Category Archives: Obama’s America

College students would renounce U.S. citizenship for illegals’ low tuition

illegals demand free stuff

Gabriella Morrongiello reports for The Fiscal Times, April 15, 2015, that illegal immigrants in 22 states are eligible for lower-cost, in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

22 states that offer lower tuition to illegals

While students residing legally or illegally in states such as California, Texas, Maryland, and Virginia are eligible for in-state tuition, legal immigrants, international students, and U.S. citizens from out of state continue to pay out-of-state tuition, often costing several thousand dollars more.

As an example, at the University of Virginia (UVA), a public institution in Charlottesville which ranked second highest in the nation in 2013, according to Daily Progress, the annual cost of tuition for out-of-state students is $36,720, more than double the in-state tuition rate of $10,016 offered to Virginia residents. Similarly, tuition at the University of Maryland (UMD), a public university in College Park, Md., costs out-of-state students $20,145 more annually. 

Out-of-state students attending UVA and UMD–both of which offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants–told Campus Reform they would “definitely consider” renouncing their U.S. citizenship to become “undocumented students” eligible for cheaper in-state tuition.

welfare for illegals~Éowyn

If you install solar panels, the company may put a lien on your home

Are you considering having solar panels installed in your home?

If you do, think twice, especially if the solar company’s condition is that you enter into a long-term lease contract.

A man in California who had his solar panels installed by a company called SolarCity discovered, to his shock, that the company actually placed a lien on his house.

Jeff Leeds' solar-paneled roof

Tori Richards for, April 15, 2015, that Jeff Leeds now regrets having solar panels installed on the roof of his home in the Northern California city of El Granada.

Leeds didn’t actually buy the panels, but acquired them by making a 20-year lease with SolarCity — an agreement that he now says is like “partnering with the devil.”

Not only has he endured skyrocketing electric bills, installation of an inferior system, SolarCity’s refusal to clean the panels or to provide a payment for his system’s poor performance, Leeds recently received a notice from his bank telling him that SolarCity had placed a lien on his home, and that his equity line of credit application for a second home could not proceed until the lien was removed.

Leeds said the bank “told me it was a lien. I had to pay the bank a $48 fee for removal. They held me up from closing my loan to buy a vacation home so I had to borrow from another account. It cost me time in calls to both Wells Fargo and to SolarCity.”

SolarCity say it’s not a lien, but a “fixture filing” that stakes the company’s claim to the panels, which it owns if consumers have taken part in its popular 20-year lease program. Owning the solar panels that it installs on clients’ homes allows SolarCity to claim lucrative state and federal subsidies available only to system owners. SolarCity has received approximately $500 million in tax subsidies and grants over the years.

In fact, SolarCity’s lease contract specifically states “SolarCity will … file no lien against the home” and that “The Fixture Filing is intended only to give notice of its rights relating to the System and is not a lien or encumbrance against the Property. SolarCity shall explain the Fixture Filing to any subsequent purchasers of the Property and any related lenders as requested. SolarCity shall also accommodate reasonable requests from lenders or title companies to facilitate a purchase, financing or refinancing of the Property.”

SolarCity’s website, in a consumer Q&A format, also states:

“Is there a lien on the solar home? No … the UCC-1 protects our interest in the solar energy system and prohibits the lender from taking ownership of it.”

Indeed, when Leeds confronted SolarCity about its lien on his house, “they referred me to a paragraph sunk deep inside their contract. That UCC-1 is what they kept telling me on the SolarCity side, but Wells Fargo Bank considered it a lien and charged me $48 for the fact that it was there…. And nobody explains that to you when you buy it. They give you a huge contract to read and nothing is explained.”

A March 10 email from a Wells Fargo Bank employee to Leeds confirmed that the UCC-1 is a lien: “To the bank, it’s a lien on the title..”

Sal Balsamo, a real estate attorney and owner of Barrister’s Title Services in North Carolina who has been involved with closing some 40,000 home loans as both an attorney and title underwriter, explains that by attaching a fixture filing to the property, SolarCity is second in line to collect proceeds behind the original mortgage lender in the event of a default. Any future lender — whether providing a refinance or equity loan — would not want to be third in line and will demand that SolarCity remove the lien.

Balsamo says that for SolarCity to call its lien on Leeds’ house a “fixture filing” is “parsing words to a ridiculous degree.  I don’t think there’s any question that it’s a lien. Someone can say it’s nothing more than a security interest, but that’s nonsense. At best they are mincing words and at worst they are being intellectually dishonest. A fixture filing is a lien.

Balsamo warns that signing lengthy contracts like those involving solar companies is risky because consumers often don’t realize what’s contained in the contract. “It’s up to the vendor to explain it to them. Either it wasn’t explained so customers understood, or, more likely, the vendor did not tell them” about the filing. Balsamo suggested that solar customers have an attorney read any contract before signing.

During a Feb. 12 Capitol Hill hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) grilled Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz about solar company liens and singled out SolarCity’s rival Stealth Solar as the offender.

Flake said, “After entering into these long-term agreements, a lot are in for a surprise when they realize they have to pay off a lien put on their house. What role, if any, can or does DOE plan to play in ensuring these companies who access federal tax incentives in particular  … aren’t misrepresenting what they are doing to their customers?”

Moniz was apparently caught off guard by the question and stammered that he didn’t know anything about liens but would look into it.

Ernest Moniz

A California banker, who requested anonymity because she is not authorized to speak on this topic, says she encounters enraged homeowners with Leeds’ same scenario five to 10 times a day: “This is my nightmare for 2015. Homeowners have no idea what they’ve gotten themselves into. Fixture filings are definitely liens…. Green energy is so popular with lawmakers that it allows these companies to say, ‘This is ours, our property.’ “That lease will follow you until you die.”

Arizona acts to protect home-owners

Solar customers who live in Arizona will soon have state protections with the nation’s most comprehensive transparency laws. One of those regulations, SB-1465, prohibits any type of secretive lien process. Despite vigorous opposition by SolarCity and another solar contractor, Sunrun, Gov. Doug Ducey signed the bill into law last week. It had unanimous legislative approval.

Among the items solar contracts must contain:

  • At least 10-point type and contain no blank spaces
  • Total price must be stated over the life of the contract, including interest
  • Potential tax ramifications
  • Disclose restrictions or impacts the buyer may have to transfer or modify the property
  • Depreciation schedule
  • A right to cancel up to three business days after purchase.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz) explains:

“We have to have better transparency and better truth in lending. This is becoming a bigger and bigger problem across the country as (solar) systems are getting transferred. Solar is getting to be our future and we don’t need people who are pulling shenanigans on the homeowner by not allowing them to know the full story of what they are signing. We are now living in an environment where it’s OK to lie and you just back up one lie with another lie – from the spokespersons at the White House all the way down to SolarCity.

Jeff Leeds believes SolarCity “just friggin’ lied to me in the sales process.” If he had been alerted to the fixture filing by the sales person, he would have thought twice about signing the contract. He has even filed a complaint with the state of California regarding SolarCity’s business practices.

“I would love to tell them how they bamboozled me, a Ph.D.,” Leeds said. “Imagine what they can do with the average schmuck out there.”

Here are the other articles in’s series on SolarCity:

  1. Congressional leaders charge ‘potentially deceptive sales tactics’ by SolarCity, others
  2. SolarCity’s $750M tax gift shrouded in secrecy
  3. SolarCity and others backed Chinese solar-panel makers flooding U.S. market
  4. SolarCity skyrocketing stock dependent on government tax giveaways
  5. Customers tell horror stories of solar company that gets $422M in tax dollars

A Cato Institute report on renewable energy like solar, written by Robert L. Bradley Jr., president of the Institute for Energy Research in Houston, Texas, warns:

A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than . . . biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects . . . . Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule.

The uncompetitiveness of renewable generation explains the emphasis pro-renewable energy lobbyists on both the state and federal levels put on quota requirements, as well as continued or expanded subsidies. Yet every major renewable energy source has drawn criticism from leading environmental groups: hydro for river habitat destruction, wind for avian mortality, solar for desert overdevelopment, biomass for air emissions, and geothermal for depletion and toxic discharges.

Current state and federal efforts to restructure the electricity industry are being politicized to foist a new round of involuntary commitments on ratepayers and taxpayers for politically favored renewables, particularly wind and solar. Yet new government subsidies for favored renewable technologies are likely to create few environmental benefits; increase electricity-generation overcapacity in most regions of the United States; raise electricity rates; and create new “environmental pressures,” given the extra land and materials (compared with those needed for traditional technologies) it would take to significantly increase the capacity of wind and solar generation.


Frustration continues with aggressive tax-refund seizures


CBS News: More than 77 million American have received tax refunds — but others may not be so lucky. CBS News has been investigating complaints that refunds are being seized by the government without notice.

Shalita Grant is a Tony nominated actress — who plays a federal agent on TV’s “NCIS New Orleans.” But to Social Security she’s been an outlaw — not because she did anything wrong — but because her father was overpaid more than $13,000 in disability. Grant grew outraged when Social Security seized her $1,500 tax refund without warning or any evidence against her.

“I would describe it as a theft,” she said. “I’m asking for a bill. I’m asking for something that says I owe you. I feel like you guys stole from me and I have nothing to show for it.” But stolen is a strong word. “Oh yeah, and I feel strongly about that.”

Over the last year, CBS News has contacted a dozen taxpayers who say Social Security has taken their tax refunds because a relative had been overpaid in benefits.

Jessica Vela, a U.S. Navy Veteran, lost a $6,000 refund last year, when she was eight months pregnant. “I had a baby due the next month,” she said, growing emotional as she recalled what happened. “There are no words to explain how helpless the situation has been.”

Helpless because Social Security admitted it had overpaid Jessica’s mother, not her. “I’ve told them ’til I’m blue in the face, I was a minor, I was learning to ride a bike during that time.”But now she’s a Navy veteran, and describing herself as defenseless. “Against your own government.”

Social Security declined to speak on camera. In court filings, it said it has the legal authority to go after the relatives of people overpaid in benefits. However, the agency has repeatedly denied it has ever done so.

In January the agency told Congress: “We did not…[collect] any…debt that was incurred by a parent or another family member.” “It’s a flat lie,” Vela said. “It’s an absolute, bold-faced lie.”**

After our investigation Social Security admitted that the taxpayers in our story were not to blame, that the money had indeed gone to their parents and both of those women got their refunds back. But that’s an admission that Social Security is doing the exact kind of aggressive debt collection it’s told the public it would never do.

Lois Lerner, queen of IRS Lies

Lois Lerner, queen of IRS Lies

**The government should know a thing or two about lies:


Hillary’s in, so why vote for her? Because she’s a womyn!

This is why we got Obama.


College students at George Washington University (The depth and breadth of our academic programs, the exceptional qualifications of our full-time faculty, the unmatched experiences of our adjunct faculty and the strengths of our research initiatives allow our students, our faculty and our staff to look at the world beyond the classroom. They allow us to prepare the next generation of leaders.) support Hillary Clinton yet can’t name one accomplishment of hers.

But they’d vote for her because she’s a womyn*!!!

Heck, even Hillary struggles to name her accomplishments as Secretary of State.

They vote among us…



*Womyn is the feminazis’ preferred spelling. Because if you use wo”man” or wo”men” you might upset their delicate sensibilities.

Right to Bear Arms? Gun grabbing sweeping the nation

second amendment2

Fox News: Cherished family heirlooms were among the 21 firearms Michael Roberts surrendered to the Torrance Police Department in 2010, after his doctor filed a restraining order against him.

The court order was the result of a dispute Roberts had with a member of the doctor’s staff and, after Roberts pleaded no contest, the matter was resolved. Yet, even though he filed the proper Law Enforcement Gun Release paperwork on four separate occasions, obtained clearance from the California Department of Justice and had two court orders commanding the return of his guns, police refused to hand them over.

With the backing of the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association, Roberts filed a federal lawsuit in May 2014, over the $15,500 worth of firearms. In the end he got the money, but not the guns. The police had had them destroyed.

Eric_Holder_is_a_ThugSecond Amendment lawyers say his case is not rare. “NRA and CRPA constantly get calls from law abiding people having problems getting their guns back,” said Chuck Michel of Long Beach based Michel & Associates, who represented Roberts in the case. “The state Department of Justice wrongly tells police not to give guns back unless the person can document ownership of the gun and it is registered in the state DOJ’s database. But the law doesn’t require this.”

Gun owners can’t comply anyway, Michel said, because police themselves routinely fail to enter the firearms into the DOJ’s database, and most people don’t have receipts for the guns they own.

While Americans have the constitutional rights to keep and bear arms – and protect their property from government’s unlawful seizure – it is not just in California where guns are seized and destroyed illegally, attorneys charge.

“This kind of below-the-radar bureaucratic gun confiscation is a growing Second Amendment and property rights violation problem, particularly in strict gun control states like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “People can’t afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back a $500 firearm.”

The Second Amendment Foundation’s most recent case involves Rick Bailey, a 56-year-old Navy veteran from Glendale, Ariz., whose entire collection of 28 firearms valued at $25,000 was seized by authorities because of an ongoing dispute with a neighbor.

After Bailey complained over several months to the city of Glendale that his neighbor frequently parked his landscaping company’s dump trucks in front of Bailey’s home — and toxic chemical odors were coming from his neighbor’s property — the neighbor obtained a harassment order against Bailey. Police showed up and seized Bailey’s gun collection.

“Mr. Bailey is devastated by this situation. We seem to live in an environment when someone’s life can be turned upside down on an allegation that should have been thoroughly investigated before any action was ordered by a court,” Gottlieb said. “We’re helping Bailey in his appeal of the judge’s order so he can not only reclaim his valuable firearms, but also some of his dignity as well.”

Convicted felon, gun grabber, and Obama supporter Ray Nagin

Convicted felon, gun grabber, and Obama supporter Ray Nagin

Probably the most notorious gun confiscation case happened after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005 when the city’s then-mayor, Ray Nagin, ordered all legally owned firearms seized. The Second Amendment Foundation successfully sued on behalf of thousands of law abiding gun owners to stop, or reverse, the confiscations. But hundreds more gun owners without legal representation or ownership paperwork had to abandon their guns. Those firearms still have not been destroyed, Gottlieb said.

In Massachusetts, residents who had their guns taken because of restraining orders or other reasons must pay a fee to a private storage company when their legal issues are resolved, regardless of their own culpability. The fees can run in the thousands of dollars, often exceeding the value of the guns. Instead of paying the fee, they often forfeit the firearms and the company auctions them off, Gottlieb said.

In Kentucky, a law passed in 2014 that allows law enforcement to take firearms from those accused – not convicted – of domestic violence crimes. Similar laws are in place in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Louisiana.

In Lakewood, Ohio, in August 2011, police seized 13 firearms valued at $15,000 from U.S. Army veteran Francesca Rice while she wasn’t home, according to Cleveland Scene. Police reportedly had an employee of the condominium complex let them in. The firearms collection of Rice, who served her country in Iraq, included handguns, shotguns, a vintage Chinese SKS M21 semi-automatic carbine and a semi-automatic rifle.

The seizure was based on a “situation involving the gun owner’s absence from a VA hospital where she had been receiving treatment…. However, no charges were ever filed, and a year later, Rice’s requests to have her guns returned had gone unanswered,” the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute reported, noting after the lawsuit was settled, the police were ordered to return her firearms.

These tactics are a way for police departments or the government to make it more costly to own guns, said John Lott, an economist, leading expert on guns, and author at the Crime Prevention Research Center. Lott believes the illegal policies most hurt poor gun owners, who not only are less likely to afford to get their property back, but also typically live in neighborhoods where they are more vulnerable to crime.

Seizing legally owned guns can also be a way for law enforcement agencies to boost their revenue if, as in some cases, they sell the firearms rather than destroying them, Lott said.

In the Roberts’ case in California, police blamed a letter from the California Department of Justice that required gun owners to produce documentation showing it was their firearm that was seized and ordered them to register all firearms that previously had been exempt. The receipt the police department issued when confiscating the firearms wasn’t sufficient proof, the DOJ said, and most firearms owners don’t have other proof of purchase, especially for firearms passed down from generation to generation.

The case was settled for $30,000 and the department changed its policy, but Roberts suffered through three years of aggravation and lost family heirlooms as a result of the department’s actions.

In 2012, California civil rights attorney Donald Kilmer represented the Second Amendment Foundation and CalGuns Foundation in the first legal challenge in California for wrongful retention of firearms and won, leading San Francisco and Oakland to change their policies.

But remarkably, the situation in California in some respects is getting worse. “The legislature has never met a gun regulation they didn’t like and the state is populated with millions of people who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Kilmer.


The problem now is that the State Bureau of Firearms is issuing letters that misstate the law with regard to what documentation gun owners must produce to get their property back, Kilmer said.

In the past, if firearms were seized in California from a home because of psychiatric issues, domestic violence allegations, restraining orders or other issues, the firearms were returned after the case was resolved through a court order. However, under a new law, Kilmer said a background check is required to ensure the property is not stolen, the owner has to prove ownership, and then the owners get a letter clearing them to pick up their property.

“It makes sense on its face, but it is taking longer to issue letters,” Kilmer said, adding most gun owners can’t meet other requirements because they don’t have paperwork to show title, many legally owned guns are not registered, the federal government is forbidden from keeping firearms ownership records with the exception of for specialty guns, and California just started its database in 1996 exclusively for handguns.

“People keep forgetting the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment, is protected by the U.S. constitution, and private property is protected under the Fifth Amendment,” Kilmer said. “Government cannot take property without just compensation and due process. The great thing is that when it comes to guns, you get protection under both amendments.”



Who will stand against the gaystapo?


Who Will Stand?

By Robert P. George, First Things, April 5, 2015

The lynch mob came for the brilliant mild-mannered techie Brendan Eich. (See “Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Resigns After Backlash Over Support For Prop 8 Same-Sex Marriage Ban“)

The lynch mob came for the elderly florist Barronelle Stutzman.

The lynch mob came for Eastern Michigan University counseling student Julea Ward.

The lynch mob came for the African-American Fire Chief of once segregated Atlanta Kelvin Cochran. (See “Tyranny of the Gaystapo: Atlanta mayor fires Christian fire chief for biblical views on homosexuality“)

The lynch mob came for the owners of a local pizza shop the O’Connor family. (See “Bigot threatens to burn down Indiana pizzeria because of store owner’s Constitutional Right”)

The lynch mob is now giddy with success and drunk on the misery and pain of its victims. It is urged on by a compliant and even gleeful media. It is reinforced in its sense of righteousness and moral superiority by the “beautiful people” and the intellectual class. It has been joined by the big corporations who perceive their economic interests to be in joining up with the mandarins of cultural power. It owns one political party and has intimidated the leaders of the other into supine and humiliating obeisance.

And so, who if anyone will courageously stand up to the mob? Who will resist? Who will speak truth to its raw and frightening power? Who will refuse to be bullied into submission or intimidated into silence?

I’m not asking, which leaders? Though that, too, would be good to know. Are there political or religious leaders who will step forward? Are there intellectual or cultural leaders who will muster the courage to confront the mob?

No, I’m asking what ordinary people will do. Are there Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians who will refuse to be intimidated and silenced? Are there Latter-Day Saints, Orthodox and other observant (or even non-observant) Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs? Buddhists?

Oh yes, the mob came first for the Evangelicals and the Catholics and the Latter-Day Saints; but do not be deceived: it will not stop with them. It’s true that many in the mob have a particular animus against Christians, but the point of destroying the reputations and livelihoods of the initial victims is pour encourager les autres [to encourage others]. If you believe you belong to a group that will be given a special exemption or dispensation from the enforcement of the new orthodoxy—by any means necessary—you will soon learn that you are tragically mistaken. No one who dissents will be given a pass.

We have seen how swiftly the demands have moved from tolerance to compulsory approbation of behavior historically rejected as contrary to morality and faith by virtually all the great religious traditions of the world. And now it is not only approbation that is demanded, but active participation. And do you honestly think that we have now reached the endpoint of what will be demanded?

Of course, some will say—indeed some are saying—that the battle is over, the cause is lost. All we can do is seek the best terms of surrender we can get, knowing that at this stage they will not be very good.

What should we say to that? Well, it is certainly true that the political, economic, and cultural power now arrayed against people of faith and their rights and liberties is formidable. No question about it: This is David against Goliath.

But then, we know how that contest ended, don’t we?

If we refuse to surrender, we will certainly be demonized; but everything will depend on whether we refuse to be demoralized. Courage displayed in the cause of truth—and of right—is powerful. And it will depend on whether ordinary people—Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, others—inspired by their faith to stand firm, will also be willing to stand shoulder to shoulder, and arm-in-arm, with their brothers and sisters of other traditions of faith to defy the mob.

Below is a comment from First Things reader Frank McLaughlin on another case of persecution:

“And, as another instance of the lynch mob mentality, last summer in Massachusetts last summer the School Committee in the city of Lynn came out against Gordon College, and its President Michael Lindsay, because of Gordon College’s “Biblical stance on issues relating to human sexuality.” But, this week the Mayor of Lynn was informed by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the School Committee by its action was in violation of the “First Amendment rights of Gordon College, Gordon College students, and President Michael Lindsay.” And, the School Committee was called upon to reverse its clearly unconstitutional decision.”

See also:


Soldiers Were Lectured On ‘White Privilege’ At Equal Opportunity Briefing

white privilege

Daily Caller: A diversity training session for the Army turned into a lecture on “white privilege” Thursday.

The Equal Opportunity briefing, which was presented to approximately 400 soldiers in the 67th Signal Battalion in Fort Gordon, Ga., garnered attention after a photograph of a PowerPoint slide of the presentation was posted on Facebook.

The slide, titled, “the luxury of obliviousness,” states, “[R]ace privilege gives whites little reason to pay a lot of attention to African Americans or to how white privilege affects them.” It adds, quoting, “To be white in American [sic] means not having to think about it.”

The quote appears to be from James Baldwin, as referenced in sociologist Allan G. Johnson’s book, “Privilege, Power, and Difference.” The popular book teaches readers how to examine the implications of their privilege.

Cpt. Lindsay Roman, a spokesperson for the Army, told USA Today the presentation material was not authorized and not part of the standard presentation. The Equal Opportunity instructor, instead, chose to incorporate the topic of white privilege into the presentation.

On Facebook, people expressed outrage over the inclusion of the topic of white privilege. Some individuals even joked that they would file an Equal Opportunity complaint against the Equal Opportunity course, pointing out hypocrisy of singling out white people.

As a result of this situation, Roman said, “To prevent further instances, all unit instructors will receive additional training on the importance of following Army EO training requirements.”

This is not the first time a discussion of white privilege has made its way into Equal Opportunity material. The Equal Opportunity Advisor Student Guide, which was used to train Equal Opportunity instructors during a 3-month course at Patrick Air Force Base, also explicitly discussed the topic of white privilege. The manual was provided through the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, which is affiliated with the Department of Defense.

According to USA Today, Army officials are currently investigating the matter at Fort Gordon.