IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov   
   XPost: alt.politics.economics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.prisons   
   XPost: alt.revisionism, alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy   
   XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns   
   XPost: misc.survivalism, soc.culture.usa, alt.survival   
   From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.   
   BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.ObamaCare.gov   
      
   On 1/28/2015 8:15 PM, nickname unavailable wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 6:12:22 PM UTC-6, jim wrote:   
   >> nickname unavailable wrote:   
   >>>   yet as jim has pointed out repeatedly, that it was private sector loans,   
   >>>  not cra loans that defaulted in huge numbers.   
   >>   
   >> The purpose OF CRA is to encourage banks to   
   >> lend in the same community where they get   
   >> deposits.   
      
   And the government and ACORN used the CRA to coerce the banks to make   
   loans to racial minorities....   
      
   Seems like abuse of the law.   
      
   But Judge Roberts ended that with NON governmental entities when he   
   wrote the ObamaCare ruling.   
      
   -Justice Roberts-   
   [""""""Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate   
   individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new   
   and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already   
   possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the   
   Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the   
   same *license to regulate what people do not do* . The Framers knew the   
   difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress   
   the power to regulate commerce, *not to compel it* . Ignoring that   
   distinction would undermine the principle that *the* *Federal*   
   *Government* *is a government of limited and enumerated powers* . The   
   individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to   
   “regulate Commerce.”"""""""]   
    -Justice Roberts-   
      
      
   The ObamaCare ruling says that the government can't force private   
   business or citizens to enter into commerce, which means you can't be   
   force to engage in commerce with anyone no matter their race or gender   
   or whether they are gay or not and so you need not hire them or allow   
   them into your business since the government has no teeth in any law   
   that supported such interference into your private sector business.   
      
   On the other hand the "government" is still required to treat all people   
   equally under the laws.  So it doesn't change that government is forced   
   to allow all people to enter government operated institutions and   
   services.  It makes our nation more dynamic and will create greater   
   opportunity without so much government intrusion.   
      
   The Democrats should have tried to get ObamaCare and that ruling tossed   
   out while they could, in order to save their favorite power of   
   regulating NOTHING because under the commerce clause that's what   
   Democrats did.  Now Democrats gained a tax but LOST the power to   
   regulate what people didn't do.   
      
      
      
   >> When a bank takes deposits in one community   
   >> and makes loans in another community (where   
   >> the banker and his buddies live) the bank   
   >> is nothing more than a device to steal the   
   >> wealth of the depositors.   
      
   It makes the depositors money and as the collapse of the Mortgage   
   markets show, they make more money than if the banker is forced into   
   making loans they didn't want to make.   
      
   It's you Liberals that stole money from the poor communities when you   
   collapsed the mortgage markets and the economies in those communities   
   that you were concerned with helping(your plan backfired and failed).   
   Typical Liberalism wasn't it?   
      
   In fact look at Ferguson MO as an example, why should bankers be forced   
   to make loans in a place like Ferguson where the business might well be   
   burned to the ground and they are more likely to lose money on that loan?   
      
   Do you want the poor that live there to lose what little money they have   
   next time Ferguson is burned down?   
      
   >> The propaganda campaign against CRA originates   
   >> with corrupt bankers who would like to go back   
   >> to the practice of slowly stealing the wealth   
   >> of depositors.   
      
   Going back is already done, ObamaCare set you back to 1964 and the time   
   before you corrupted the commerce clause to include NON Commerce, Now   
   you can't sue the bankers under the CRA to get them to do business (make   
   loans) in that community you were so concerned about.   
      
   It happened quietly and no one told you. Because the media didn't want   
   you to know that Liberalism had failed and the constitutional abuse by   
   Liberals was fixd so Liberals can't abuse the commerce law to   
   misrepresent it as also being a "NON commerce" law to regulate when   
   people don't do business.   
      
   ObamaCare was an either/or option and when you Liberals passed it the   
   choice was health care now and lose the ability to force commerce where   
   there is none or keep the unconstitutional ability to force people to   
   buy stuff because it "here to fore"  hadn't been challenged, and the   
   Liberals chose to keep ObamaCare and give away the power to regulate NON   
   commerce....   
      
   CRA was used for regulating NON COMMERCE, that is now unconstitutional   
   as per Justice Roberts written opinion up above this.   
      
   >   
   >  you are preaching to the chorus:)   
   >   
      
   Joining the chorus doesn't change the constitution.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)