous panel of the Supreme Court upheld the age restriction in the  Constitution which was approved by the people at the ballot box. In 1991, the US Supreme Court upheld a similar restriction in Missouri’s state constitution. The question is: What has changed? And, what is the rush ? Judges have been retiring for decades at 70.  Pennsylvania judges campaigned knowing their terms were limited by mandatory retirement. Most of them would not have had an opportunity to be a judge but for the age restriction which forced judges to retire and created vacancies.  Now, some want to change the rules and strike down the Constitution on the way.

Many believe that the high court wants a speedy decision  so that a potential ruling can benefit the Chief Justice and the  other 4 Justices who are turning 70 in the next few years.  All of this has fueled speculation by the legal community that the litigation may have been encouraged by a member of the Supreme  Court  itself.  Will any of the Justices recuse themselves? Or, will  the court  assert that the “Rule of Necessity” permits them to hear this case even though all of the Justices have a personal and financial interest in setting aside the prohibition? The “rule of necessity”  is  an exception to the disqualification of a judge who has  a conflict of interest. But it only applies when no other tribunal is available to hear the dispute. Here, there exists a companion  federal action which has now been stayed to allow the Supreme Court to act first and make moot the federal case.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court has ordered  the lawyers to specifically  address Article I of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Declaration of Rights  which provides in Section 26  that neither the Commonwealth nor any political subdivision may discriminate against any person in the exercise of any “civil right.” However, the Supreme Court previously  held that the age restriction   did not violate the Declaration of Rights Discrimination provision. It recognized that that provision was intended to restrain “government”, and that the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Rights do not restrain the power of the people themselves as expressed in the Constitution. Gondelman v. Commonwealth 554 A2d 896 (1989). This provision was intended to prevent “government” from transgressing individuals’ basic “civil rights”. The US Supreme Court in 1991 settled the question that being a judge is not a fundamental right. Gregory v. Ashcroft  501 US 454. Nevertheless,  the Supreme Court now may be  poised to overrule years of precedent by proclaiming that the age restriction is inconsistent with the discrimination clause thus allowing them to get what they want, trample on the Constitution,  and  at the same time maintain that they are actually upholding the constitution.

It appears imprudent  for the Supreme Court to hear this case. This court has been tarnished by the recent conviction of one of the Justices. The Pennsylvania  judiciary in general has been harmed by the  “Kids for Cash” scandal, the Philadelphia Traffic Court report as well as other matters.  The integrity of our courts and of the  judges who sit on them is fundamental to our  system. Taking this case and setting aside the Constitution will be harmful. The  Justices sit at the pinnacle of power, and it is understandable how some may not want to relinquish it.  Like it or not, our Constitution, passed  by the people sets age limits on the ability to exercise that power.  For those who believe that the age restriction is subject to fair debate, the proper method is to amend Pennsylvania’ s Constitution through  the process established: approval by two consecutive  sessions of the legislature, and approval of the people at the ballot box. Setting aside Pennsylvania’s Constitution via judicial fiat by Justices with a personal and financial interest in the outcome is dangerous and wrong.  Only time will tell whether self-interest trumps the Constitution.

John M. Morganelli is the District Attorney of Northampton County and Past President of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. He was the  Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania Attorney General in 2008.

 

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism

John Morganelli Describes Judicial Neo Feudalism

 

Two Wolves — From An Old Newspaper

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside all people.  Two Wolves

He said, “My son, the battle is between two ‘wolves’ inside us all.

“One is Evil. It is anger, envy jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

“The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?”

The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”

Hat tip Bob Graves of Berwyn.

Two Wolves — From An Old Newspaper

Remembering Tasso da Silveira School

Two years ago today, April 7, 2011, Wellington Oliveira used a .38 revolver and a .32 revolver to murder 12 children and wound 12 others at  Tasso da Silveira Municipal School in Rio de Janerio.

Brazil has strict gun control making it very difficult for law-abiding people to own or carry a firearm.

Gun control does not stop evil people. It does stop good people from stopping the evil of evil people.

Remembering Tasso da Silveira