PARKCHESTER SOUTH CONDOS.

FOCUSING ON PARKCHESTER CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION in general, and PARKCHESTER SOUTH CONDOMINIUM in particular.
--------------------------------------------------
Parkchester Condominium Corporation is creating poverty in the complex and nobody is doing anything about it.

 

Apartment owners, who have bought their properties many years ago, using their future nest egg as investment in purchasing those units, are losing them (properties), because they are not able to get into programs, such as the Federal government sponsored reverse mortgage program, which most of them qualify for.

 

The reason being that the corporation itself, somehow, cannot get HUD (Housing Urban Development) to permit it to apply for participation in order to allow unit owners, who have every right to do what they choose with their properties, to be in the program.

 

Parkchester Condominium Corporation is a privately owned company, and it will be voluntary on its part to apply to HUD, in order to enable unit owners to gain access to the department's programs.

In other words, it will be for Parkchester Condominium management to initially procure an opening permission to allow interested individuals to become participants in any program, including a reverse mortgage type.

 

It will only be then that unit owners can get FHA (Federal Housing Administration) approval into the reverse mortgage program to save their homes.

For several years, the corporation has been dragging its feet on the issue or just being callous to make a positive move on the problem.

 

As a result, unit owners are falling behind with their monthly "common charges" or "maintenance fees" , and thus appearing in the New York City housing court system on non-payment charges. 

Remember, those being put out are senior citizens, and they have nowhere else to go, but to Nursing homes, shelters and facilities that are run by private companies, where they (seniors) are not familiar with strange conditions and practices at most of these places.

 

They are able to use their life's savings to purchase these units in the Parkchester area, but they are left helpless and sometimes homeless, just because the corporation might be forced to pay taxes out of its huge yearly profits, if HUD (and the IRS) will find it feasible to investigate its (corporation's) managerial operations, which can be sordid, and/or even an audit by the government will apply.

 

For that reason, perhaps, it is not likely for the corporation to open its books.

These unfortunate victims need the help of Attorneys and City officials, to put things right for them; and if any such sympathizers are willing to offer such help or any kind of assistance, they can contact "Emmanuel" at 718-597-8098. They can leave a message in his absence.

THE JUSTICES & THE PEOPLE.

It will be a disappointment, if the United States Supreme Court decides to vote 5 to 4 against the Affordable Health Care Act by President Barack Obama, on political grounds.

The justices are people too, and they are likely to consider political inclinations first before any other options; yet, to lean on politics than the fact that more citizens will have health insurance coverage under the law will be an abomination.

Besides, the constitutionality opinion is likely to be that the U.S. Congress can pass a law to mandate anything that it sees fit and proper for a great majority of citizens, such as Social Security.

Automobile insurance is another category that every American has to have, if they are to have the use of a motor vehicle. Without that, there will be too many accidents on the road resulting in unnecessary deaths.

The so called "Obamacare" falls into the same rational, that people will get sick and that they will need health insurance coverage to be able to get medical attention without any kind of impediment; and so, to say that all Americans must have health care coverage makes a great deal of sense.

That is exactly what the Obama health care does, and to insinuate that it forces people "to buy broccoli," is not fair, in that a penalty being attached to the law does not mean that jail sentences will be passed on those not having insurance.

It (penalty) is just there to compel all persons to have the protection they must require in emergency situations and whenever the well being of their personal health is in jeopardy.

In fact, it is in the best interest of everyone to have insurance coverage, to be able to have access to immediate medical help, when he or she requires it, and at the proper time.

Legally, the justices have several options to choose from, as to knock the law out completely or to let it stand as is; and in between, they have the luxury to pick what they think must be part of the law or not.

So, allowing political dogma to penetrate their thinking into making a decision of the kind they are facing will not be a good idea at all; as it will become a precedent that anything that is not to their political taste must be considered as illegal or unlawful.

That will not be equitable; and doing justice to themselves and to society as a whole will be next to impossible, if they choose to follow that path.

Deep thoughts and genuine assessments must be utilized to play a major part in reaching a decision, as millions of Americans are relying on them (justices) to prove that they, as Americans, can have the law on their side and to be able to treat an ailment without any hindrance, when it happens to them.

That is what the whole argument boils down to; that people having their health needs met, when they become incapacitated; and not to permit politics to deprive them a right that they must have; that is taking care of their own ... given bodies in the proper manner.

Again, the justices are human too, and therefore they must be for or on the human side, rather than on pure political persuasion that is only man-made, to deliberately embarrass another political entity.

OBAMA'S ARDENT FOE.

The United States Supreme Court Justices know quite well that the Affordable Health Care Act before them is politically biased either way, as one party wants it repealed and the other wants it to stand.

Among the Justices themselves are those who bear a grudge against the originator, President Barack Obama, from his State of the Union address to a joint Congressional session about two years ago, when one of the Justices yelled, "Not True," after the president has criticized the Supreme Court that a ruling on political contribution would open the floodgates for corporations and big companies to make unqualified donations to one of the major parties than the other.

The two major parties, Democratic and Republican, were divided on that issue, that if no limit was placed on political contributions, the advantage would be one sided in favor of the Republican Party.

The president was predicting the birth of the PACs (Political Action Committees) as there were none in existence, and he was right.

They, PACs, have become part of American political life now, to the point that millions of dollars in political contributions have come from only ... knew where, to fund the Republican Party presidential candidates' campaigns.

The point was that there were no PACs until the decision by the Justices; and since the public was fully aware that Justice Samuel Alito, who belted the "not true" interruption, while the president of the U.S. was speaking, he should step aside in the final adjudication of the health care act before the Justices.

One would ask why? Because, apart from his rude statement to the president, he has been "a thorn in the flesh" as far as the Democratic Party was concerned. Therefore to sit in judgment on the health care Act, a law proposed and passed by the Democrats, would be a deviation or departure from justice itself.

If justice Alito would be brave enough to admit that he has a whole lot against the Obama administration, and that siding with his colleagues, who would vote against the law, signed by President Obama, would be very unfair, then he would have some credibility left to his character.

Also, believe it or not, but it seems that race is a factor in the case, as Obama is an African American, and therefore, anything he does will be criticized by his foes, from that stand point.

Alito, a known Obama foe, disqualifying himself in the decision making of the Supreme Court on Friday, on the health care Act, will be very much appreciated.

It will only be then that the American people will know that a better Court exists now than the one that has voted, some many years ago, that a black man has no rights.


("The black man was not considered a person under the Constitution. ... " by the Supreme Court. "Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857").

THE HEALTH CARE LAW & THE SUPREME COURT.

If the justices of the United States Supreme Court are going to indulge in politics, then there is no hope for millions of Americans that have no health insurance and are forced to crowd Emergency Rooms in hospitals each and every day across the country.

From all reports the court is picturesquely split on political and ideological lines; that four of its nine members are conservatively inclined, and another four tend to vote on the liberal side.

Yet, the swing justice, by all implications, must be Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, and that makes him a full fledged conservative, and therefore he cannot have any wiggle room to be impartial on that score.

Everyone seems to know that Justice Kennedy is the one that mostly plays the part of a middle man, but in the decision on the Affordable Health Care Act, his role is not all that clear.

Moreover, the justices are not being prejudged by the public that they are prejudiced against the health care law; yet, all indications point to that fact.

President Barack Obama has penned his signature on it, and he has made it one of his major accomplishments; he has every right to do so, because he has been able to pull the health care industry out, that rested in a quagmire of corruption and graft for its existence.

Therefore, it becomes the duty of the court to ensure that the insurance companies are not given the power as before, to deny coverage to millions of people, who are now, or about to be covered.

More than 50 million citizens are waiting to gain access to coverage under the new health care law; and those that have work related insurance will have the option of getting full coverage through it; and that adds more people to be protected from the previous despicable insurance plans, in which any type of change happens to be impossible.

In other words, setting political affiliations aside, the justices have to prioritize that it must not put the private insurance companies back in control. If they (justices) will forget the consideration that the insurance companies are behind the campaign to repeal the health care law, then they will have overlooked the core kernel of the health care debate.

In a nutshell, the insurance companies want to be reinstated; but the only thing that can stop that is a law that puts the decision making process in the hands of patients and their doctors, instead of private companies.

That is exactly what the Obama administration has initiated; and if that is not what forms the basis of the arguments that the justices are likely to hear and then base their decisions on, then they will allow political influence to gain the upper hand and interfere with their work.

Millions of lives are at stake on an issue such as this one, and they are hoping fervently that the Supreme Court will come to their aid, rather than siding with profit making companies.

The justices can make "Obamacare" to stand on its own to protect the people. That is what America wants and nothing else.

Conservatism is just for one section of American society; there must be other sections of the population with other beliefs that need to be safeguarded and protected, for America to be considered as being truly one nation......

OBAMA & RUSH LIMBAUGH.

Rush Limbaugh's argument that President Barack Obama referred to Trayvon Martin, the diseased African American teenager, who had died from a gun shot by a Florida neighborhood watchman, as his (president's) son was not true.

The president was using an analogy to say that he felt deeply for the family that has lost a son; and though, that family happened to be African American, it (analogy) did not equate to the skin color of Trayvon.

The statement in question did not correspond to what Limbaugh was making his listeners to believe, that the president was being racially inclined.

In other words, the remarks by the president could reference any family in America, whose member has suffered death, while doing no harm to anyone.

The story of Trayvon Martin could be any other boy's story, as he was walking home from the store, with a hoodie over his head, and he was not thinking of anything else at the time, but to get to where he was going.

Suddenly, he was confronted by a man, who might have asked about where he was heading, and he reacted and answered that it was none of the man's business. The man, now identified as George Zimmerman, continued to follow him, and he might have somehow touched Trayvon's person.

The boy turned around and said, "Come on, let go," trying to free himself. Instead of Zimmerman becoming civil in his actions and subsequent interrogation, he became unreasonably aggressive, and the situation catapulted into a scuffle.

The boy was defending himself, and he was able to beat off his pursuer and inflicted a blow on his face to give him a broken and bleeding nose. Trayvon was unarmed, and so, it was a fair fight, until the man pulled out a gun for whatever reason.

The boy was still in the mode of defending himself, and so he rushed Zimmerman to get the gun away, but it was too late for him to do so, because it was in that instant that the man fired the gun.

Zimmerman had been in contact with a dispatcher of the local police, who told him to stop chasing after the trespasser, which he (Zimmerman) thought Trayvon was; and even so, he was not up to anything that could be described as criminal for Zimmerman to be so intensely suspicious.

Therefore, there was no need for him (Zimmerman) to start a fight with Trayvon Martin, in the first place.

The boy laid dead after the shot, in an unfamiliar neighborhood; a community within a gated area that had a security company or a neighborhood watch guarding its property. He was young and only 17 years of age, and that should not have happened to him.

That was what the president was addressing his remarks to; an unfortunate tragedy that had befallen a family like his. Only to indicate that Trayvon was a boy, and he (Obama) had two daughters.

In was in that light that he made the statement, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon," just to show his sympathy toward the grieving family.

That was naturally understandable to millions of Americans, who took to the streets to demonstrate that children, of whatever shade of skin color, must be fearless walking practically anywhere in the country.

Zimmerman should have been arrested by the police that went to the scene, because he has earlier been instructed to stop following Trayvon, and he ignored that warning; and that alone was probable cause for the officers to place him in custody.

To politicize the case and make the president to be someone, who was discriminating against any other child, due to his or her color, was disingenuous and improper; and Limbaugh and other politicians attempting to gain some kind of advantage to maximizing their radio shows and political campaigns, should be ashamed of themselves.

The best those people could do would be to advice Zimmerman to give himself up to the police and to face the charges of killing an unarmed person.

Instead, he has chosen to remain in hiding, and that has infuriated a lot of people even more so; hence the civil gatherings and demonstrations around the country.

Aiding and abetting Zimmerman by anyone was not the right thing to do.

SANTORUM ON ROMNEY.

The Republican Party race for nomination now seems to have become a two-man contest between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum; and the party is divided down the middle as to which candidate will be politically strong enough to face President Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election.

Romney tends to play it cool with just statements about the number of delegates that he is able to acquire so far, of more than 500 of them toward the target of about 1400 or so delegates that he is supposed to have at the party's convention, where a nominee will be picked.

However, Santorum is settling on making comments that a fellow candidate in the same party is not likely to make about any of his rivals in the race.

After saying that Romney is not trustworthy in several of his speeches on the campaign trail, he is now adding that he (Romney) is the "worst conservative in the country," (CNN, 03/26/12).

He is asking how his own party can put up a person like Romney against Obama, when the party establishment is well aware of the shortcomings of Romney.

He has passed a health care bill similar to the one that Republicans referred to as "Obamacare", as governor of Massachusetts; and also he has none of the Republican Party core beliefs to his credit.

He, Santorum, has the credibility and credentials of being a true conservative and therefore he must be the party's choice. Yet, the hierarchy of the Republican Party, for the obvious reason that Romney is wealthy, is eyeing him instead; though, an unsuitable person, to represent it (party) in such an important election.

Besides, Santorum thinks that he has the evangelical and an overwhelming tea party support than Romney, and that will cause a great number of the Republican grass roots membership to stay away on election day, if Romney becomes the nominee.

If that happens, Obama will win the election by a landslide that his party, the Democratic Party, is expecting against any of the president's challengers this coming Fall; however, they visualize that it will be easier with Romney as his party's choice than any of his colleagues in the nomination race.

There is no denying that there is a firestorm in the Republican Party that can end up in a broker convention in Tampa, FL. only a few months away; and also it will be more than critical to get Santorum, who is now digging his heels in into winning the nomination, to turn around and give in to Romney, who is the party elitists' favorite.

This blog's forecast that Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, the other two candidates left in the race, will just be "by standing" candidates is coming true. Though, they both are insisting that their campaigns are still functioning pretty well, the writing is still on the wall that their candidacy days to be president of the United States are numbered.

Gingrich's hopes to gain the conservative backing of his party has come to naught, and he is even expecting Santorum to drop out of the race, so that he (Gingrich) gets the evangelicals to vote for him in the remaining primaries; but that is now just an empty dream.

As for Ron Paul the only reason why he is staying in the race is to ensure his supporters that their financial contributions are going to be used until the final bell that tells them that their forlorn candidate is completely out.

Meanwhile, the Republican race continues, but it seems that whoever comes out a winner can hardly stand the tests of the many uncertainties that are waiting in the world today, if he is to be president.

For he will have been battered in such a way that he will be dazed from a totally frivolous fight, and his own party will not give him its full support; let alone the country.

OBAMA'S REMARKS.

Trayvon Martin's death should not be dragged into politics and be made dirty, and even more so for Newt Gingrich, a Republican candidate running in the party's nomination race, to call President Barack Obama's remarks on the issue "disgraceful".

The African American kid has met his death under circumstances that indicated that, even though he was an American, he was not free to walk around anyhow; and that he was to be mindful of who he was, because of his color.

That kind of feeling was marked in American society, in every nook and cranny, that a young man would enter an office or a store, and the security of that place would suddenly go on alert, solely because he was a minority.

That surely gave one the impression that racism was culturally inherent in people to the extent that one could not trust one's own lawyer defending one in a criminal court case. That kind of emotion has a long history of race relations that had gone awry throughout the years.

That was what was disgraceful, and not a comment by Obama that, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon,"

The nature of people generally was one of mistrust between the races, because it had started pretty early, when a child was not to bring home a friend, who was of a different color after a football practice.

The parents would wash the the glass the friend had used for a drink like never before, and that gave the child the impression from the very beginning that there was something wrong with his friend, due to his (friend's) complexion.

If many Americans would come out of their shell and admitted that they were racists, and that their attitudes should change toward people of different color, then the nation would be safe for any child, no matter what his or her ethnicity, could walk around without fear; period.

Trayvon was in that situation, as he was on his way back home, after getting skittles and iced tea from the store. He then discovered that there was someone behind him, watching his every move, and he became scared.

The very next thing was that the man was using ethnic slurs directed at him and asking him questions that he thought were unnecessary. A scuffle ensued between the two; and just because the man had a gun and he was authorized to "stand his ground", he had to shoot and kill Trayvon.

More so, he (Trayvon) was unarmed and did not pose any threat to the man, who was following him. That man happened to be George Zimmerman, who was on watch duty in a gated neighborhood that day.

At the very start, if he had approached the young African American in a civil manner, there would not be a fight; but he did not. After all, Trayvon was just trespassing; and there was no sign that he was a criminal or acting in any way to that effect.

Zimmerman's contact with people like Trayvon was rare; and so his attitude would stem from his upbringing of "those are them, and we are us," and he was inadvertently reaching out and reacting on that basis, when he saw Trayvon.

The incident was tragic, and has touched many people to the point that, even strangers have come out to give moral support to the Martin family; with some remarking that, if it was not for the misunderstanding between the races, such a tragedy would not have happened.

However, for a seasoned politician as Gingrich, to take the words of President Obama and turned them inside out for political gamesmanship went beyond the pale. For there was nothing in the president's remarks that even slightly pointed to the race of Trayvon Martin or that of George Zimmerman.

The training Americans gave their children should count for what their attitudes should be, when they became grown ups, for they took that training very seriously; and it appeared in places like the military, and even in government, when a person's race came first, when he or she was being screened for a position of trust, or how he or she should be assessed in any frame of mind for almost anything, instead of looking at that person's character; and for the fact that he or she, as citizen of the United States, should be given equal opportunity, wherever he or she went, to demonstrate that America was really a free country.

For a better America, attitudes must change. Without that, Trayvon Martin's death would have been in vain.

P.S. Of course, it should be Iced Tea, and not Ice Tea.