Foster and Kimberly’s Response to John Robbins’ Critique of THRIVE

By Foster and Kimberly Gamble

As some of you may know, several of the people interviewed in our movie, THRIVE, have recently signed a public letter of dissociation from the film. Those signing the statement express feeling misled about the film’s content and find the message of THRIVE to be misguided. We sincerely apologize for whatever unwitting part we played in generating this sense of having been mislead and can say with utmost sincerity that this was never our intent.

We feel sad about how this was handled and that they dissociated without contacting us and without being specific about any objections. We nonetheless appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of the important issues THRIVE raises, and encourage people to see for themselves what we stand for in the film, which is available to watch for free at http://www.thrivemovement.com/the_movie in 14 different languages.

Each of the pioneers in THRIVE were invited because their expertise in a particular area had been helpful in our gaining an understanding of the bigger picture that includes, but vastly transcends, their sector of expertise – or anyone’s political affiliation. We clearly state this in the movie:

“The people in THRIVE do not necessarily agree with the themes, statements, claims or conclusions presented in the film or website, nor does their inclusion imply our full agreement with all of their views. The people interviewed have each contributed in some deep way to our understanding and we are grateful to them all.”

To facilitate a more fruitful conversation about what THRIVE offers, we’d like to specifically address a recent critique of THRIVE, written by John Robbins, entitled Humanity and Sanity: Standing for a Thriving World (and Challenging the Movie THRIVE).

Response to John Robbins

We appreciate the tireless commitment to humanity that John Robbins’ work reflects and we honor his choice to organize and speak out on behalf of those who feel that THRIVE’s message is somehow counter to his vision of a better world. Unfortunately, the process by which he has expressed his concern relies on misrepresentation of our film and its message, and describes our offering not by what we say or include in the film so much as by the associations of some of the people from whom we have learned certain information. It’s like saying the people who made the movie must be suspect because the stuff they didn’t include was really bad. This distracts from a more fruitful conversation where core issues and strategies can be discussed and debated with respect and curiosity so that our mutual process can indeed contribute something of value in these perilous times.

When unpacking Robbins arguments we notice:

• He has not corrected a single fact from THRIVE;

• He confirms the sociopathic and greedy destructiveness of a few banking elite controllers, but relies on “coincidence theory” to justify the success of the elite’s endeavors in every sector of human endeavor across the globe;

• His solutions are more of what we’ve been doing that got us into the mess we’re in, and more of what hasn’t worked to get us out;

• He derides free energy with no research or facts, while ignoring numerous eye-witness reports (including our own) and ignoring the brutal suppression of numerous inventors;

• He implies that the mass of humanity is not compassionate or competent enough to take care of one another without an authoritarian state, even if they are prosperous and free.

We have repeatedly invited John to participate in a constructive and respectful public or private conversation to discuss the issues and to engage in a meaningful exploration of solution strategies.  Sadly, he has refused every time.

In just 5 months, millions of people have verified the usefulness of our movie and website, and THRIVE-inspired solution groups are forming in cities all over the world. So what is the need that THRIVE is meeting? We believe it is the call for bold new solutions that finally transcend the political polarity of left and right and reveal principles by which a lasting new paradigm of solutions can emerge and be sustained. Read more…

A Lesson for the Wall Street Journal on the NDAA | Tenth Amendment Center

Section 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) purports to authorize the President to designate all persons — including U.S. Citizens found within the U.S — as enemy combatants, subject to the Law of War, including; Indefinite detention without trial or charge, transfer to foreign jurisdictions or entities (commonly known as extraordinary rendition), and military tribunals. Essentially, the NDAA seeks to designate the United States as an active war zone in regards to allegations of terrorism, or support of terrorism, wherein our most cherished and basic Constitutional Rights are subject to the President’s discretion.

The fundamental issues raised by the NDAA deserve better from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board than that which appeared on April 30, 2012, entitled; “The Tea Party’s Inner ACLU.”  The editorial conducts a cursory and incomplete statutory and Constitutional analysis, and improperly blurs the lines between the rights of persons captured outside the U.S. and citizens within the U.S., to incorrectly conclude that: 1) the NDAA only applies to “terrorists,” 2) the president has the Constitutional authority to designate U.S. citizens within the U.S. as enemy combatants subject to the Law of War, 3) detainees have sufficient Habeas Corpus rights, 4) that the new Virginia law directs all state officials to not cooperate with Federal detainments of citizen terrorism suspects, and 5) that the Virginia law is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the Journal’s hasty analysis endorsing the Constitutionality of the NDAA’s enemy combatant status for U.S. citizens captured within the U.S., and objecting to state refusal to cooperate with Federal detainments pursuant to the NDAA, leaves readers with a misunderstanding the U.S. Constitution, the NDAA, and the current nation-wide NDAA nullification movement spearheaded by our organizations; the Tenth Amendment Center and the Rhode Island Liberty Coalition. Read more…

Iceland Forces Debt Forgiveness: Total US Media Blackout | True Democracy Party

Editor’s Note: If you have any other verifying stories please let us know via email or comment.

By Zeus Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D.

The government of Iceland has forgiven the mortgage debt for much of its population. This nation chose a very different way of stopping the crisis from the rest of European countries. It decided to hear the requests of the population and to put politicians and bankers on the bench of the accused three years after their financial excesses would sank one of the most prosperous economies in 2008.

Iceland Forgives Mortgage Debt for the Population. Putting Bankers and Politicians on “Bench of Accused” This is awesome. It shows when the people DO STAND UP they have more power and win against the corrupt bankers and politicians of a country. Iceland is forgiving and erasing the mortgage debt of the population. They are putting the bankers and politicians on the “Bench of the Accused.” Which means I assume they are putting them on trial for corruption.

Now the rest of people of the world need to start doing the same thing. We all need to stand up and against all the corruption and fraud of the banks and politicians that are puppets of the banks and corporations. The beauty of it is that they will have a load of cash to circulate into the economy and into service industries etc…instead of feeding it to the parasite bankers and out of the economy, great idea. If it was warmer I’d move to Iceland. Read more…

Health Care Reform and the Supreme Court (Affordable Care Act) | The New York Times

By Adam Liptak

On March 26, the Supreme Court began three days of hearings on challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform bill pushed by President Obama and passed by Congress in March 2010 over bitter Republican opposition.

It is one of the most significant cases heard by the court in decades, with implications for the presidential race as well as the future of health care coverage. The decision, due in late June, is also likely to be a major factor in shaping the legacy of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., as well as Mr. Obama, whose signature domestic initiative is on the line.

Day Three

On the third day of health care arguments, the justices shifted their attention to a question with enormous practical implications: If they strike down a key provision of the sprawling law, what other provisions would have to fall along with it?

Justice Antonin Scalia said the whole law would have to go. “My approach would be to say that if you take the heart out of this statute,” he said, “the statute’s gone.”

Other justices considered a variety of possible approaches.

The issue took on practical urgency after some of the questioning the day before had suggested that the law’s core provision, often called the individual mandate, may be in peril. It requires most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.

Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, but it said the balance of the law survived.

The Obama administration argued for a middle ground: that if the mandate falls, two politically popular provisions must die with it — those that prohibit insurers from declining coverage or charging higher premiums because of pre-existing medical conditions.

The challengers to the law argued that the entire act must fall along with the what one lawyer called “its heart.’’ The court appointed an outside lawyer, H. Bartow Farr III, to argue the 11th Circuit’s position, that the mandate could fall alone.

The court separated the day’s arguments into two sessions. After the morning session, which focused on the effect of overturning the mandate, the afternoon’s hearing dealt with the law’s expansion of Medicaid, part of its attempt to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance.

In the second argument, the court’s more conservative justices expressed concern that the law’s Medicaid expansion was unduly coercive to states. The law would give states additional money to expand Medicaid – which covers largely lower-income households – and also add new rules about that coverage.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often the swing vote on the court, wondered whether Medicaid created accountability problems because the federal government set the rules but the states operated it.

The court’s more liberal justices expressed surprise that the expanded program, financed largely with federal money, was at all questionable on constitutional grounds. Read more…

Oregon’s SB 1552 Analyzed – Mandatory Mediation Law (For Trust Deed Foreclosures) | Querin Law

By Phil Querin, Attorney

On March 5, 2012, the Oregon Legislature passed a sweeping series of changes to its trust deed foreclosure law, SB 1552.  Once signed by the Governor it will become effective 91 days hence.  What follows is a summary of (a) the new mandatory mediation law that, after the effective date, will apply to the non-judicial foreclosure of all residential trust deeds; and (b) some important changes to the existing laws governing judicial and non-judicial foreclosures.  Between now and the effective date, the Oregon Attorney General’s office will promulgate rules to implement the mediation program.  Until then, all we have for guidance is SB 1552 itself. This summary is for informational purposes only and should not be viewed as “legal advice”.  Those interested in seeing if the new law may apply to their particular situation should consult with their own legal counsel. Read more…

An Auto Engine that runs on Air | Tata Motors

That’s right, Air not Gas, Diesel or  Electric but just the Air around us, take a look. The Air Car,  developed by ex-Formula One engineer Guy N. For Luxembourg-based MDI, uses Compressed Air to push its engine’s pistons and make the car go. The Air Car, called the “Mini CAT” could cost around 365,757 rupees in India  or $8,177 US. The Mini CAT  which is a simple, light urban car, with a tubular chassis, a body of  Fiberglass that is glued not welded and powered by Compressed  Air.

A Microprocessoris used to control all Electrical functions of the car, one tiny radio transmitter sends instructions to the lights, turn signals, etc. The temperature of the clean air expelled by the exhaust pipe is between 0-15  degrees below zero. This makes it suitable for use by the internal air conditioning system, with no need for gases or loss of power. There are no keys, just an Access  card which can be read by the car from your pocket. According to the designers, it costs  less than 50 rupees per 100 KM, that’s about a tenth the cost of a car running on gas. It’s mileage is about double that of the most advanced Electric car, a factor which makes it a perfect choice for city motorists.

The car has a top speed of 105 KM per hour or 60 mph and would have a range of around 300 km or 185 miles between refuels. Refilling the car will take place at adapted gas stations with special air compressors.

A fill up  will only take two to three minutes and costs approximately 100 rupees and  the car will be ready to go another 300 kilometers. This  car can also be filled at home with it’s on board compressor, and would  take 3-4 hours to refill the tank, but it can be done while you sleep. Because there is no combustion engine, changing the 1 liter of  vegetable oil is only necessary every 50,000 KM or 30,000  miles.

Source: Cascadian Resource Center

New York’s U.S. Bankruptcy Court Rules MERS’s Business Model Is Illegal | Huffington Post

By L Randall Wray

United States Bankruptcy Judge Robert Grossman has ruled that MERS’s business practices are unlawful. He explicitly acknowledged that this ruling sets a precedent that has far-reaching implications for half of the mortgages in this country. MERS is dead. The banks are in big trouble. And all foreclosures should be stopped immediately while the legislative branch comes up with a solution.

For some weeks I have been arguing that MERS is perpetrating foreclosure fraud all across the nation. Its business model makes it impossible to legally foreclose on any mortgaged property registered within its system — which includes half of the outstanding mortgages in the US. MERS was a fraud from day one, whose purpose was to evade property recording fees and to subvert five centuries of property law. Its chickens have come home to roost.

Wall Street wanted to transform America’s housing sector into the world’s biggest casino and needed to undermine property rights to make it easier to run the scam. The payoffs were bigger for lenders who could induce homeowners to take mortgages they could not possibly afford. The mortgages were packaged into securities sold-on to patsy investors who were defrauded by the “reps and warranties” falsely certifying the securities as backed by top grade loans. In fact the securities were not backed by mortgages, and in any case the mortgages were sure to go bad. Given that homeowners would default, the Wall Street banks that serviced the mortgages needed a foreclosure steamroller to quickly and cheaply throw families out of the homes so that they could be resold to serve as purported collateral for yet more gambling bets. MERS — the industry’s creation — stepped up to the plate to facilitate the fraud. The judge has ruled that its practices are illegal. MERS and the banks lose; investors and homeowners win.

Here’s MERS’s business model in brief. Real estate property sales and mortgages are supposed to be recorded in local recording offices, with fees paid. With the rise of securitization, each mortgage might be sold a dozen times before it came to rest as the collateral behind a mortgage backed security (MBS), and each of those sales would need to be recorded. MERS was created to bypass public recording; it would be listed in the county records as the “mortgagee of record” and the “nominee” of the holder of mortgage. Members of MERS could then transfer the mortgage from one to another without all the trouble of changing the local records, simply by (voluntarily) recording transactions on MERS’s registry.

A mortgage has two parts, the “note” and the “security” (not to be confused with the MBS) or “deed of trust” that is usually just called the “mortgage”. The idea behind MERS was that the “note” would be transferred from seller to purchaser, but the “mortgage” would be held by MERS. In fact, MERS recommended that the “note” be held by the mortgage servicer to facilitate foreclosures, but in practice it seems that the notes were often lost or destroyed (which is why all those Burger King Kids were hired to Robo-sign “lost note affidavits”).

At each transfer, the note and mortgage are supposed to be “assigned” to the new owner; MERS claimed that because it was the “mortgagee of record” and the “nominee” of both parties to every transaction, there was no need to assign the “mortgage” until foreclosure. And it argued that since the old adage is that the “mortgage follows the note” and that both parties intended to assign the notes (even if they did not get around to doing it), then the Bankruptcy Court should rule that the assignments did take place in some sort of “virtual reality” so that there is a clear chain of title that allows the servicers to foreclose.

The Judge rejected every aspect of MERS’s argument. The Court rejected the claim that MERS could be both holder of the mortgage as well as nominee of the “true” owner. It also found that “mortgagee of record” is a vague term that does not give one legal standing as mortgagee. Hence, at best, MERS is only a nominee. It rejected MERS’s claim that as nominee it can assign notes or mortgages — a nominee has limited rights and those most certainly do not include the right to transfer ownership unless there is specific written instruction to do so. In scarcely veiled anger, the Judge wrote:

“According to MERS, the principal/agent relationship among itself and its members is created by the MERS rules of membership and terms and conditions, as well as the Mortgage itself. However, none of the documents expressly creates an agency relationship or even mentions the word “agency.” MERS would have this Court cobble together the documents and draw inferences from the words contained in those documents.” Read more…