Take Control of Your Life: HEAL YOURSELF!
Category: Life
They say people with positive attitudes are more likely to beat their cancer and be healed. Could it be because of the principles in what Dr. Masaru Emoto has discovered about the affect of positive words, music and images on water?
For at least the last month, our family has been involved in our own experiment. Our son discovered the concept of changing the water we drink through written phrases, verbal affirmations, and prayer.
We label our water with positive affirmations, pray over it and let it sit for 2 hours for the affect to take place.
The messages we send out are vibrations and literally can change the course of our reality and existence. Since we started, I have increasingly been better able to tolerate my chemo. I also have changed my mindset on chemo from "this chemo makes me sick and is filling my body with poisons while it kills my cancer" to "this chemo is healing me and has no adverse affect on me." I no longer am taking any anti nausea pills or anti diarrhea pills. Any adverse side affects I had been suffering are either greatly diminished increasingly on a daily basis or are completely gone. It's been over the last week that I have noticed the dramatic change, so I'm sure there is a cumulative positive affect over time.
If we can change the water we drink and then drink it, allowing it to absorb in our cells and tissues, I do believe it can have a healing affect upon us. Our bodies are approximately 60% - 90% water. If that water has been changed vibrationally, how will that affect our state of well being?
Here is an interview with Dr. Masaru Emoto to explain the concept; along with an experiment you can try at home to see for yourself.
I will be posting more videos and other information in this blog regarding this concept.
Take control of your life. Use this and other techniques to heal yourself with the tools G-d has given us in creation.
Shalom...
The Prayer For Water Water we love you Water we thank you Water we respect you Return to your original purity
Things you can write on your own water I am loved I am healthy I am healed I am lucky I am successful I am thankful I am grateful I am blessed
and/or
I have always been loved I have always been healthy I have always been healed I have always been lucky I have always been successful I have always been thankful I have always been grateful I have always been blessed
QUICK EXPERIMENT Similar to the experiment in Dr. Emoto's interview, only quicker. Take 3 bottles of water. Write on one, "I love you", on the next write nothing, and the last one write "I hate you". Speak to the water those words labeled accordingly and let them stand for 2 hours. You will notice that each one will taste differently and the one labeled "I love you" will not only taste the best, it will be more voluminous and smoother. It's pretty amazing.
Visual Affect On Water From Words and Music
Reflections On Water
Food For Thought About Thoughts and Water From "What the Bleep Do We Know?"
My Thoughts On Tim (Russert) 1950-2008
Current mood: shocked
Category: News and Politics
Tim Russert died today, at the age of 58. I cried when I heard the breaking news on MSNBC. Yes, there were times when I was exasperated with him because I thought he wasn't tough enough on a guest. But all in all he was fair. He wasn't there to take the cheap shot and make himself look good. His aim was to get to the truth. He was a good man and a decent human being. And being a gentleman, he treated others with fairness and kindness.
He set the bench mark for political journalism with his hard work, enthusiasm, love for what he did, and his high standards for getting to the meat of the story with insightful interviews with a massive amount of research and preparation. He was a man of great intelligence, integrity, honesty and wit. I hope the MSNBC and NBC newsteam will continue to aim for these high standards in journalism. He will be greatly missed.
And while accomplishing so much in his life, he still always kept his family and the love for his family as a top priority. I pray for his wife Maureen, his dad "big Russ" and his son Luke, that they will come to a place of healing and peace and embrace the fond memories of him that they will cherish for the rest of their lives.
I wish he could have seen Obama win the Presidency; an historic accomplishment that could change the course of destiny in our nation and our world. I think he will see it from heaven and be blessed. G-d bless you Tim. May you rest in peace.
Tim Russert's Memorial Service
Tom Brokaw
Betsey Fischer
Sister Lucille Socciarelli
Albert Hunt
Mario Cuomo
Maria Shriver
Mike Barnicle
Doris Kerns Goodwin
Luke Russert
Tony Scozzaro ("Born To Run" tribute)
"The Boss" Bruce Springsteen ("Thunderroad" tribute)
Brian Williams
They ended with a rendition of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow". As the crowds spilled outside they were greeted by a beautiful rainbow there in Washington D.C. Even G-d played a part in Tim Russert's memorial.
Hillary Clinton Supporters Thinking of Supporting McCain
Category: News and Politics
McLame on Clinton; Before he needed her supporters
Here are some consequences to Woman if McCain was our President
McCain's positions on women's health:
McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.
In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.
McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.
McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies.
McCain opposed Title X, the nation's family planning program.
In 1990, McCain voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.
McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.
In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control.
McCain opposes comprehensive sex education.
In an interview aboard the "Straight Talk Express," McCain struggled to answer questions about comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention. He also stated that he supported "the president's policy" on sex education.
McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception.
"Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don't know," McCain said about contraceptives.
McCain opposed repealing the "global gag rule.
In 2005, McCain voted NO on legislation to overturn the "global gag rule," which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.
McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade.
In February 2007, the AP quoted McCain stating, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."
McCain says Roe v. Wade was a "bad decision."
In May 2007, during an appearance on Meet the Press, Sen. McCain reiterated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade, saying, "I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman — the, the rights of the unborn." He went on to say, "My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record."
McCain would have signed 2006 South Dakota abortion ban In February 2006, the Hotline reported, "According to a spokesperson, McCain 'would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law -- in whatever state -- to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.'" As the New York Times' Paul Krugman points out, "That attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest."
McCain touts "pro-life" credentials at conference of FRC Action, the political arm of the Family Research Council.
At a speech at the FRC Action Voter Values Summit in October 2007, Sen. McCain said, "I have been pro-life my entire public career. I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim."
There is no reason for a woman to vote for McCain. Even if you're pro-life, consider this: McCain doesn't care enough about preventing abortion to do things that will actually prevent abortion. He doesn't care enough about women to help prevent breast cancer and cervical cancer for low-income people.
In short: he doesn't care about you. And women overseas don't have it any different. The "global gag rule" tries to enforce the USA's irrational and broken women's health policies on the rest of the world.
Is that what you want, for us or for them?
It's not just women's choice issues, or women's health issues either. There's more.
McCain Voted To Cut, Eliminate, Restrict Health Insurance Coverage for Low Income Children and Pregnant Mothers At Least SIX Times. [SCR 27, Vote 76, 5/21/97; S 949, Vote 149, 6/27/97; HR 4810, Vote 204, 7/17/00; H.R. 976, Vote 307, 8/2/07; S 3, Vote 45, 3/11/03; H.R. 3963, Vote 401, 10/31/07]
Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. Vote to adopt an amendment to the Senate's 2006 Fiscal Year Budget Resolution that would adjust education funding while still reducing the deficit by $5.4 billion.
A YES vote would:
Restore education program cuts slated for vocational education, adult education, GEAR UP, and TRIO.
Increase the maximum Pell Grant scholarship to $4,500 immediately.
Increases future math and science teacher student loan forgiveness to $23,000.
Pay for the education funding by closing $10.8 billion in corporate tax loopholes.
[Kennedy amendment relative to education funding; Bill S AMDT 177 to S Con Res 18 ; vote number 2005-68 on Mar 17, 2005 ] (ontheissues. org)
So... to the moms reading this...
Is this the man you want in charge of your daughters' futures? Hasn't he done enough damage already?
According to PlannedParenthood, a lot of women don't know how much damage he's done, and will do. Check this out.
In battleground states, the situation is striking.
The Planned Parenthood Action Fund recently polled 1,205 women in 16 likely battleground states, finding that
Despite his extreme voting record, 51 percent of women voters in battleground states have no idea what John McCain's positions are on women's reproductive health issues.
Forty-nine percent of women currently backing McCain express pro-choice views, and 46 percent of women supporting McCain over Obama/Clinton want to see Roe v. Wade upheld.
In McCain-Obama/McCain-Clinton matchups, 36 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of pro-choice McCain supporters say they are less likely to vote for McCain when told that he opposes Roe v. Wade.
All you have to do is tell people.
SPREAD THE WORD TO THE WOMEN YOU KNOW!
McLAME - VERBALLY ABUSIVE TO HIS WIFE!
Book: McCain temper boiled over in '92 tirade, called wife a 'cunt'
04/07/2008 @ 10:19 am
Filed by Nick Juliano
John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "assholes" and in at least one case "a fucking jerk."
But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.
The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.
Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
The man who was known as "McNasty" in high school has erupted in foul-languaged tirades at political foes and congressional colleagues more-or-less throughout his career, and his quickness to anger has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail as evidence of his fury has surfaced.
As Schecter notes, McCain's rage is not limited to the political spectrum, and even his family cannot be spared the brute force of his anger.
Schecter, who also blogs at The Agonist, said in an interview the anecdote is "an early example of his uncontrollable temper." In the book he outlines several other examples of McCain losing his cool and raises the question of how that would affect a McCain presidency.
What should voters make of this pattern? In February 2008 Tim Russert succinctly described McCain on MSNBC's Morning Joe. A devilish grin spread from ear to ear as Russert, no McCain hater, leaned forward and spoke in a whisper, "He likes to fight." Russert got it right. But the big question isn't whether McCain likes to fight: it's who, when, and how.
The exchange between McCain and his wife was not reported anywhere when it happened, Schecter said (a LexisNexis database search confirms this). In 1992, McCain's mention in the national media revolved mostly around his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, and only local reporters closely followed his re-election bid.
McCain is well known for his rapport with the national media covering his presidential bid (he's jokingly referred to the press as "my base"), but Schecter said this incident was buried not out of fealty to the Arizona senator. Rather, it was uneasiness about how to get such a coarse exchange into a family newspaper, and he didn't fault the local press for not covering the incident.
"Members of the media are squeamish covering stuff like this so they let it go," Schecter told RAW STORY in an interview Monday. "Back in '92, when people use naughty words, [reporters] don't know as much what to do with it."
Much has changed since then. President Bush's reference to a New York Times reporter as a "major league asshole" was reported in at least 47 newspapers during the 2000 campaign, when the off-color remark was overheard, according to a database search. And more than a dozen newspapers have reported Dick Cheney's recommendation that Sen. Patrick Leahy "fuck yourself."
McCain and his aides have brushed off suggestions that his temper could impede his ability to perform the sometimes-delicate tasks asked of a president. The candidate was asked about his legendary temper last week on "Fox News Sunday," where he cited his ability to work "across the aisle" while in the Senate.
"You can't scare people or intimidate them if you're going to reach agreement with your colleagues and your contemporaries And I've worked hard at that, and that's what the American people want," McCain said. " The second thing is if I lose my capacity for anger, then I shouldn't be president of the United States. ... When I see the waste and corruption in Washington, I get angry."
McCain's campaign did not return a call from RAW STORY seeking comment Monday morning.
Schecter says McCain's anger is much more than a passion for the issues. One can only imagine what would happen if McCain were to try to squeeze that temper into the tight confines of diplomacy.
"The public certainly has to know what this guy might do as president," Schecter says. Examples like the ones in his book "should worry people, quite frankly."
Why NOT McSAME (Pt. 2)
Current mood: determined
Category: News and Politics
From the blog of "Veterans for Obama
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Marketing a Myth: How John McCain Actually Got The Surge Wrong
By Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr. (USA, Ret.)
To hear John McCain tell it, you'd think the fall-off in American casualties in Iraq is due solely to his foresight and foreign policy experience. It's amazing to me just how many people have bought the McCain line, even those who should know better. "As we now know nearly four years later," a Newsweek commentator recently noted, "McCain was dead on in his analysis of what went wrong in Iraq … McCain was so right that, among military experts today, the emerging conventional wisdom about Bush's current 'surge' is that if had occurred back then — when McCain wanted it and the political will existed in this country to support it for the necessary number of years — it might well have succeeded."
What a bunch of bunk.
Since the beginning of this year, military experts that I've talked with argue that the fall-off in violence in Iraq had very little to do with the increase in American troop levels — and everything to do with actually talking with and supporting the previous insurgents. Recent published reports confirm that talks with the insurgents began all the way back in December of 2003, when military officers met with Sunni insurgent leaders in Amman, Jordan. Not only that, but when those talks were actually opposed by the administration, the military went ahead with the talks anyway.
But don't take my word for it, go back and read what General David Petraeus told the Congress in April of 2007, before the surge was actually in place. Back then, Patraeus told the Congress that the levels of violence in Iraq were down significantly and that "the tribes" were the key to that transformation. Let me repeat that: recruiting the Sunni tribes (and not the surge) has been the key to success in Iraq, along with the stand-down of the Mahdi Army. Patraeus is not alone in his thinking. The tribes of Anbar joined U.S. forces, according to U.S. Captain Jay McGee — an intelligence officer with the 69th Armored Regiment — because "everyone is convinced Coalition forces are going to leave and they are saying, 'We do not want Al Qaeda to take control of the area when that happens."
This isn't exactly new information. Dozens of American newspapers and magazines have documented how the military recruited Iraq's Sunni tribes as our allies — the same tribes that had once been fighting us. And all of this began before the U.S. increased the number of troops in the country. So let's stop taking John McCain's claim, his myth, at face value. The increase in American troops in Iraq had almost nothing to do with defeating the Iraqi insurgency and everything to do with actually talking with them. To claim otherwise is to market a myth and it's time for John McCain to acknowledge it — to give credit where credit is due: to those fine officers of our military who decided to talk, even as the administration continued to beat the war drums.
McBush and his "energy policy"
We ALL Make Mistakes (And Michelle Obama IS proud of America ;-)
WHY We Have HIGH Gas Prices
WHO'S the Ellitist?
McBush
McLame's priority on getting our troops home
(My Note: Yes, stopping the casualties is an obvious goal, but just our presence there guarantees casualties, because this is NOT Korea, Germany, or Japan. They don't want us there in their civil war! The casualties will STOP when we LEAVE! The surge hasn't worked for it's proposed purpose. It was to provide a window of opportunity for the Iraqi government to negotiate a common goal amongst all the factions to stabalize the government, as well as standing up to take over control so we could leave. An increase in troops was obviously going to diminish the casualties, but it's temporary because we can NOT continue this indefinitely; unless you're ready for the draft to come back.)
John Cusack on McCain
This is from Greg Palast's blog. It's another CLEAR reason why to support Barack Obama and NOT McSAME!
Obama's Secret War Profiteering Tax
By Greg Palast for TomPaine.com/OurFuture.org [New York, May 22, 2008.]
I can't make this up:
In a hotel room in Brussels, the chief executives of the world's top oil companies unrolled a huge map of the Middle East, drew a fat, red line around Iraq and signed their names to it.
The map, the red line, the secret signatures. It explains this war. It explains this week's rocketing of the price of oil to $134 a barrel.
It happened on July 31, 1928, but the bill came due now.
Barack Obama knows this. Or, just as important, those crafting his policies seem to know this. Same for Hillary Clinton's team. There could be no more vital difference between the Republican and Democratic candidacies. And you won't learn a thing about it on the news from the Fox-holes.
Let me explain.
In 1928, oil company chieftains (from Anglo-Persian Oil, now British Petroleum, from Standard Oil, now Exxon, and their Continental counterparts) were faced with a crisis: falling prices due to rising supplies of oil; the same crisis faced by their successors during the Clinton years, when oil traded at $22 a barrel.
The solution then, as now: stop the flow of oil, squeeze the market, raise the price. The method: put a red line around Iraq and declare that virtually all the oil under its sands would remain there, untapped. Their plan: choke supply, raise prices rise, boost profits. That was the program for 1928. For 2003. For 2008.
Again and again, year after year, the world price of oil has been boosted artificially by keeping a tight limit on Iraq's oil output. Methods varied. The 1928 "Redline" agreement held, in various forms, for over three decades. It was replaced in 1959 by quotas imposed by President Eisenhower. Then Saudi Arabia and OPEC kept Iraq, capable of producing over 6 million barrels a day, capped at half that, given an export quota equal to Iran's lower output.
In 1991, output was again limited, this time by a new red line: B-52 bombings by Bush Senior's air force. Then came the Oil Embargo followed by the "Food for Oil" program. Not much food for them, not much oil for us.
In 2002, after Bush Junior took power, the top ten oil companies took in a nice $31 billion in profits. But then, a miracle fell from the sky. Or, more precisely, the 101st Airborne landed. Bush declared, "Bring'm on!" and, as the dogs of war chewed up the world's second largest source of oil, crude doubled in two years to an astonishing $40 a barrel and those same oil companies saw their profits triple to $87 billion.
In response, Senators Obama and Clinton propose something wrongly called a "windfall" profits tax on oil. But oil industry profits didn't blow in on a breeze. It is war, not wind, that fills their coffers. The beastly leap in prices is nothing but war profiteering, hiking prices to take cruel advantage of oil fields shut by bullets and blood.
I wish to hell the Democrats would call their plan what it is: A war profiteering tax. War is profitable business – if you're an oil man. But somehow, the public pays the price, at the pump and at the funerals, and the oil companies reap the benefits.
Indeed, the recent engorgement in oil prices and profits goes right back to Bush-McCain "surge." The Iraq government attack on a Basra militia was really nothing more than Baghdad's leaping into a gang war over control of Iraq's Southern oil fields and oil-loading docks. Moqtada al-Sadr's gangsters and the government-sponsored greedsters of SCIRI (the Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution In Iraq) are battling over an estimated $5 billion a year in oil shipment kickbacks, theft and protection fees.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the surge-backed civil warring has cut Iraq's exports by up to a million barrels a day. And that translates to slashing OPEC excess crude capacity by nearly half.
Result: ka-BOOM in oil prices and ka-ZOOM in oil profits. For 2007, Exxon recorded the highest annual profit, $40.6 billion, of any enterprise since the building of the pyramids. And that was BEFORE the war surge and price surge to over $100 a barrel.
It's been a good war for Exxon and friends. Since George Bush began to beat the war-drum for an invasion of Iraq, the value of Exxon's reserves has risen – are you ready for this? – by $2 trillion.
Obama's war profiteering tax, or "oil windfall profits" tax, would equal just 20% of the industry's charges in excess of $80 a barrel. It's embarrassingly small actually, smaller than every windfall tax charged by every other nation. (Ecuador, for example, captures up to 99% of the higher earnings).
Nevertheless, oilman George W. Bush opposes it as does Bush's man McCain. Senator McCain admonishes us that the po' widdle oil companies need more than 80% of their windfall so they can explore for more oil. When pigs fly, Senator. Last year, Exxon spent $36 billion of its $40 billion income on dividends and special payouts to stockholders in tax-free buy-backs. Even the Journal called Exxon's capital investment spending "stingy."
At today's prices Obama's windfall tax, teeny as it is, would bring in nearly a billion dollars a day for the US Treasury. Clinton's plan is similar. Yet the press' entire discussion of gas prices is shifted to whether the government should knock some sales tax pennies off the oil companies' pillaging at the pump.
More important than even the Democrats' declaring that oil company profits are undeserved, is their implicit understanding that the profits are the spoils of war. And that's another reason to tax the oil industry's ill-gotten gain. Vietnam showed us that foreign wars don't end when the invader can no longer fight, but when the invasion is no longer profitable.
Swiss bank paid McCain co-chair to push agenda on U.S. mortgage crisis
By Jonathan Larsen, producer, with Keith Olbermann
MSNBC
updated 5:52 p.m. PT,Tues., May. 27, 2008
Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's national campaign general co-chair was being paid by a Swiss bank to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis at the same time he was advising McCain about his economic policy, federal records show.
"Countdown with Keith Olbermann" reported Tuesday night that lobbying disclosure forms, filed by the giant Swiss bank UBS, list McCain's campaign co-chair, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, as a lobbyist dealing specifically with legislation regarding the mortgage crisis as recently as Dec. 31, 2007.
Gramm joined the bank in 2002 and had registered as a lobbyist by 2004. UBS filed paperwork deregistering Gramm on April 18 of this year. Gramm continues to serve as a UBS vice chairman.
News of Gramm's involvement as a paid advocate for the banking industry, simultaneous with his unpaid work on McCain's economic policies, comes as McCain's campaign continues to reel from the purge of four other lobbyists. Two weeks ago, McCain banned lobbyists from advising him on the same subjects covered by their lobbying work.
As early as October, 2006, RealClearPolitics.com reported that Gramm was advising McCain on economic issues. Politico.com quoted McCain advisors saying that Gramm had input on McCain's March 26 policy speech about the mortgage crisis. McCain himself has often cited Gramm's influence as a way to establish his bona fides with economic conservatives.
When Gramm chaired the Senate Banking Committee, he wrote and passed deregulatory legislation in more than one industry, establishing himself as a pre-eminent foe of government regulation. McCain's March 26 speech recommended further deregulation of the banking industry as his response to the mortgage crisis.
McCain and Gramm have been friends for more than a decade. McCain chaired Gramm's 1996 presidential run and Gramm says the two men speak every day. McCain reportedly has hinted Gramm might serve as his Treasury secretary.
Last summer, Gramm was widely credited with saving McCain's presidential campaign.
But even before lobbying emerged as an issue, some of his own advisors told the Washington Post last month that they questioned how Gramm's legislative record might affect McCain's campaign.
After Gramm passed a law easing regulation of energy-commodity trading, California experienced a sharp run-up in energy costs. The energy-trading company Enron was blamed and soon collapsed.
In 1999, Gramm successfully undid the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, removing the decades-old wall between commercial banking, which was heavily regulated, and investment banking, which was not. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not extend significant new regulation to investment banking.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said that Gramm is "not benefitting from John McCain's plan." He also said that McCain preferred to focus on homeowners "truly in need" and opposed bailouts for affected banks, an aspect of the crisis that was not addressed in "Countdown"'s report.
Some economists fault Gramm's deregulatory successes, as well as lax enforcement of remaining oversight powers, not just for the subprime mortgage crisis, but for its spread to other sectors of finance. Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has expressed interest in toughening regulations.
Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute told the Washington Post, "McCain is counting on people having very short memories and not connecting some pretty obvious dots here."
The final UBS form listing Gramm's work as a lobbyist says he was lobbying the Senate in the second half of 2007 regarding the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act. The bill would have let bankruptcy judges rewrite mortgage terms for Americans facing foreclosure so they could repay their loans and keep their homes.
The banking industry opposed this measure. The bill failed.
shocked
optimistic
determined