Much like the rest of the country the news out of California regarding home foreclosures is particularly gloomy. Increases in foreclosures in this state are climbing at astronomical rates, over 160% by some counts, and the trend shows little sign of slowing down. As with all other states California is no different in that foreclosures are occurring because of conditions arising in which homeowners are unable to make their mortgage payments.

As a result lenders are being forced to start foreclosure proceedings so as to confiscate and sell the property in accordance with the terms of the original mortgage contract. One research service has predicted that California foreclosures are likely to continue to climb because the conditions that lead to them are still very much at work: rising default notices and flattening home prices. These California foreclosures are a lot of the time new homes or homes that have been refinanced in the last couple years.

Unless you've been living in a cave in some outlying part of the world, you have likely tuned into the news and learned about the largest California home foreclosure liquidation sale in the history of the state's real estate industry. Recent historical data for California homeowners shows they were an average five months behind on their primary mortgage before receiving the notices, and owed an average of $11,126 on a median $342,000 mortgage. Notices of default during the same time period increased to over 20,000 from the same time period as the previous year.

There is no difference in California from other states where the decision to stop foreclosure depends largely on the borrowers determination whether they want to keep or sell the property. The non-judicial foreclosure is the primary method for foreclosure in California. These usually occur when no power of sale language is included in the loan documents.

Fortunately for the consumer California is generally a friendly state when it comes to protecting the right of the homeowner. The foreclosure timeline in California is typically 120 days from the time you miss your first payment until a Notice of Default or Notice of Sale is issued to your actual foreclosure date and sale. This allows some breathing room for the homeowner trying to remain in the home as long as possible while trying to stop foreclosure and keep their home.

In California, lenders may foreclose on deeds of trusts or mortgages in default using either a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure process. Judicial foreclosure is used on a rare occasion, while non-judicial foreclosures are most common in California.

California is also generous towards the homeowner if they desire to buy back the home after the foreclosure, but there is a caveat to be aware of. It is a complicated statutory right of redemption that states after the foreclosure sale has occurred, the party whose property has been foreclosed has the right to reclaim that property by making payment in full of the sum of the unpaid loan plus costs one year after foreclosure sale unless the original lender made a full price bid, at which point that period is shortened to three months. Simply put, the homeowner should never assume they have the full year to exercise their redemptive rights.

Unfortunately foreclosures in California slowly are still on the rise and home prices are getting lower, slowly but surely. This is good news for potential real estate investors, but does not bode well for those trying to sell their home to avoid foreclosure. A great many people besides the homeowner and lender are affected, and it a painful process that no one willingly wants to go through.

By: Chuck Lunsford
SaveMeFromForeclosure.com is a forerunner in the foreclosure prevention service industry, helping people to stop foreclosure and keep or sell their California home. Our experience, along with our passion to help homeowners through this challenging time, set us apart from the competition. We only succeed if you are able to avoid and prevent foreclosure on your California home with our assistance. Visit our website or call us at 1-888-472-8380 for a no-obligation consultation.

In its just published Third Quarter Forecast for 2007, private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR) predicts that the governments of the United States and Iran "...are now closer than ever to reaching an agreement..." on Iraq. If such a deal is indeed finalized, STRATFOR expects Iraq to "...become somewhat ordered near the quarter's end...." If no agreement can be reached, however, the analysts in downtown Austin foresee full-blown violence that will likely last for several more years.

As things stand now, I believe the likelihood of any U.S.-Iranian pact on Iraq will be sabotaged not by the negotiating parties from Washington and Tehran, but rather by the Iraqis themselves. Thus far it has been the Iraqis that have been the main obstacle to peace, regardless of what the United States and Iran may want to see happen. It is true that foreign fighters have played a role in the continuing violence, making grand efforts to stoke sectarian conflict by attacking Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. And it is equally true that Iraq has become a central front in the Global War on Terrorism since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. But the main source of the fighting does not stem from the multitude of terrorist organizations operating within Iraq's borders. The chief fomenters of violence are Iraqis, and they are killing each other by the tens of thousands.

Why is this happening? Why would Iraqis insist on sectarian warfare that prevents national reconciliation and the possibility of a stable and secure nation? I suspect that it is because the Iraqis themselves have no real desire to get along with each other and to move the country forward. There is a deep-seated hatred between the three main ethnic groups, a hatred that was violently suppressed under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship, and none of the fighting parties have thus far been willing to take any meaningful action to end the cycle of violence that is preventing political progress and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.

There has been some progress in al-Anbar Province, where some Sunni leaders have joined together with coalition forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. And there have been some initial signs of success in Baghdad, where General Petraeus says he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy." But significant numbers of Sunnis still attack American and Iraqi troops and Shi'a militias still roam the streets like vigilante death squads, conducting mass executions and terrorizing the populace. The Syrian border remains porous, with foreign fighters flocking to Iraq to take on American troops. And the Kurds, who have thus far managed to avoid much of the conflict plaguing Iraq, are becoming progressively more vocal in their demands for increased regional autonomy and resolution of the status of oil-rich Kirkuk.

The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is barely functioning, and the police and army forces have been thoroughly infiltrated by sectarian militias more loyal to tribe and sheikh than to the authorities in Baghdad. The population is not secure, and the people refuse to put their faith and trust in a government that cannot protect them. The outlook is grim, but the war is not yet lost.

The final troops involved in President Bush's security plan for greater Baghdad and al-Anbar Province are now in place and the "surge," announced in January, is just now getting fully underway. The purpose of the "surge," to remind readers, is to provide the Iraqi leaders in Baghdad a level of security that will facilitate political progress among the major fighting factions. This means that al-Maliki's government must get control of the militias, and it must resolve the issues of de-Baathification, revenue sharing, regional autonomy, and minority representation in the government.

But above all, it means that Iraqis have to step up to the plate, now more than ever, and demonstrate that they are willing to live together first as Iraqis, and second as Shi'a, Sunni, or Kurd. Time is running out, and the American public's will to keep up the fight is quickly fading. The will of the Congress is already gone. The consequences of failure have been pushed aside in favor of getting out of this mess as quickly as possible.

And while the United States and Iran may reach an agreement on the future of Iraq, it will be meaningless unless Iraqis can take control of their future, moving beyond sectarian division and toward a peaceful and prosperous Iraq that can serve as an example for the rest of the region.

In its just published Third Quarter Forecast for 2007, private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR) predicts that the governments of the United States and Iran "...are now closer than ever to reaching an agreement..." on Iraq. If such a deal is indeed finalized, STRATFOR expects Iraq to "...become somewhat ordered near the quarter's end...." If no agreement can be reached, however, the analysts in downtown Austin foresee full-blown violence that will likely last for several more years.

As things stand now, I believe the likelihood of any U.S.-Iranian pact on Iraq will be sabotaged not by the negotiating parties from Washington and Tehran, but rather by the Iraqis themselves. Thus far it has been the Iraqis that have been the main obstacle to peace, regardless of what the United States and Iran may want to see happen. It is true that foreign fighters have played a role in the continuing violence, making grand efforts to stoke sectarian conflict by attacking Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. And it is equally true that Iraq has become a central front in the Global War on Terrorism since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. But the main source of the fighting does not stem from the multitude of terrorist organizations operating within Iraq's borders. The chief fomenters of violence are Iraqis, and they are killing each other by the tens of thousands.

Why is this happening? Why would Iraqis insist on sectarian warfare that prevents national reconciliation and the possibility of a stable and secure nation? I suspect that it is because the Iraqis themselves have no real desire to get along with each other and to move the country forward. There is a deep-seated hatred between the three main ethnic groups, a hatred that was violently suppressed under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship, and none of the fighting parties have thus far been willing to take any meaningful action to end the cycle of violence that is preventing political progress and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.

There has been some progress in al-Anbar Province, where some Sunni leaders have joined together with coalition forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. And there have been some initial signs of success in Baghdad, where General Petraeus says he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy." But significant numbers of Sunnis still attack American and Iraqi troops and Shi'a militias still roam the streets like vigilante death squads, conducting mass executions and terrorizing the populace. The Syrian border remains porous, with foreign fighters flocking to Iraq to take on American troops. And the Kurds, who have thus far managed to avoid much of the conflict plaguing Iraq, are becoming progressively more vocal in their demands for increased regional autonomy and resolution of the status of oil-rich Kirkuk.

The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is barely functioning, and the police and army forces have been thoroughly infiltrated by sectarian militias more loyal to tribe and sheikh than to the authorities in Baghdad. The population is not secure, and the people refuse to put their faith and trust in a government that cannot protect them. The outlook is grim, but the war is not yet lost.

The final troops involved in President Bush's security plan for greater Baghdad and al-Anbar Province are now in place and the "surge," announced in January, is just now getting fully underway. The purpose of the "surge," to remind readers, is to provide the Iraqi leaders in Baghdad a level of security that will facilitate political progress among the major fighting factions. This means that al-Maliki's government must get control of the militias, and it must resolve the issues of de-Baathification, revenue sharing, regional autonomy, and minority representation in the government.

But above all, it means that Iraqis have to step up to the plate, now more than ever, and demonstrate that they are willing to live together first as Iraqis, and second as Shi'a, Sunni, or Kurd. Time is running out, and the American public's will to keep up the fight is quickly fading. The will of the Congress is already gone. The consequences of failure have been pushed aside in favor of getting out of this mess as quickly as possible.

And while the United States and Iran may reach an agreement on the future of Iraq, it will be meaningless unless Iraqis can take control of their future, moving beyond sectarian division and toward a peaceful and prosperous Iraq that can serve as an example for the rest of the region.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Veterans' Voice and a regular contributor to The New Media Journal, GOPUSA, and The Land of the Free.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle Information portal.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

A professional acquaintance of mine, who is affiliated with the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria, recently forwarded me an article about a speech delivered at a conference of Kurdish leaders from Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. The author of the article, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who also gave the speech at the conference in early April), provides some insight into one of the most significant problems faced by the United States in its quest to establish a stable and democratic Iraq. The problem: what to do about the Kurds.

The article begins with a telling paragraph: "A muezzin is calling people to pray from a minaret nearby as I am writing this. I am in Hewlar, Iraq-more appropriately Iraqi Kurdistan, or even more appropriately South Kurdistan. That's what Kurds in Iraq call their portion of Kurdistan. Kurds in Turkey call theirs North Kurdistan. Kurds in Syria call theirs West Kurdistan. And Kurds in Iran call theirs East Kurdistan."

The paragraph is significant because it captures in just a few sentences the sentiments of the vast majority of Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran: they are an independent people whose homeland is being denied to them by other states. The Kurds want, above all else, an independent state that they can call their own. And not just any state. They want Kurdistan, with clearly defined borders that reach into the territories now claimed by four other nations.

Dr. Wheeler said in his speech: "...the Kurds...remain the largest ethnic group in the world without their own country. This must change." In Iraq, the situation is indeed changing, and the consequences of that change could put at risk everything President Bush and the U.S. military have been striving to achieve for the past four years.

The Kurds in Iraq have steadily moved toward independence, establishing a stable and secure environment in northern Iraq, one that has been touted as the model for the future of that war-torn country and one that has been self-governed by the Kurds since the Persian Gulf War of 1991. The Iraqi Kurds' repeated moves toward independence (resistance to giving up oil rights, flying the Kurdish flag instead of the Iraqi flag, insisting on regional autonomy, deployment of an armed and trained militia, etc.) have irritated the Iraqi government in Baghdad and have increased tensions with Iraq's neighbors.

Turkey has vowed repeatedly, as has Iran, that there will be no independent Kurdistan, for the creation of such a country would cause what would probably be violent unrest in the Kurdish regions of those states as the minority Kurds sought to break away from Ankara and Tehran to become part of the new Kurdistan. And the Turks and Iranians, as well as the Syrians, have a very real basis for their fears.

In his speech, Dr. Wheeler urged the Kurds to act: "The peoples of Turkey, Syria, and Iran...must understand they can only have a truly free country when all their people are not oppressed by their governments. It is the Kurds of Syria who can bring freedom to Syria. It is the Kurds of Turkey who can bring freedom to all the peoples of Turkey. And it is the Kurds of Iran who can end the horrible tyranny of the mullahs in Tehran and bring freedom to Iran."

And Dr. Wheeler does not hide the fact that with Iraq currently in turmoil and Iraq's Kurds increasingly gaining autonomy, the next set of steps should be taken in Iran: "Today there is the opportunity for Kurds to join with other people, such as the Azeris, the Ahwazi Arabs, the Baluchis, and democratic Persians to rid Iran of Mullah Fascism and bring freedom to Iran." He goes on, writing in his article, to say unambiguously that "...the target has got to be Iran."

This Kurdish nationalism presents a difficult problem for the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The United States knows that continued independence moves by the Kurds could inflame Iraqi Arabs, and that there exists the distinct possibility of military intervention by Turkey, Iran and Syria.

Turkey is a NATO ally and a crucial bridge between the west and the Islamic Middle East. The strategic interests of the United States dictate that the maintenance of Turkey as a member of NATO and a regional ally takes precedence over the establishment of an independent Kurdistan. Similarly, the strategic goal of a stable, democratic Iraq is severely undermined by the creation of a separate Kurdish nation that would provoke Iran into fomenting even more regional instability and violence. Syria, too, must be considered, with the Assad regime's ability to undermine the Lebanese government and to incite violence against Israel, as well as the already demonstrated capacity to facilitate the funneling of weapons and fighters into Iraq.

For the United States, the choice seems perfectly clear. While the Kurds have demonstrated the ability to establish a peaceful, secure region in a country torn by violence and sectarian hatred, their dreams of an independent Kurdistan must take a back seat to the more important strategic goal of a stable and non-threatening Middle East. The Kurds must be convinced that the United States can be a far greater ally if their nationalist ambitions give way to the greater good of the region.

Restraining Kurdish ambitions for self-determination while working toward a diplomatic solution to the war in Iraq is an extremely difficult undertaking, even with 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground. It is a task that will likely prove impossible if our forces are withdrawn before a political accommodation can be reached. And while the Kurdish problem is but one piece of the puzzle in establishing a peaceful and secure Iraq, it is a piece that the United States cannot afford to ignore.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns appear in several online and print publications.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Services and Lifestyle Information resource directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Humor index and brighten your day.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

There's general agreement among Americans that when it comes to the subject of bias in the mainstream media, Republicans and Democrats hold very different views. The former often complain that the major news organizations slant considerably to the left, and the latter often counter that the media is generally neutral and sometimes favors the right. Nowhere is the difference in perception more obvious than in the reaction of Republicans and Democrats to media coverage of the war in Iraq.

According to a new survey released by the Pew Research Center, Republicans tend to trust the news they receive from the Pentagon and military spokesmen in Iraq, and distrust the reporting of the mainstream media. For Democrats, the opposite holds true, with most distrusting the information provided by American military leaders, choosing instead to rely on the media for what they consider accurate Iraq war reporting.

Many prominent GOP politicians have complained that the mainstream media's depiction of the situation in Iraq is unfairly one-sided, and I have written before that most news organizations tend to follow the "If it bleeds, it leads" reporting strategy. Sensationalism sells and images of blown up military vehicles and downed helicopters capture the attention of an audience much more than video streams or pictures of school openings and hospital renovations.

The practice of looking for the next big bang, whether it comes from a suicide bomber in a market or from an ambush on coalition troops, conditions Americans to believe that there is absolutely nothing positive happening in Iraq. The whole place is going to hell and there's nothing we can do to stop it, or so the mainstream mantra goes. Daily images of violence and chaos frustrate Republicans who support our efforts in Iraq and reinforce the preconceived notions of Democrats who want to get our troops home at any cost.

Such reporting also prevents stories of progress from getting to the American public. For example, Colonel Paul Funk of the 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division recently briefed from Iraq that the recent troop increases in Baghdad provided under the President's plan had reduced the number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in his sector of the city by forty percent. He also told reporters that Iraqi civilian murders in northern Baghdad, the sectarian violence that often dominates the mainstream media's reporting and is frequently used to justify our departure from a "civil war" that we can't mediate, were down from a high of about eight per month to just one or two per month since the initiation of the new security program. And that's just in his sector, which comprises about 900 square miles and is home to 2 million Iraqi citizens. Where was this story on the national news circuit? What about the stories of reduced violence and improved security in other sectors of Baghdad?

The good news from Iraq is available for those who want to find it. The problem is that Americans should not have to go looking for the truth from independent web journals or outside sources found in the rapidly evolving "new" or "alternative" media. Fair and accurate reporting could do much to change the public's opinion of the war, merely by providing both sides of the story.

Imagine if the mainstream media devoted as much time to stories about the good things our troops are doing as they allow for the bombs and the blood. Perhaps Americans would be less skeptical about our prospects for success if they were able to tune in to the evening news and see a balanced approach to Iraq, one that provided a truer picture of what was happening on the ground. Perhaps then the calls for precipitous withdrawal would die down just a bit as the public realized that all wars involve both progress and setbacks, and not just the latter.

A change in perception could go a long way toward allowing the President, as the Constitutionally-designated Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to focus on making his plan for Iraq work without attempts from the left to sabotage it before it is even fully implemented. Then maybe our military men and women could finish the task at hand and return home with the dignity and honor they deserve, and not as pawns pulled from the battlefield prematurely as part of a defeatist strategy that will surely come back to haunt us in the future.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns appear in several online and print publications.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

In the January 11th edition of The New York Times, published the morning after President Bush announced his new "surge" strategy for Iraq, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote the following passage: "By stepping up the American military presence in Iraq, President Bush is not only inviting an epic clash with the Democrats who run Capitol Hill. He is ignoring the results of the November elections, rejecting the central thrust of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and flouting the advice of some of his own generals, as well as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq."

I put the passage at the beginning of this article because it forces me to ask a simple question, a question that should have a simple answer: Who is the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. armed forces? The obvious answer is, of course, the President of the United States.

But given the number of vocal critics of the President's new strategy, the speculation about how to stop it from being implemented and the calls for adoption of strategies recommended by other individuals or groups, I can't help but wonder if I somehow missed something in all those American government classes I took during my school years.

In her article, Ms. Stolberg writes that Democrats complained the President's consultation with Congress was perfunctory. What they fail to understand here is that there is no advice and consent role when it comes to the President's duties as Commander-in-Chief. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States."

The advice and consent clause, written into the same article and section of the Constitution, covers treaties and the nominations of "...ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States...." At no time does it mention the role of the legislative branch with regard to the leadership of our armed forces.

Yet, despite the clear responsibilities of the President as Commander-in-Chief spelled out by this nation's Founding Fathers, the Democrats on Capitol Hill want to usurp Mr. Bush's authority as provided for by the Constitution. Of course, any Commander-in-Chief would be wise to listen to as many opinions as possible when the decision to be made involves the lives of our nation's most precious resource, our youth. But ultimately the decision belongs to the President alone.

To write a passage such as the one put forth by Ms. Stolberg is to present opinion as fact. The war on Iraq was not on the ballot last November, although it is correct to say that many voters are unhappy with the progress we are making on that front. The election was more an expression of discontent with a number of factors, of which the war was but one, than it was a referendum solely on the war itself. The Iraq Study Group's recommendations were discounted by virtually everyone with an understanding of what is happening in Iraq, including many Democrats. And Prime Minister al-Maliki is an ineffective leader who lacks the support not only of Americans, but of Iraqis as well.

President Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of a military at war. He is not looking for a graceful exit from a bad situation. He is looking for victory. Whether his strategy will work or not remains to be seen. But ultimately, whether we succeed or fail, the decision about how to proceed is his. If the strategy proves him correct, and we end up with a stable, democratically elected government in the Middle East, history will vindicate him. If the strategy proves to be wrong, there will be no else to blame.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns appear in several online and print publications.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.