What do Charlie Gasparino, Frank Garay and Brian Stevens have in common, they think home foreclosure protestors are scum.

It appears that author Charlie Gasparino's newest book, "Bought and Paid for - The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street", and "Think Big Work Small" daily video co-stars Frank Garay and Brian Stevens believe home foreclosure protestors are trivial scum that are gumming up the inevitable "correction" that is due in the home foreclosure industry.

Um, pardon me, but wasn't there already a 30 to 50 percent "correction" in the price of everybody's home in the country? Now these financial media darlings want ANOTHER one?

I bring the issue of those who are against the home foreclosure freeze to remind the home foreclosure movement that just because you are in the spotlight doesn't mean you can't be taken down several pegs and marginalized by the media, overnight.

All it takes is a couple of news stories about home foreclosure squatters who owe money and are simply trying to stall leaving their home and will use every paperwork trick available to do so, to turn public opinion around on the home foreclosure issue. Don't think that our friends at 60 minutes are not thinking hard about doing such a story as a follow up to their "strategic default" story they did a few months ago on home owners who walk away from homes they can afford to make the mortgage payments on.

I believe it is important to try and frame legitimate gripes and issues within the home foreclosure debacle before they are framed for us by the banksters and the BIG media. Local media and nightly news media might do the story from the homeowners point of view, but it is the BIG media like 60 minutes that may attempt to paint the homeowner as the scum bag.

What is the biggest issue regarding the banks and home foreclosures?

Did the government set up a home foreclosure prevention program knowing in advance that it would not help the majority of people who attempted to use it? Is this an impeachable offense if the president of the United States knew this program would not work but created it anyways to look good, knowing that hundreds of thousands of americans would lose their home because the program was a fraud?

And yet, who would impeach the president, congress? The same congress that is in bed with Wall Street as well? Whether you like Barack Obama or not, there are plenty of well to do financial puffeteers who can make their living bad mouthing homeowners who are attempting to try and stay in their home through the congress sanctioned, president approved home loan modification program that appears to be wrought with fraud from the banking side.

It is too bad that republican politicians never met a banker they did not like, because they could probably move to impeach Barack Obama over his botched handling of the home loan modification program. Barack Obama is probably smiling like a cheshire cat knowing that he has beaten the republicans at their own game.

I absolutely one hundred percent believe that if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, her home mortgage modification would have performed to EVERYBODY'S satisfaction and you may want to look at yourself and ask just who might be the most capable person to handle the job of actually being president in 2012.

Debt Collectors Gone Wild

ACT used former prisoners to make debt collection calls, some of whom used racist and incestuous allegations when making their phone calls. Bank of America refused to fire ACT until two days after Brian Ross of ABC News ambushed the CEO of Bank of America.

If Barack Obama had done nothing more than handle the unfairness of the home foreclosure practices, like Hillary Clinton would have done, he would be a much more popular president right now.

Maybe we now know why the banks supported Barack Obama so steadfastly in 2008?

Should homeowners be foreclosed upon if they have built up equity in their home?

It is a struggle for me to understand how homeowners are being foreclosed upon if they have built up equity in their home. Example, a home is worth $200,000, and the homeowner has either paid either made a healthy down payment of $75,000, or over the years has built up $75,000 dollars worth of home equity. Is it really fair for the banks to foreclose on the home, short sell it for $125,000 dollars, and basically rob the homeowner of the $75,000 dollar down payment or the home equity that they have already built up?

I consider the above scenario insane and until Barack Obama and Congress deal with this issue head on, they are frauds in my book, ALL OF THEM. How dare they give out tax credits to first time home owners while they allow the banks to steal built up wealth from existing homeowners.

I am pretty certain Hillary Clinton would not have allowed this plundering to occur, and that is why her campaign was sabotaged behind the scenes by democratic higher ups during the 2008 democratic primary.

Why Politics and Unions do not Mix Well.

A New Way Forward is a growing grass roots movement that wants to see the too big to fail banks broken up.

I am not sure the real core issue facing beleaguered homeonwers is breaking up the "too big to fail" banks. I think the "big four" (Wells Fargo, Citibank, Chase and Bank of America) might actually be an asset to the country IF intelligent financial rules were put in place.

Perhaps we are facing the irony of the "gift of the magi" because the "too big to fail banks" could instantly be a huge asset to the country, if they would not fight the real financial reform that is needed.

And of course, just who actually knows what the real financial reform is, that is needed?

My personal reservations about A New Way Forward is that it may be seeded too strongly with union groups. On top of that, I am no longer interested in community activism if the primary thing the activists do is figure out how to get their community a bigger cut of the tax pie. Apparently, at the recent rally pictured below in Illinois people were allegedly chanting "Raise our Taxes".

The problem is the Unions are having it both ways. The unions appear to prefer both political parties fight over their union members' vote, but then they also are involved in "grass roots" movements as well.

I would suggest that when the unions forced their members to vote for Barack Obama during the 2008 democratic primary and caucus contests, they created the present problem. Barack Obama was a worthy democratic candidate in 2008, but it is ridiculous to presume he actually beat Hillary Clinton fairly and squarely. If the 2008 democratic primary and caucus races had been fairly conducted, Hillary Clinton would have ended up with between 52-54 percent of the vote, and a similar delegate advantage as well.

Instead, democratic caucus cheating was rampant. I studied the caucus vote counts and basically Barack Obama's entire delegate lead over Hillary Clinton came from tainted caucus contests that never came close to representing what the polling companies were getting.

At one point, the polling companies actually did not want to disclose their results regarding caucus contests because they knew that Hillary Clinton was being shortchanged and they did not want to look so inaccurate in their pre-caucus poll results.

Then we have the strange case of Illinois (Barack Obama's residence state) moving up its 2008 primary date by 7 weeks to early February, while Michigan and Florida (Hillary Clinton states) were penalized for moving their date up. Barack Obama's landslide victory in Illinois gave him an advantage that he trumpeted in the 10 caucus contests that immediately followed that primary.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton had nothing to show for Michigan other than the mudslinging from Barack Obama to New Hampshire and Iowa voters condemning Michigan for trying to move up their primary date too close to theirs, and condemning Hillary Clinton for keeping her name on the ballot in Michigan as well.

The Michigan and Florida primaries were going to go to Hillary Clinton, Illinois was going to go to Barack Obama. Barack Obama got his bounce, Hillary Clinton was denied hers. the messing with these three states alone stole the democratic nomination from Hillary Clinton.

Factor in the caucus cheating, in which Hillary Clinton was either tied or leading in the polls in virtually all caucus contests but ended up losing the caucus delegate count by a 2-1 MARGIN to Barack Obama and the result was clearly in Hillary Clinton's favor.

I believe the unions paid a deep price for possibly contributing to several unethical maneuvers in 2008 to get Barack Obama selected over Hillary Clinton. (Research 2008 Las Vegas democratic caucus, Iowa caucus vote totals from precincts that border Illinois, and the late voter primary counts in Indiana precincts that also border Illinois).

Now the unions don't like what they see and they want a do over.

Hillary Clinton would not have let the banks walk all over her and that is why Barack Obama started to get large Wall Street donor campaigns.

When a self professed documentary filmmaker such as Michael Moore says nothing about the abuse his own state of Michigan was put through during in the 2008 democratic primary race, and also says nothing about Illinois moving its own primary date up 7 weeks to game the system, we can reasonably assume that SOMETHING WAS GOING ON.

I would suggest that the biggest political problems unions face is the idea that all of their votes are supposed to go to one candidate to maximize their influence. Why treat union workers so miserably by forcing them to go with one candidate? Why should union workers be treated as mindless minions whose vote can only go to the union committee selected candidate?

When politicians try to win the Union Vote, or when they try to win the Chamber of Commerce Vote, and so on down the line, it just contributes to all the political divisiveness that we presently are facing. If the Unions are for breaking up the banks, than for sure republicans will be against it.

If the unions had let the voting public decide who was the stronger candidate in 2008 between Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, then backed that candidate, they probably would be in a better position right now. AND, they would not have set a horrible precedent of prematurely manipulating the selection of the democratic party presidential candidate before the democratic voters of the country had voted.

So what does all of this have to do with the April 29th, 2010 protest march on Wall Street? The unions have created a polarized environment, which means any effort they make, no matter how legitimate, will automatically result in a backlash from those who have dealt with the unions in the past and not gotten the union vote.