Tom Robertson wrote:

Folks:

We needed the current President Bush.

He has shown us, by the massively negative example he and his
administration
has set, the value of our nation’s founding principles and their
vulnerability when given to those operating on the basis of
political/economic opportunism.

The item below, by Eliot Spitzer, Governor of the State of New York,
describes just one of the ways Bush and his administration has rigged
our
culture to serve the interests of a few; and then there are all the
other
circumstances, from tapping our calls to waterboard torture, that
would, I
am sure, have this Nation's founding fathers cringing in disbelief.

Those of us living in the United States and elsewhere have a lot of
work to
do, and it must be done as “peak Oil,” the global financial system,
and
populations easily triggered into supporting active conflict, move our
world
into some of the most uncertain times in history.

And it is not that we are without the intellectual resources to deal
with
such circumstances, but they need to be identified, turned into
working
tools, tested, and applied to the diverse physical, ecological, and
cultural
problems of our times--(where culture includes diverse attributes of:
economics and finance; politics and governance; science and
technology;
production, trade and markets; arts and humanities; education and
entertainment; and other value processes including religion.)

Tom Robertson, Moderator, EnergyResources Group

(39°53'N 76° 59'W)

Washington Post -- washingtonpost.com

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime
How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to
Help
Consumers

By Eliot Spitzer
Thursday, February 14, 2008; A25

Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in
consumer
protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory
lending
practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of
loans,
making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making
loans
with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically,
packing
loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal
kickbacks.
These and other practices, we noticed, were having a devastating
effect on
home buyers. In addition, the widespread nature of these practices, if
left
unchecked, threatened our financial markets.

Even though predatory lending was becoming a national problem, the
Bush
administration looked the other way and did nothing to protect
American
homeowners. In fact, the government chose instead to align itself with
the
banks that were victimizing consumers.

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national
crisis. This threat was so clear that as New
tid=informline>
York attorney general, I joined with colleagues in the other 49 states
in
attempting to fill the void left by the federal government.
Individually,
and together, state attorneys general of both parties brought
litigation or
entered into settlements with many subprime lenders that were engaged
in
predatory lending practices. Several state legislatures, including New
York's, enacted laws aimed at curbing such practices.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course
and
decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge? As Americans
are now
painfully aware, with hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing
foreclosure
and our markets reeling, the answer is a resounding no.

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers,
it
embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states
from
protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal
government was turning a blind eye.

Let me explain: The administration accomplished this feat through an
obscure
federal agency called the Office
+Comptroller+o
f+the+Currency?tid=informline> of the Comptroller of the Currency
(OCC).
The OCC has been in existence since the Civil War. Its mission is to
ensure
the fiscal soundness of national banks. For 140 years, the OCC
examined the
books of national banks to make sure they were balanced, an important
but
uncontroversial function. But a few years ago, for the first time in
its
history, the OCC was used as a tool against consumers.

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC
invoked
a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions
preempting
all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative.
The
OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing
any of
their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal
government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all
50
state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents,
actively
fought the new rules.

But the unanimous opposition of the 50 states did not deter, or even
slow,
the Bush administration in its goal of protecting the banks. In fact,
when
my office opened an investigation of possible discrimination in
mortgage
lending by a number of banks, the OCC filed a federal lawsuit to stop
the
investigation.

Throughout our battles with the OCC and the banks, the mantra of the
banks
and their defenders was that efforts to curb predatory lending would
deny
access to credit to the very consumers the states were trying to
protect.
But the curbs we sought on predatory and unfair lending would have in
no way
jeopardized access to the legitimate credit market for appropriately
priced
loans. Instead, they would have stopped the scourge of predatory
lending
practices that have resulted in countless thousands of consumers
losing
their homes and put our economy in a precarious position.

When history tells the story of the subprime lending crisis and
recounts its
devastating effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the
Bush
administration will not be judged favorably. The tale is still
unfolding,
but when the dust settles, it will be judged as a willing accomplice
to the
lenders who went to any lengths in their quest for profits. So
willing, in
fact, that it used the power of the federal government in an
unprecedented
assault on state legislatures, as well as on state attorneys general
and
anyone else on the side of consumers.

The writer is governor of New York.

© 2008 The Washington Post Company
**************************************************************

When individuals get truly sick and tired of supporting societal
insanity they should consider the following:

The Tax Refusal is built on one argument:

That "The Rule Of Law" is based on the duty of all to
refuse to be party to murder.

Indeed:

"Äll have a lawful duty to refuse to support their society if that
society is participating in plans and preparations that are
predicated on a will and capacity to be party to mass murder."

Ergo: The Tax Refusal can't be defeated.

It continues to grow and shall achieve its stated goal.

Thank you.

To a safer, saner and more caring world.

To Duty.

Daniel J. Lavigne, Founder
International Humanity House
http://www.taxrefusal.com
**************************************
- The energy crisis -
**************************************
- Prepare your family & neighbors -
**************************************
- Use YNN -
**************************************
- http://www.ynn.us -
**************************************
- Click on your State, your City -
& then, the "Politics" category.
**************************************
- No Fuss! - No Muss! -
**************************************
- Just FREE Ads! -
***************************************
- Plus! -
***************************************
- Place yours today! -

Archived from group: misc>taxes