The most important issue in the entire foreclosure process is that of how long it will take from the first payment being missed to the eviction of the homeowners. It is also an issue that most foreclosure victims have no idea about, and spend more time worrying about than any other aspect of foreclosure. Without knowing if or when the foreclosure process has started, when the sheriff sale will be conducted, and how long they have after the auction until they are removed from the property, homeowners feel they have little control over the situation. Having a firm idea of the time frame of the foreclosure process, though, will allow them to put together reasonable plans to stop foreclosure with the time they have available.

The timeline of the foreclosure process will depend almost entirely on the state foreclosure laws, so homeowners in danger of missing more than one mortgage payment should look those up as soon as possible. Various time lines are determined by the state, including notices that must be posted or mailed, redemption periods after the sale, and the scheduling and confirmation of the sheriff sale. Even procedures for postponing a sheriff sale are determined by the state laws. All of these aspects will be taken into account for the actual time that foreclosure victims have available to save their homes.

However, in general, the mortgage company will start the foreclosure process about 3-6 months after the first missed mortgage payment. Even though they can start it after the loan is technically in default (after 30 days late), lenders understand that many homeowners face short-term financial hardships and will be able to get back on track quickly. If the homeowners are keeping in contact with the bank, working out a repayment plan or trying to sell, they may postpone the actual foreclosure filing for a number of months, depending on the success of the homeowners. The mortgage company will want to give their clients some extra time to pay the loan back if the lines of communication are open. Of course, if the homeowners do not call the bank and ignore the phone when the lender calls to find out why they are not making the payments, then the foreclosure process will begin much earlier.

Generally, a few weeks to a few months after the foreclosure is filed, the sheriff sale will be conducted at the county courthouse. Again, homeowners can get this postponed for a while, if they are working on a solution to stop foreclosure. Keeping in contact with the bank, letting them know how the process to save the home is going, and asking for more time if it is needed are all actions that foreclosure victims can take to prevent losing the home at a hastily scheduled foreclosure auction. The homeowners will have to put something in writing to the bank to show what they are working on, but postponing a sheriff sale can be quite simple. All it takes is communicating with the bank and working on a solution to the problem.

Now, after the sheriff sale, there are two possibilities, depending on the state foreclosure laws. First, the eviction process may begin right away. If this is the case, it can be another 2 weeks to a month or so between the sale date and the eviction date. The bank will have to ask the court for possession, the court will have to confirm the sale and order the county sheriff to evict the former homeowners and change the locks. But this is not a one-day process, with the sheriff kicking out the homeowners a few hours after the sale. Homeowners will still have a small amount of time to plan their future, find a new place to live after foreclosure, and move items out of the house.

The second possibility is if the state law allows for a redemption period, which is extra time after the sale that homeowners can work to keep their homes. During the redemption, they can try refinancing, selling, or paying the loan in full some other way, and keep the home in their names. After the end of redemption, though, the eviction process will start and it will be a few weeks after that that the sheriff shows up to remove everyone. But, if homeowners are unaware of the extra time they are given by state law, they may move out of the house before they have to. Redemption periods can be used by homeowners to begin a savings plan, pay off other debts to improve their credit, or begin to recover financially in other ways.

Without having the relevant foreclosure information to understand how long the foreclosure process will take, many homeowners make mistakes that could otherwise be avoided. They may believe they have to move out before it is necessary, crippling their ability to start repairing their financial lives. Or, they may think that they have a lot of time left because of faulty assumptions about when the bank will start the foreclosure process, which can leave them staring at a sheriff sale before they even know it has been scheduled. Knowing how long foreclosure takes, and understanding that it is conducted differently in each state, is some of the most important foreclosure advice that homeowners can receive, and will allow them the greatest chances to save their homes.

One of the most common misperceptions about foreclosure victims is that many of them simply allow their homes to go into foreclosure, as if it is a conscious decision made by the homeowners. However, this is not the case in nearly every instance, as homeowners will try every method they are aware of to save their homes; even to the point of running out of options long before they have run out of time. This is usually due to the fact that homeowners are vastly uneducated about various ways to stop foreclosure, and do not know of alternate methods that may allow them to keep their homes. Most people let their homes go into foreclosure simply because they do not have any other options to prevent losing it, not because they decide to let the home go, ruin their credit, and face financial difficulties for years to come.

Most homeowners face a financial hardship, like losing a job or unexpected medical problems, and get behind on their mortgage and other debt payments. They just can not get back on track once they have recovered from the crisis, even though finding a way to prevent foreclosure is often their most important goal. Once a loan gets further and further behind, though, lenders will not be willing to work with the homeowners to put together a repayment plan, and they may demand that the entire loan be paid in full. This is the beginning of the foreclosure process, and homeowners will quickly run out of time and options to stop foreclosure.

Then, with the financial hardship and late payments, their credit scores begin dropping rapidly. They are unable to refinance to stop foreclosure, and they may not have enough income to put together a repayment plan with the lender. The mortgage company at this point may not even offer loan modifications or forbearance agreements, because the homeowners are so far behind that their current income situation would not allow them to qualify for the workout program. These are the two most common ways that homeowners attempt to save their homes, by refinancing and working with the lender, and if neither offers a viable solution, the foreclosure victims may feel they have no other option beside selling.

However, selling the property presents its own problems. With the real estate market the way it is in many parts of the country, a large number of homeowners find that they owe more on the home that it is worth. So they can not even sell the home without a short sale, which can cause tax liabilities. Especially if homeowners are unaware of how a short sale works or if it even is an option, they may simply give up after the house has sat on the market for some months with no prospects.

The homeowners, as a very last ditch effort, can try to buy the property back at the sheriff sale, but most counties require the winning bid amount to be paid within 24 hours to one week after the auction. Most homeowners facing foreclosure do not have the cash to pay for a house, and if they did, they would most likely just pay it to reinstate their current loan, rather than pay cash for their house at the sheriff sale. Buying it back is possible, but not very practical, even if they could get it at a good discount due to the drop in property values.

Most foreclosure victims only "allow" the foreclosure to happen because they feel they have no other options. It's not a decision like deciding to go to the mall for the day, or take a trip to Six Flags with the kids, and this decision is often based on false of incomplete foreclosure information. Homeowners have more options than they realize to stop foreclosure, which is why it is important to get the most relevant foreclosure advice possible, and examine which options, besides refinancing, putting together a bank workout plan, or selling the property, would result in them being able to keep their homes and begin repairing their damaged credit.

There seems to be a lack of understanding among homeowners of what happens once the foreclosure process is over and the eviction process has begun. Most homeowners mistakenly believe that the sheriff may show up to evict them within hours or days after the sheriff sale. However, this is simply untrue, as the eviction process can take even longer than the foreclosure process itself, depending on state law. If a family is unable to stop foreclosure to save their home, there may be legal protections in place to give foreclosure victims a chance to begin repairing the damage caused by foreclosure.

The process that the bank must follow after the foreclosure is determined by that state's foreclosure laws. This is one of the main reasons that it is recommended that homeowners look up the relevant laws, in order to determine how the foreclosure process will be conducted and how much time they have to save their home or stay in the home after the foreclosure auction. Certain states offer foreclosure victims a redemption period after the sale, which is a period of time after they have lost the home that they can continue living in the property.

Once the eviction process itself begins, though, homeowners will not just be randomly kicked out to the street. They will be sent paperwork by the bank's attorneys or the court system indicating that the lender has entered in a request for possession of the property. To gain possession the bank will show that is purchased the house at the sheriff sale and is now the legal owner of the property. They will ask the court to order the county sheriff to evict any persons or belongings that are still occupying the property.

Also, in most cases the sheriff will post a notice of eviction on the property itself, indicating the specific date that the locks will be changed and all people and property will be removed. This may be a five- or three-day notice, again depending on the specific state foreclosure laws and the county's own procedures. However, a notice being posted on the property is not always guaranteed, so it is important to check with the state or county to find out the exact procedures before the eviction happens.

Homeowners who are currently worried about being evicted at any time should take back control of the situation and find out how much actual time they have left. The best place to begin asking questions is with the county sheriffs department. They will be able to inform the foreclosure victims of any pending orders for possession of the house, or if the court has not yet ordered the eviction. If there is no scheduled eviction, homeowners should call the county courthouse to determine if there is a hearing coming up, what the process will be after the sheriff sale, and how much time they have left to find a new place to live.

Not knowing when or if an eviction is scheduled is often much worse than knowing exactly when the sheriff will be there to evict everyone. The simple fact of knowing when to be out of the property gives homeowners a better framework for planning the future of their families after foreclosure.

Many homeowners are under the mistaken belief that, once the sheriff sale of the property has been conducted, they have lost every chance to stop foreclosure. However, there are legal mechanisms in place to prevent foreclosure victims from being randomly evicted at the whims of the foreclosing bank. Homeowners should not be taken in by fear-mongering, self-proclaimed foreclosure experts who threaten them with the possibility of the sheriff showing up unannounced to throw them out of the house. Even the county sheriff is a human being and the sheriffs department will know exactly when the eviction will be conducted. They would rather avoid forcefully removing anyone from the property if the homeowners are conscientiously working towards a plan to move out of the property and have it cleaned up and empty when the sheriff does show up.

The current foreclosure crisis in America threatens to make many more homeowners helpless victims of the banking industry and of their own mistakes or greed. As a result, large sections of the country will end up in the hands of multinational banks unwilling to sell these homes to potential buyers. Most homeowners will not end up completely homeless, but there will be a lot more renters located in far less geographic space, while the multinational banks end up owning vast portions of the country. The fact that the mortgage companies will be unable to sell these properties and uninterested in renting them out will not matter -- they can add trillions of dollars of real estate holdings to their bottom lines, deduct depreciation every year, or sell the properties for very little in order to make more bad loans. But there are a lot of things homeowners can do to protect themselves from this fate.

There are a number of questions that every homeowner who bought or refinanced a house in the past few years should ask themselves. Did you know you had an ARM that would increase in price, or are you talking about refinancing your loan with a fixed rate that turned out to be too high to begin with? We run into numerous foreclosure victims who are losing their homes because of the simple fact that they did not even know they had an adjustable rate mortgage, and could not afford the rate increase.

What about your emergency fund? Most financial advisers, news commentators, and anyone who has been in a financial bind before knows that it is recommended that you have 3-6 months of income stashed away in an emergency fund (preferably in an interest-bearing savings account, money market account, or other liquid account), just in case you need help paying bills. Did you run out of funds and is this why you are now forced to look for ways to stop foreclosure before you run out of time?

And how about lowering your monthly expenses to the bare minimum? Get rid of the cable TV, air conditioning, keep the heat down to a very low temperature, cancel the cell phone, don't take extra trips with the car, grow your own food (even a little bit helps), etc. All of these are modern luxuries, some which did not exist even as little as 50 or 100 years ago, and human were able to survive for several tens of thousands of years without them. If there is a serious choice between watching 24 or saving your home, then you may want to reconsider owning a home at all.

Could you sell any unnecessary assets, like CDs, DVDs, old books, useless items, or otherwise? A garage sale can bring in a month's worth of mortgage payments or more, depending on how much your payment is, or you can unload some items to keep on top of other bills and keep your credit score just that much higher for an extra month or two. That might be all it takes to find a lender that can refinance the loan out of foreclosure. Many individuals tend to buy useless things that they do not need, then sell or give them away for pennies on the dollar. You can take advantage of other peoples' bargain-shopping instincts and sell items that are not as important as keeping your home out of foreclosure.

Of course, if you would have to go without every convenience and sell everything just to make the mortgage payment, then it makes sense to ask if it is worth saving this particular house. If all of your income would have to go towards just paying the loan, then you may be in a loan that is simply not right for you, and it may make sense to sell and move to a more affordable house, even if it is smaller and in a less-desirable neighborhood. Scaling back, in combination with selling unimportant items and lowering your expenses, can have positive effects on your financial stability far into the future, and will help you stop foreclosure now.

It seems that a lot of homeowners were relying solely on "hope" for things to get better or stay normal. But we all know that life happens sometimes, and a financial crisis will hit at the most unexpected moment. There is no way to plan for some hardships, but there are numerous ways to make them less difficult to get through. Hope alone is a pretty flimsy support, though, and it rarely comes through when it is most needed. But homeowners can take back control of their finances and reevaluate their financial habits as a whole, and protect themselves much better from the greed and bad habits that can be developed in a consumption-oriented society.

There are a lot of ideas that citizens and communities can implement to begin creating solutions to the foreclosure crisis now affecting so many areas of America. While the old media is busy discussing the latest plans being pushed through Congress that will not help homeowners stop foreclosure, lower-level governments and private citizens can do remarkable good work to help their fellow homeowners. There is a great reliance on the federal government for "bailouts," but few long-term solutions are ever offered. Instead, coming up with creative, local solutions will most effectively help foreclosure victims save their homes.

For instance, private citizens can donate some of their excess income to families in need of extra money to pay their mortgage every month. This may be in the form of an actual donation or a private loan that is secured through placing a lien on the property. If that does not help enough of the homeowners facing foreclosure (and any one citizen's resources are likely to be limited), the plan can be expanded exponentially. One idea would be to start a charity to solicit for donations from private citizens and local businesses to help donate to needy families. The same procedure can work by offering a direct donation, or providing a loan that all of the participants will be able to enjoy the benefits of when the homeowners are able to get back on their feet.

Local communities can also put together a coalition of local business owners or influential people in the community and meet with many of the local banks to discuss the problem of rising foreclosure rates. It is quite feasible that some of these banks would be interested in helping local homeowners find a solution to stop foreclosure, by providing terms without checking credit or creating new lending programs that are community-based, rather than credit based. These programs will keep wealth in the community and generate even more wealth, as local banks will now have the mortgages on properties in the area, instead of multinational banks and servicing companies collecting payments from homeowners located thousands of miles away.

The best part is that none of these example programs would raise taxes, which would hurt more homeowners who are living on the edge but are not yet in foreclosure. They are also local solutions, and if you communities are able to initiate a movement for better lending decisions and compassion towards homeowners in your community, then others can build on these ideas to create even more solutions in other areas of the country. With central economic planning, one of the problems is that the one-size-fits-all solution does not take into account all of the characteristics of local real estate markets. Only local solutions can adequately address the problems of the community and effect lasting change.

If what a concerned citizen means by "what can we do to help homeowners in foreclosure" is what can the federal government do to help bail out homeowners, then the answer is most likely nothing. In fact, the best they can do is nothing, and the worst may be causing even more foreclosures. If the federal government can keep out of the way and let citizens create local solutions, then there is a much better chance that they will not have any repeats of Hurricane Katrina ineptness on the part of the central government. Providing trailers that are unused and now sinking into the mud, and giving money to people who were not affected by the disaster will not be issues when local governments or private organizations work together to address that requirements of the region.

So, the best solutions to the foreclosure crisis will require that foreclosure victims, local governments, and private citizens and businesses get creative, start talking to neighbors, families, church groups, business organizations, and anyone in the town or locality that has any position of influence. There is much more power in the hands of private citizens when they do not transfer their remarkable problem-solving abilities to a distant federal government that will not be able to understand that dynamics of a local area.

Carolyn Baker's book U.S. History Uncensored is designed as a supplement to the standard version of history offered by textbooks, college professors, and high school teachers. However, this does not mean that the material presented in the book should be considered tangential to the main themes of US history since the Civil War; to the contrary, Baker’s work presents a far more coherent view of the rise of corporate power at the expense of the individual, the emergence of the American Empire, and the most pressing issues facing the entire world today.

The work, though, is not even really a “book;” rather it is “a curriculum abstract for U.S. History, 1865 to the present,” and provides more of a framework for the student to consider Baker’s positions and do independent research on the various topics examined. In many of the 33 chapters, readers are encouraged to view documentaries, search out other books on the topic, or read supplementary articles presented directly in the text. Helpfully, Baker gives web addresses to locate many of these sources, many of which may not be offered at the local bookstore or movie rental.

Through the end of the Civil War, through the rise of the Robber Barons, the conferring of “personhood” on corporations, and the continuing transfer of wealth and power to large corporations and the government, the book looks at the most important events of recent American history and examines the influences behind the stories and popular myths, such as the Civil Rights movements, the xenophobia that began the eugenics movement and allied it with big business and public schooling, and various Cold War events.

The most important event of the time period Baker examines, though, is “1947 when the National Security Act was signed into law creating the Central Intelligence Agency and a black budget, which absolved the Agency from all accountability to Congress or the American people regarding its activities and expenditures.” This transferred public power and money to a secretive agency that has done much harm to Americans living in the US and American interest abroad. Some of the issues briefly examined include relationships with drugs, mind-control experiments on American citizens, and involvements in various assassinations and plots to overthrow governments.

While Baker traces the paths of American history from growing corporate power to increasing government involvement in the world and secret dealings at home and abroad, her main concerns are with the three most pressing issues facing the world right now, and an examination of these are what the book leads to in its final chapters. Without understanding how events and decisions have led to these newest unprecedented problems, there will be no effective reaction to solve them, and most citizens are unaware of the significance of the issues. According to Baker, the “Terminal Triangle of Peak Oil, Climate Change, and Global Economic Collapse” are “inexplicably ominous for our planet and its inhabitants – and absolutely unprecedented.” These chapters are some of the most important in the book, and various experts are quoted on each of the issues.

Just as important is the question of why these issues are not being dealt with the government or talked about in the media. But Baker presents these answers indirectly, for the most part, and the discussions of recent American history will provide readers with the map to be able to find the answers on their own. Large corporations benefiting from the Terminal Triangle, who own the media and operate the revolving door between business and government, have no reason to inform consumers of these issues. And this same government/business partnership also operate, fund, and present the national elections, making large-scale change unlikely.

After presenting such a dismal map with little reason to hope for change, Baker thankfully presents her views on how to work through the problems now facing America and the world. Focusing on local solutions and sustainability, Baker provides such recommendations as “not only must we move through our fear of the topic of money, we must come to understand how it works in our communities,” and “sustainability cannot be created in isolation. Crucial in one’s ‘options portfolio’ is a sense of community.” Thus, while there may be no hope in distant governments, which will continue to wage wars for the last remaining resources on planet Earth and take away more of the average citizen’s liberties in a “war for freedom,” change can occur more easily on the local level, and create a higher moral and spiritual standard of living for every citizen, instead of gross profits for a few abstract corporations and the central governments they control.

Baker’s book is recommended as an examination of both America’s past, from its rise after a devastating Civil War to become the largest empire in history, as well as its future. It gives the reader an understanding of the likely course of future events, based on over one hundred years of history of the US government favoring corporate profits over civilians, other nations, and the planet in general. Most importantly of all, Baker gives readers a new perspective on hope as a tangible, controllable idea that can be enacted at a local level, instead of an abstract, dogmatic belief in a government that will promise to deliver hope but offer further loss of life and liberty for the majority of citizens it was originally designed to protect.

Possibly the most overlooked way to stop foreclosure is for a friend or family member to purchase the property that is being foreclosed and allow the original homeowners to remain living there. In essence, this can follow the same process as using a private investor to save the home, but it is usually easier for foreclosure victims to trust their friends or family before they trust a real estate investor. Especially with the possibility of running into a foreclosure scam, using someone well-known presents a more secure option. There are a number of considerations before attempting this method of stopping the foreclosure process, all of which homeowners and potential buyers need to be aware of.

The first problem that any buyer will have to confront is if the family member that is purchasing the house out of foreclosure has the same last name as the foreclosure victims themselves. Lenders will often refuse to make a loan in this situation, as it is not a third-party, arms-length transaction. The parties are related and there is a pending foreclosure, so the purchase resembles a family bailout that is attempting to use a new mortgage to take care of a family member, rather than a buyer and seller getting together to complete a real estate transaction. Mortgage companies would like to avoid getting into the middle of homeowners' intra-family affairs, especially if there is a recent history of financial problems. So foreclosure victims will have to locate a family member who has a different last name or use a friend, if they wish to pursue this method of avoiding foreclosure.

Secondly, if the friend of family member does not have a down payment or excellent credit, it will be very difficult to qualify for the loan to purchase the house out of foreclosure. Currently, the real estate market provides some great deals, because all of the foreclosures have depressed home values in certain areas. This makes many homes much less expensive. In fact, some areas of the country are experiencing decreases of over 50% year-to-year, while values are stagnant or slightly declining across the board. The foreclosure victims may find that they owe much more than their home is currently worth, and the possibility for a short sale may present itself, if the lender is willing to work out a solution.

However, despite the fact that the market is currently favoring buyers due to the lowering of prices, this is also a difficult time for home buyers who need to borrow money to finance their purchase. Many lenders have gone out of business now, while others are following more strict lending guidelines and loaning far less than even six months ago. Qualifying for a mortgage with no money down and less than excellent credit is simply no longer an option. If the foreclosure victims and friend or family member have a savings fund or can liquidate other assets to save the house from foreclosure, though, they will have a significantly better chance of getting a loan with a competitive interest rate.

If this option is open for homeowners facing foreclosure, and they are able to find a compassionate family member or friend who can help them stop foreclosure, it is wise for all parties involved to put together an insurance plan to prevent foreclosure from happening again. Just a few lessons that homeowners can take include saving up an emergency fund to pay the mortgage in the event of a financial hardship, not refinancing the property every few years and treating the house as an ATM, and considering the house as a place to live rather than another bank account. In the event of a future financial crisis, it is also vitally important to contact the mortgage company as soon as the problem begins and inform them of any late payments. Also important is gaining as much knowledge and foreclosure advice as possible from the current situation, so that it will be much easier to respond quickly if problems come up again.

There are a number of important benefits that using a friend or family member as a real estate investor can give the foreclosure victims. These include the possibility of keeping the house, finding a trusted source to help out in a financial hardship, and not having to pay real estate commissions. The problems that homeowners have in this situation, such as finding someone with a different last name to help out, and getting the home buyer qualified for the new mortgage, may be difficult to overcome, but the rewards are being able to stop foreclosure through a secure solution with fewer worries of being taken advantage of. Homeowners in foreclosure need as many options as possible to keep their homes, and this can provide one of the most mutually beneficial solutions, and is in keeping with the local solutions we have recommended before.

One common mistake that home buyers made in the real estate boom years leading up to 2005 was the purchase of more than one home. While not every homeowner could qualify for a second home, lending regulations were loose enough that many were able to take out mortgages at the top of the market, just before the end of the bull market. Now, with property values decreasing and record foreclosure rates, these same homeowners are finding that they can not sell their second home to avoid the damage of a financial hardship. Either property may be in foreclosure, or both at once, and these families are searching for effective ways to save their homes.

Obviously, the easiest way to save the primary residence is to keep paying on that mortgage for as long as possible. Instead of "robbing Peter to pay Paul," and falling behind on both loans, which will lead to two foreclosures at once, it is better to protect at least one property. In some instances, homeowners will need to carefully evaluate which of the properties to focus on, as a second home may have a lower monthly payment, but be located further from work, for example. One house may need more repairs than another, which has the possibility of creating more expenses in the future. Deciding which house will be the most feasible to save will give homeowners a better idea of what will happen throughout the foreclosure process.

The factor that most homeowners in foreclosure in this situation will worry about is the possibility of the lender going after the other home that is not currently in foreclosure. Foreclosure victims are almost unanimously concerned with the foreclosing bank being able to sue the homeowners after the foreclosure and garnish their wages, repossess assets, or even get a lien to be able to foreclose on the house that has been saved from foreclosure. However, this is generally not what will happen after one house is foreclosed, and may not even be allowed by the state foreclosure laws where the property is located. Most likely, if there is more than one home involved in the foreclosure, the mortgage company will only be able to go after the particular house that is secured by the mortgage -- nothing else was pledged as collateral, so there is no other recourse the bank has.

If the home goes into foreclosure and sells at sheriff sale for less than what the foreclosure victims owe on it (principal plus interest and other foreclosure costs), the bank may be able to initiate a lawsuit after foreclosure for a what is termed a "deficiency judgment." Mortgage companies almost never do this, though, since they are aware that homeowners in foreclosure do not have a lot of cash of liquid assets that could be used to pay another judgment. It will cost the bank more time and money to sue their former clients again, and even if they get a judgment against the former homeowners and put a lien on the other property that they own, they still may never be able to collect on it. In most cases, it is simply not worth their time to pursue.

In a minority of cases, however, a situation may occur where there is the danger of losing both houses. This is when homeowners take out a "blanket loan," designed to cover multiple properties with one mortgage. In this case, the lender may be able to take back both properties, because both of them are pledged as collateral for the mortgage. Of course, homeowners will know they have a blanket loan because they are paying a higher monthly payment that counts for both properties. To stop foreclosure at this point and save one of the homes means saving both of the homes, as it is the loan that is in default, and foreclosure victims will not be able to save just one property and let the other one go.

Homeowners who own more than one property and find that they can no longer afford one of them face some unique problems and must make difficult decisions about which property is most worth saving. Especially if they know they will not be able to afford one of the houses, due to a long-term financial setback, it is important to receive relevant foreclosure advice and professional guidance to assist in making plans for the future. While there may be little danger of losing both houses to subsequent foreclosures, any financial hardship should be used by homeowners to analyze what caused them to face foreclosure and what can be done to prevent such devastating financial consequences in the future.

The current foreclosure crisis was completely avoidable in theory, but there were too many concurrent events that led to everyone in the real estate and mortgage industry enjoying the loose lending and overvalued properties. Real estate agents made boatloads of money in commissions from selling properties that were way too expensive, lenders made money by originating loans that they could sell to investors, and hedge funds made money by taking the payments on these properties and selling the properties that ended up in foreclosures because values were rising so quickly.

But as a greater number of foreclosures happened in a short time soon after the loans were made, property values sank and the banks that owned these properties were unable to sell them or make any profit. The loans that were originated and sold to investors were worthless and defaulted almost immediately. Once this happened, investors would no longer take the loans from the mortgage companies and lenders were no longer able to make such careless loans. Credit dried up, causing overvalued homes to drop in price as new home buyers could not qualify for such high loan amounts. When homeowners could not sell their houses, they lowered the asking price even further, continuing to drive prices downward.

Homeowners are also not blameless victims of the banking industry, though, as their own greed led them to lying on mortgage applications and overstating their income to purchase homes they could never afford. Teaser rates aside, if a homeowner has no job and their credit score is under 500, they should be immediately suspicious if someone offers to loan them $750,000 for a $1,000 per month payment. But similar loans were made to hundreds of thousands of homeowners whom the banks never intended to allow to keep their homes for very long. Some of these loans defaulted almost as soon as the closing paperwork was signed, while others lasted less than a year after being originated.

The original mortgage companies, too, acted on greed by making these loans, knowing they could sell the loans at a profit before they defaulted, and use their ill-gotten profits make even more bad loans. Investors who bought the loans exercised their own greed by believing they could make some money now and a lot more when the loans reset to higher rates. They would either collect higher payments if the homeowners could afford to pay, or they would foreclose on the houses and sell them for even greater profits. With such rapidly rising property values, this was not such an unrealistic scenario, and many foreclosure victims lost their homes in exactly this way, unable to pay the higher rate and with credit that made them unqualified to stop foreclosure.

It's just too bad the entire charade came crashing down so quickly. Now it is "government bailout time," with banks and homeowners scrambling for a piece of the newly created money by the Federal Reserve, which pumped billions of dollars into the economy and has now cut interest rates. This is a sign of impending inflation, and homeowners who are concerned about paying their mortgage now will find it even more difficult when prices for food, gas, and utilities rises even higher over the next year.

Now is the time to begin preparing for the worst, especially as more loans will be resetting to higher interest rates just in time for the winter season, when heating bills will push many homeowners into foreclosure before the end of the year. If there is anything that homeowners can do now to pay off other debt or establish an emergency fund to get them through the winter, they should begin as soon as possible. Preventing foreclosure is a much easier process than having to figure out a solution when there is already a clear and present danger of losing the home. As the summer ends with a devaluation of the dollar due to inflation by the central bank, and heating bills become a concern for many more homeowners, it is vitally important that plans are laid for avoiding a personal financial crash.

One of the most important issues that foreclosure victims are not informed about is what happens after the foreclosure trustee sale of their home. It would seem like a simple matter that, when the home is sold, the former homeowners would have to begin locating a new place to live and move out very shortly. However, with such widely divergent laws governing the foreclosure process in the states, there is no simple answer. Homeowners may have more opportunities at this point to stop foreclosure and actually keep their homes, although it is vitally important for them to begin the process of researching what options they may have.

The actual process followed after the home is sold at sheriff sale will depend on what state the property is located in. Foreclosure laws vary from state to state, but the trustee sale is usually the end of the line, or at least it is the time when ownership of the property is transferred to the high bidder at the foreclosure auction. There are a number of ways that homeowners can postpone or stop the sheriff sale altogether, but unless they come up with a solution to avoid foreclosure, the home will eventually be auctioned off. At this point, state law takes dictates the timeline for moving out of the house or being evicted by the county sheriff.

Some states, though, allow for a redemption period. A redemption period is time that foreclosure victims can use after the sheriff sale to stay in the home and find some solution to keep it, or pay off the amount owed and sell it. During this period, they can even try refinancing, selling, or any other potential solution, in order to cure the foreclosure. If saving the home is not possible, they can just remain living in the property, save money for an emergency fund, pay down other debts, and get their financial life back on track. Either way, the bank is unable to evict them out of the property until after the redemption period, as they are guaranteed the right to redeem by state law.

Various timelines are given by states for the redemption period, another reason why homeowners need to gather some relevant foreclosure information on their own to put together their plan for the future of their families. Some states have the redemption period before the sale, while others have it after the sale, and some have no redemption period at all. The important thing is to look up the state foreclosure laws and find out what a foreclosure victim's rights are after the property is sold at the foreclosure auction. Then they can plan for their future, either to stop foreclosure from leading to eviction, or moving out of the house before being forcefully removed, or utilizing the redemption period to begin the process of financial recovery.

Of course, if any homeowners are worried about being evicted, they should make a call to their local sheriffs office. The county sheriff conducts the eventual eviction, so they will know if a particular property has been ordered to be cleaned out and have the locks changed. If they do not know anything about the eviction yet, then it is probably safe to assume that is has not yet been scheduled through the courts. The actual eviction process will have to go through the county court system, with the new owner of the property being granted possession and an order given to the sheriff to remove all people and personal belongings from the property. Until the eviction is actually scheduled, homeowners can continue seeking out foreclosure advice and examining various options that may help them save their home or mitigate the more devastating consequences of foreclosure.

The lure of making money by investing in foreclosure properties has too many times led to real estate professionals taking advantage of homeowners facing the loss of their homes. Their focus on reaping huge profits from these properties causes them to lose sight of the moral and ethical side of doing business and providing a helpful solution to assist foreclosure victims. In response to these practices, some states have begun regulating how investors and foreclosure help companies do business in certain situations, including profit-capping measures for investors and fuller disclosure requirements in the area of loss mitigation. In addition, courts have ruled that, in some cases, the popular rent-back or leaseback option counts as a loan to the former foreclosure victims, rather than a rental agreement, forcing the investor to foreclose on the property again if the renters fail to pay as agreed.

While these laws provide further regulations that reputable foreclosure experts must now follow, the foreclosure scam companies will continue to do whatever they can to take advantage of homeowners in foreclosure. Many of the worst of these companies do not even bother to research the relevant foreclosure laws and rely on homeowners to fail to gather their own foreclosure information. In essence, they rely on their own ignorance of the law and the foreclosure victims' ignorance in order to prey upon homeowners. This presents a unique opportunity for legitimate foreclosure investors and companies to fill this void by educating foreclosure victims on what can be done to stop foreclosure legally and effectively.

The vast majority of homeowners in foreclosure would like to keep their home if a suitable solution was presented. The idea of being set out on the street with nowhere to live and no opportunities to improve the lives of their own children causes great anxiety and scares homeowners to the point of trusting a scam to take care of their problems for them. Investors who are able to educate homeowners and structure a deal that is in the best interests of all involved are able to provide these homeowners with local solutions to stop foreclosure that will give them the best opportunity to repair their financial lives and get out of debt. Obviously, this deal will have to be a win-win situation for both the investor and foreclosure victims, but any win-lose or lose-lose situation will not provide either party with a long-term solution to the problem. Being honest with homeowners in foreclosure about their options and educating them on what will happen before, during, and after the foreclosure process is often the most effective way to come to a mutual understanding of the benefits of any plan to save a home.

There are many possible solutions to help homeowners save their homes from foreclosure, including ownership partnerships, trust agreements, and land contracts, to name just a few. Structured correctly and reviewed by all parties and their legal counsels, these can be very successful in putting an end to the foreclosure process. The most commonly used solutions are rental agreements and leaseback options, which give homeowners the possibility of living in the property and making rent payments until they have significantly improved their credit and can qualify to purchase the home back. Sometimes, these options will result in lower payments for the homeowners, as investors can often qualify for lower interest rates and pass those savings along to the foreclosure victims, which provides them with the best chance of eliminating debt and starting a savings plan.

By carefully considering a legal and mutually beneficial method to stop foreclosure, both homeowners and investors can provide each other with important benefits. Investors will be able to acquire a new investment property, improve their own credit scores, and make income from helping the foreclosure victims. Homeowners, in turn, will be able to avoid foreclosure without the loss of their homes, be able to remain living in their house, have an opportunity to repair their credit, and eventually repurchase the property, completing the process of financial recovery. In addition, educating homeowners on how foreclosure works and what causes it will allow communities to learn how to prevent future foreclosures and build a knowledgeable local population on guard against various foreclosure scams, who will not rely on the government to protect homeowners in financial hardships.

In the week after the sixth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11/2001, it is appropriate to review some of the questions raised by the event and America's current relationships with countries in the Middle East. Especially with the drums of war beating between Iran and the US, Stephen Kinzer's book All the Shah's Men, originally published in 2003, is worth reviewing again.

In this slim (260 page) book, Kinzer examines the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup that removed from power democratically-elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. After nationalizing the oil industry, previously run by the British, Mossadegh was the target of the CIA's first successful major operation to overthrow a government.

The book focuses briefly on the historical context of Iran, examining the various groups that have influenced the region, from the Zoroastrians, to Alexander the Great of Macedon, to the new Arabs that “came armed not only with the traditional weapons of war, but with a new religion, Islam.” Iran also became the country with the largest concentration of Shiite Muslims, which form a minority in the Islamic world. The differences between the more mainstream Sunni Muslims and Shiites stem from what Kinzer identifies as “differing interpretations of who deserved to succeed the prophet Mohammed as caliph, or leader of the Islamic world, after his death in 632.”

Through the high regard that Shiites hold for the Prophet’s cousin Ali and Ali’s son Hussein, who were both killed, Iranians culture was given “a legacy of religious zeal and a willingness, even an eagerness, to embrace martyrdom at the hands of God’s enemies.” This attitude endured through the time of Mossadegh himself, who became another example of an Islamic leader of the people standing up to a corrupt establishment that had lost is popular support, as is examined throughout the rest of the book. Kinzer’s overview of the history of Iran ends with the ruler Reza Shah, an authoritarian ruler who consolidated the rampant corruption of the nation in his own hands, turned the people against him, and established ties to Nazi Germany during World War II.

Another aspect of Iran’s history that can not be left out is the discovery of vast amounts of oil in 1908. The British government’s interests in the oil-producing regions was a constant cause of conflict, although most leaders of Iran were happy to sell off the country’s oil for their own personal benefit at the expense of the people of Iran. Also mentioned is the respect that Iranians had for the United States, mainly due to the fact that, “Neither the young Mohammed Reza Shah nor his various prime ministers managed to capture the public imagination during the 1940’s. The only figure who did was a flamboyant American soldier, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf.”

The main part of the book, though, looks at the short rule of Mohammed Mossadegh, his battles with Britain over the oil, the CIA’s role in his overthrow, and even his personal life and habits. This is also the most enlightening portion of the book, as it shows how popular opinion was turned against America through its covert intervention in the country. Although President Truman was uninterested in playing a role in the coup, his successor President Eisenhower approved the plan, called Operation Ajax, laid out by Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles. Sold as a way to prevent a communist takeover of the country, the CIA sent Kermit Roosevelt to the country to begin the planning for the coup.

Mossadegh himself had gained support through the international community and in Iran for his stance against the British oil interests, nationalizing the industry and removing all representatives of Britain from the country. With no covert operatives to carry out the overthrow, the British turned to America’s Central Intelligence Agency for assistance. The Iranians had no way to refine or sell their oil after the retreat of the British, who took with them all of the technical knowledge and imposed a blockade on ships attempting to purchase Iranian oil. This plunged the economy into recession and made the lives of the common Iranian citizen even worse, even in the absence of Britain’s practice of withholding profits from the Iranian government and not providing for the welfare of the workers of the refinery.

Through propaganda and the paying out of significant amounts of money to dissidents and revolutionaries for hire, the CIA was able to take advantage of the depressed economic conditions of Iran and begin arranging support against Mossadegh. Even through one failed coup attempt on August 15, 1953, Roosevelt decided to push on and attempt to overthrow the government soon after the failure. Mossadegh, according to Kinzer, was not expecting the plotters to try again so quickly and tragically ordered his supporters not to stand against the anti-Mossadegh demonstrators. By the 19th of August, Mossadegh had been overthrown, and the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza, was installed as leader of the country.

Kinzer examines in detail the decisions made by Mossadegh to protect his government from the overthrow and sees his downfall primarily in his trusting nature and respect for American visitors. Being lied to and told that Americans in Iran were being outrageously mistreated, he “seemed genuinely pained by these fanciful stories and alarmed at the prospect of Americans leaving Iran… he issued a decree banning all public demonstrations. He even telephoned leaders of pro-government parties and ordered them to keep their people at home. He disarmed himself.” Thus, on the fateful day of the coup, pro-Mossadegh supporters stayed at home, leaving only CIA-financed anti-government groups to take to the streets and stage demonstrations that led to the eventual overthrow that night.

Through twenty-five years of a brutal dictatorship led by the Shah and his secret police force Savak. When the government was overthrown in 1979, and the mullahs came to power, the Shah was given safe haven in the United States. This led to the taking of the American embassy in Tehran and the Iranian hostage crisis, as Iranians feared another coup led by the CIA that would reinstall the Shah. “The hostage-takers remembered that when the Shah fled into exile in 1953, CIA agents working at the American embassy had returned him to his throne. Iranians feared that history was about to repeat itself.” Even further, when America began supporting the leader of neighboring Iraq, Saddam Hussein, in the 1980’s in the Iran-Iraq war, the most militant factions in Iran became even more powerful, and the religious leaders of the country began supporting terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, which influenced the actions of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, led by Osama bin Laden.

Kinzer’s book is a detailed look at how the overthrow of a popular leader, even with his faults, stubbornness, and seeming affinity towards being martyred for his principles, led to far worse consequences than the nationalizing of British oil interests. Opinion was turned against America, who was seen as the lapdog of the British Empire, and the roots of Middle Eastern terror were laid and cultivated that much swifter. In a case study of how the CIA concept of “blowback” leads to unintended consequences, All the Shah’s Men allows the reader to more completely understand “why the hate us.” As Kinzer himself states so clearly, “It is not far-fetched to draw a line from Operation Ajax through the Shah’s repressive regime and the Islamic Revolution to the fireballs that engulfed the World Trade Center in New York.”

The book does not blame American policy in general or Operation Ajax specifically for the events of 9/11, but instead shows how covert interventions that overthrow democratically-elected governments in any country in the world will lead to negative opinions of the people of the country against the overthrowing government. While not a justification for the attacks of 9/11, Kinzer’s argument helps us understand how American policies overseas are viewed from the perspective of the people of these countries, and gives us a historical context for the seemingly irrational behaviors of suicide terrorism and the hatred of America by certain factions of the Islamic world.

Oversimplifying and confusing the people of the country with its rulers is also a mistake, according to Kinzer, who states in one of the most interesting passages of the book, “On my flight back to Tehran I sat next to a middle-aged businessman who, like everyone I met in Iran, detested the Islamic regime and thought well of Americans.” By threatening the rulers of this country, popular opinion rallies around the government, even if it is detested. As Robert Pape explains in his own study of terrorism, occupation is a much worse situation for countries than a current corrupt regime. Kinzer’s book shows that antagonizing a nation’s leaders, rather than appealing to and supporting its people, can lead to far-reaching negative consequences that will manifest themselves in the most seemingly unexpected ways.

A growing problem seems to be that many tenants find that the house or apartment building they are renting is going into foreclosure, due to the inability of the owner to continue paying the mortgage. The tenants are arguably in an even worse situation than the homeowners themselves at this point, because they have no control over the process of finding a solution that will stop foreclosure and allow them to remain in the home. They are also bound by the lease agreement, and risk the negative consequences of breaking the contract before its term has expired. However, there are a number of suggestions for tenants in this situation who are concerned with helping the landlord keep the property or just securing their own living arrangements beyond the foreclosure.

The actual sequence of events will, of course, depend on what happens throughout the foreclosure process, which is determined by the state foreclosure laws. Just because the property is in foreclosure, though, does not automatically mean the homeowner has lost the property yet. In other words, it may be hasty to give up hope and begin moving out right away. Any tenant in the building will want to discuss the pending foreclosure with the landlord as soon as possible, though, to determine what the problem is and if there is any way to save the home and avoid the foreclosure process entirely.

If the homeowners have a plan to stop foreclosure, the tenants may begin the process of looking for new places to move to, but holding them as backup plans, rather than immediately moving out. In the event that the owners can not save the property, then the tenants will have to determine how much longer they have until the foreclosure process is over, and if there is a redemption period after the sheriff sale, in order to plan their moving out of the property. This time period is another aspect determined by state foreclosure laws, and tenants should also seek out independent foreclosure advice to educate themselves on what may happen to them throughout the process, as well as their rights once ownership of the property transfers after the sheriff sale.

In most cases, once the sheriff sale has been conducted, the homeowners and the tenants will no longer be able to remain in the property. This is because the new owner, which is usually the foreclosing bank, will initiate the eviction process in the local courts and request possession of the house. If the tenants do not know how much longer they may have to keep living in the property after foreclosure, they can call the county sheriffs department to find out if and when the foreclosure auction took place, and if there is an eviction date scheduled yet. The sheriffs office will conduct the eviction, so they will know if the court has ordered it yet.

However, in a small minority of cases, the lender's attorneys will take over collecting rent payments from the tenants. The renters would receive a letter from the lawyers office informing them of their responsibility to continue paying the lease as agreed and that payments will now be made out to their office. However, this is a much less common result than the bank simply asking for possession of the property and beginning the process of evicting any remaining tenants or homeowners.

Tenants who are experiencing their own foreclosure crisis are best served by discussing the matter with the current owners of the property and examining what options are available to prevent the loss of the home and stop foreclosure. However, renters in this situation should also keep a backup plan in the event that the house is sold at sheriff sale and ownership is transferred, resulting in the beginning of the eviction process. It is unfortunate, but true, that plans to save a home from foreclosure often fall through at the last minute, especially if the homeowners are relying on a magical foreclosure loan or other option that is equally difficult to qualify for. Tenants should gather as much foreclosure information as they can and begin the process of planning for their future no matter what happens with the current property in foreclosure.

There are numerous parties and institutions and corporations that the current foreclosure crisis can be blamed on. Appraisers inflated home values. Realtors sold homes that were overvalued and convinced others to buy homes that were overvalued. Lenders made loans without any documentation and wished homeowners would be able to afford these loans until they were profitable enough to foreclose. Homeowners lied on their applications to get as big a house as they possibly could with as low an interest rate as possible, and waited until the very last minute to look for a solution to stop foreclosure. But do homeowners now deserve a bailout, courtesy of the government?

Well, that depends on what is meant by the term "bailout." If it means a free cash handout to pay the mortgage, then no, homeowners do not deserve that. A solution of this nature would not help anyway, as free handouts would only delay the inevitable, and would actually cause more homeowners to face foreclosure.

In addition, there are ways that homeowners can work with their banks or find alternate solutions to save their homes from foreclosure. Loan modifications, repayment plans, bankruptcy to avoid foreclosure, foreclosure refinancing, hard money loans, selling the property, short sales, and deed in lieu of foreclosure are just some of these possibilities. A simple search of foreclosure advice on any major search engine will yield even more options for homeowners. It is unlikely that any homeowner has exhausted every option to stop foreclosure, so giving out more possibilities through other government agencies will not help, either. If foreclosure victims are not making use of what is already available to help them save their homes, making more available will not fix that. It will just give homeowners more possibilities not to examine.

What homeowners really need is just education to know what options are available to them. A free handout is not going to fix the problem of no homeowner ever being prepared for foreclosure and not knowing what to do when they begin missing mortgage payments. Bailouts or free handouts just cause them to look for another handout the next time they are in a financial bind. This also prevents them from learning any lasting lesson from foreclosure, such as purchasing a home that is affordable, and planning for short-term financial hardships by setting up an emergency fund.

Also, it is not all that fair to take money away from other homeowners and taxpayers and give it to homeowners in foreclosure. A tax hike would actually increase foreclosures, as homeowners living on the edge now would go right into foreclosure, and ones close to edge would now be on the edge of losing their homes. Areas that are the hardest hit by foreclosures may see a slight improvement, but regions that are experiencing relatively low foreclosure rates would see a wealth transfer out of their communities, causing a greater danger of foreclosure. Certain areas would improve slightly, while foreclosures would increase in other areas.

This is why homeowners should do as much research as possible to save their homes on their own, or utilize resources already available. There is no lack of options to help homeowners stop foreclosure, and many companies and local investors and specialists provide foreclosure victims with valuable services to help them save their homes. While a government bailout may provide some homeowners with a temporary solution, the best way to avoid foreclosure now and prevent it from every happening again is to provide homeowners and citizens in general with basic financial education and the resources necessary to take care of themselves in all but the most dire financial hardships.

In many cases, homeowners, for one reason or another, are unable to save their homes or find a solution that will stop foreclosure. Unfortunately, many simply wait until the last minute, hoping against hope for a mortgage broker who will come through with a new foreclosure loan, only to be left hanging at the end with nothing besides a rejection. In such cases, lenders may be unwilling to continue to postpone a sheriff sale, and the foreclosure victims will find that they must find a new place to live. How long the eviction takes, though, and the state foreclosure laws will determine what a homeowners next steps should be in planning their lives after foreclosure.

In general, the bank will not start the foreclosure process until the homeowners are 3-6 months behind on payments. They can start as soon as you the loan is in default (31 days late), but most lenders will give their clients the time to get caught up and give them the benefit of the doubt, rather than starting foreclosure right away. Mortgage companies know that some people just have a one-month or short-term financial hardship that causes them to fall behind for a short period, but are then able to recover quickly and begin paying the mortgage on time again and avoid foreclosure completely.

Also, if the homeowners are working with the bank for a repayment plan or mortgage modification, they the lender will be much more willing to postpone the foreclosure filing for a few extra months. Once foreclosure starts, costs go way up, so they may be willing to get the homeowners qualified for a workout program before the situation gets out of control. Even without the actual filing of the foreclosure lawsuit, though, late fees and interest will begin to accumulate, so it is in the best interests of the homeowners to begin saving as much money as possible once they fall behind, as well as contact the lender for options to stop foreclosure.

The time period for the actual foreclosure process will vary from state to state, once the paperwork is filed. The house will be sold at sheriff sale, and then the redemption period begins, if one is offered in the state in which the property is located. For example, some states have no redemption period, while others have a one-year redemption period under the state's foreclosure laws in order for the homeowners to stay in the property and look for some way to save it. Refinancing, selling, or paying the redemption amount in full can all be done while the foreclosure victims continue to live in the property for the length of the redemption period.

After the end of redemption, though, the eviction process will start. Eviction can usually take 2-4 weeks, depending on how quickly the lender starts the process and how quickly the sheriff can come out to the property and conduct the actual physical eviction. Once that happens, though, the homeowners will be set out on the street and the locks will be changed. It will be better to be out by this point than be evicted, of course, but it is also better to find a solution before the situation reaches this point, as well.

Time periods for foreclosure and the eviction process vary wildly from state to state. Some even have the redemption period before the sheriff sale, while most others have a redemption period after the sale. This is why is important for homeowners to gain the foreclosure information necessary to understand how foreclosure works, and how much time they will have to put together a plan designed to stop foreclosure. One of the best places to start researching is the state foreclosure laws, and the best time to start researching is as soon as possible. Waiting too long to learn how foreclosure works and then not putting together a plan to save the home is almost a sure-fire way to end up homeless and evicted.

Two of the more common foreclosure scams online come from various companies that take advantage of homeowners and from attorneys who use their respected position to urge foreclosure victims to make the wrong choices about how they can save their homes. While there are often news stories of homeowners being stolen from and tricked by shady investors who show up at the last minute, there are just as many companies that do no work at all for foreclosure victims and lawyers who increase their fees to the detriment of their clients, who are experiencing legitimate financial hardships. The most tragic part of this is that so many of these scammers can be avoided, as long as homeowners receive unbiased foreclosure advice and research ways that they can stop foreclosure on their own.

Foreclosure scams are an unfortunate part of the foreclosure industry, as it would be better if no company or attorney preyed on foreclosure victims. This is a bit unrealistic, however, although most of these scammers know only slightly more about foreclosure than the homeowners themselves, which they use that knowledge to take advantage of the homeowners. This makes it important for every homeowner facing a financial crisis to take the time to educate themselves on how foreclosure works, what their state foreclosure laws are, and what options may be available to prevent foreclosure from taking their homes and leaving them with no place to live.

While foreclosure scam companies and attorneys can be quite despicable, there are a number of other parties that are just as irresponsible throughout the foreclosure process. For example, it is just as disturbing (possibly even more so) that public schools are unable to teach students even basic financial concepts and how to use their money effectively so that they know how to establish an emergency fund and learn how a mortgage works. There are few personal financial courses even in colleges, leaving the vast majority of citizens unprepared for the onslaught of credit card offers, low teaser interest rate mortgages, and other financial temptations. In fact, credit card companies have active agreements with universities in order to hook their students into the debt trap from the time they are legally able to receive a line of credit.

If required financial education in schools is too concrete, as opposed to the abstract subjects now being taught, then it is just as despicable that homeowners are never taught how to think critically about their own lives and the long-term effects of decisions they make. New home buyers and refinancing clients are just told to sign on the line to get a loan they will not be able to afford, and when, in a year's time, they can not afford it, they trust someone just as shady to help them out of foreclosure. It is just too bad that trusting people without gaining any knowledge is just going to land these homeowners in the same position of relying on others to live their lives for them, or actually put them in a worse position, with a bankruptcy or repayment plan that is too expensive, or by having their home stolen out from under them entirely. And these results are entirely avoidable, if homeowners researched relevant foreclosure information or knew how to manage their finances.

The banks design the loans to take the houses through foreclosure after a period of time, and then the foreclosure scam companies and attorneys just further the cause of the mortgage companies. They give homeowners false hope based on unearned trust, and the homeowners often get burned, and lose their homes. Of course, there are some great foreclosure help companies and attorneys, as well, which is why we make every effort to find the most respected foreclosure help sources. Not every person in the foreclosure industry is a scam artist and a large number of homeowners receive help every day to stop foreclosure and keep their homes. But there is no question about the existence of unscrupulous foreclosure helpers -- and homeowners who do some research about foreclosure are often better able to spot the scammers, which is another goal of our site: to educate homeowners and provide relevant foreclosure advice to help them save their homes on their own.

Homeowners in foreclosure, for one reason or another, often find that they have run out of time to stop foreclosure before they have run out of options that could save their homes. Often, this is due to one plan falling through at the last minute, or a simple inability of some foreclosure victims to make a decision on what to do to save their homes. By the time they have decided which option would work best for them, there is just not enough time to complete the method and actually prevent the foreclosure. When this happens, though, homeowners will often be scrambling around, looking for the most efficient way that they can put the foreclosure process on hold or stop the sheriff sale.

The fastest way to delay a foreclosure is to contact the bank as soon as the homeowners know they may begin missing payments. By keeping in touch with them throughout a financial hardship, the mortgage company will often be willing to postpone certain dates, like the initial foreclosure filing and the sheriff sale date. Obviously, this may not be applicable for homeowners who have avoided talking to the lender throughout the foreclosure process, but it is important to contact that bank as soon as possible. The lender will not always respond negatively, and they may be willing to work with the foreclosure victims to give more time or put together a solution to foreclosure. The important thing is to call the lender, though, and inform them of the situation and what is being done to avoid foreclosure.

Two dates that lenders are often willing to postpone are the sheriff sale date and the original foreclosure filing. The bank may be willing to hold off on filing the actual foreclosure paperwork, in order to give their clients more time to come up with the money to reinstate the loan, or become qualified for an affordable repayment plan or loan modification. Once the foreclosure is filed, though, interest is often accelerated and court costs and attorney fees are added into the balance of the loan, making it more difficult to qualify for a solution.

We have discussed stopping a sheriff sale in other posts on our blog, so readers are referred to those entries, but lenders will often delay a sheriff sale if there is a reasonable solution being offered them. A thirty-day postponement is often all homeowners need to work out a long-term solution to foreclosure, and banks will be glad to avoid the foreclosure auction if there is a good chance they will get the mortgage paid off in other ways.

However, lenders are much more strict on the end of redemption, unfortunately. They do not like postponing this important foreclosure date, since they have waited such a long time to take the property back in the first place. If the homeowners have been in contact with them, though, they may be willing to provide more time to move out, postponing the actual eviction process for a few weeks. This may not help homeowners dramatically, and will not result in saving the house, but lenders do not want to forcefully evict former clients, either. Giving an extra couple of weeks to effect a peaceful transfer of the property and prevent damage is in the bank's best interests.

Unless the foreclosure victims need more than a few weeks, though, it may be a good idea to start looking for other places to live once the end of redemption comes close. Obviously, the mortgage company will not let them live in the house for a long time until their income recovers or they can qualify for a new mortgage, since the bank will want to get the property ready to sell to make back the money they lost on the loan they made that went into foreclosure.

Often, the fastest way to delay an important date in the foreclosure process is simply to keep the bank informed and ask for more time, based on the chances for success of the method being pursued to stop foreclosure. Gaining more time during the foreclosure process can be an easy procedure or it can be like pulling teeth, depending on how much communication there has been between the homeowners and the lender. As early in the financial hardship as is possible, foreclosure victims need to begin working with their banks to find solutions to foreclosure, and work on various options on their own, as well. Then, in the event a plan falls through at the last minute, the bank will much more willing to put a hold on things in order to give the homeowners, who have been working hard on finding solutions, more time to complete a plan and save their homes from foreclosure.

The book that is the subject of this review is Gold: The Once and Future Money, written by Nathan Lewis and published in 2007. Lewis, “formerly the chief international economist of a leading economic forecasting firm,” provides a thorough examination of using gold to support the value of a currency (the gold standard ), as well as a history of gold standards in the past and his arguments for returning to a gold standard from the international floating currencies now in use. The purpose of the book is to argue the case for a return to the stability of the gold standard, and to dispel the most common myths of the failures of past gold standards.

Lewis divides his book into three distinct sections. The first section, “Money in All its Forms,” provides much general economic and historical background of gold. Such topics are examined as the stability of gold, the differences between hard money and soft money, a history of various gold standards, taxes, and inflation, deflation, and the value of currency. Although much of the information presented in these chapters is very technical, Lewis breaks up the monotony of the discussion with historical events and anecdotes. In fact, one of the more memorable sections of the book is the history of the gold standard in ancient and pre-modern civilizations. One common feature of these stories is that civilizations, once the gold standard is abandoned, quickly march towards currency devaluation and destruction, but, if the gold standard is reinstated, there can be a return to normalcy.

In the second section of the book, “A History of US Money,” Lewis examines the history of currency in America, from the time before the Revolutionary War and its hyperinflationary results, to the numerous competing currencies of the new country, to the pseudo-gold standard of Bretton Woods, to the current floating dollar. Interestingly, the US was “the sole major power to stick to the gold standard" through World War I, and this is one of the reasons for its post-war boom in the 1920’s. And after World War II, the strong US dollar was used as the new gold standard through the Bretton Woods system, whereby other major nations pegged their currency values to the dollar, which was in turn pegged to gold. Obviously, this system was not a true gold standard, and it broke down in 1971, and currency values have floated since then. Lewis also discusses the relative success and failures of various Federal Reserve chairmen, such as monetarist Paul Volker throughout the 1980’s, and the gold standard advocate Alan Greenspan through the late 1980’s, 1990’s and into the beginning of the twenty-first century.

The final part of the book “Currency Crises around the World,” is an examination of modern currency crises faced by nations, mostly in the 1900’s and early 2000’s. The first country Lewis discusses is Japan, focusing on the period after the Second World War and the nation’s amazing rise to economic prosperity. Through low taxes and low interest rates, Japan was able to improve the strength of its currency against gold and encourage economic growth to become the third-largest economy in the world. It has only been recently, since leaving behind many of its pro-growth policies, that Japan has experienced a long recession. As Lewis states, “Japan’s two great periods of economic success, from 1868 to 1914 and from 1950 to 1970, were both eras in which floating currencies were replaced with hard currencies.”

Other currency crises that Lewis looks at include the Asia Crisis of the late 1990’s and Russia, China, Mexico, and Yugoslavia. Throughout his evaluations of each of these events, Lewis points to various recurring themes. In each of these countries, the falling value of the currency caused economic hardships, and their responses to these crises directly affected the countries’ ability to recover or their worsening financial conditions. Lewis points out that lowering taxes and encouraging private enterprise had far greater stimulating effects than raising taxes and higher government deficit spending. Also, in countries that received loans and “advice” from the International Monetary Fund, the currency tended to weaken even further, prolonging any economic recovery. Countries that began IMF programs and later abandoned them experienced a rate of recovery faster than that resulting from the IMF program, and countries that accepted no help from the IMF and instead lowered taxes and interest rates experienced little hardship and fast recovery.

In fact, some of these themes play out throughout the book, as Lewis examines the policies of various countries in various times of economic hardship. When countries experience a loss in the value of their currency, it is far better to return to a stable currency. Thus, Lewis sees most of the conventional economic wisdom used by central banks as misguided, from targeting interest rates to encourage growth or relying on higher taxes, wage and price controls, and government deficit spending. The most important tool of central banks that Lewis examines is their ability to create or destroy base money, by selling or purchasing government bonds. This adds or subtracts from the supply of money, and is more easily managed and a stronger indicator of the health of the currency, according to Lewis.

Lewis’ book provides strong arguments and common sense examples that support a return to a gold standard for the US dollar and other currencies worldwide. Far from there being shortcomings of the gold standard, Lewis shows that inflation and currency devaluations have resulted from countries abandoning the gold standard at various points in their history, most often during times of war. Various arguments to explain the actions of the economy and currency values have been proposed over time, with the result being the current strategy of central banks to manipulate the economy through monetary and fiscal policies, rather than pegging the value of the currency to gold. These new techniques, according to Lewis, have failed and will continue to fail, as they give central banks the excuse that they are not in control of the currencies of their nations. This is a mistake, and the current era of worldwide floating currencies will come to an end; the only question remaining is how difficult and voluntary the transition will be.

There are numerous websites showing the legal and theoretical possibilities of being sued after foreclosure. Many so-called "foreclosure experts" threaten homeowners with the possibility of being sued after foreclosure, and having their wages garnished, cars repossessed, or given enormous tax bills from the IRS. Since so many state foreclosure laws do allow deficiency judgments, there is always the danger of being sued after foreclosure. However, most of the foreclosure advice being given to homeowners is wildly inaccurate. In almost every single case, what usually "actually" happens is...

Nothing.

The bank, after the foreclosure, would have to sue the former foreclosure victims for the deficiency judgment if one even exists. This means the bank would have to hire lawyers, pay attorney fees and court costs, and would simply have a judgment against them. There is no expectation that they would ever be able to collect on that judgment, and banks are aware that homeowners go into foreclosure because they run out of money. So, if they know homeowners have experienced a financial hardship and do not have any money, and the mortgage company has already lost money on the loan due to the foreclosure, there is little reason for them to sue again. They just move on with attempting to sell the property on the open market and recoup some of their losses.

When a homeowner sells the property before the foreclosure and sells it at a lower amount than what is owed on the loan, this is called a short sale, and is one of the most common ways that homeowners can stop foreclosure on their homes. In this case, the homeowners would get a 1099 at the end of the year, since the bank is forgiving the difference in the loan amount. Forgiven debt is counted as income. But this is only a possibility when a homeowner has worked out a short sale with the bank and a buyer, and the home has actually transferred ownership through the short sale.

When the house is sold at sheriff sale for a loss, this is not forgiven debt. It is merely a sale of the house, and homeowners do not get a 1099 if they do not receive any profit from the sheriff sale and if no debt is forgiven. The house is just taken from them to pay the bank and the bank gets the property back because that was pledged as collateral on the original loan. The legal mechanism of foreclosure allows for the sale of the property at a public auction, but has nothing to do with forgiving any portion of the actual debt represented by the foreclosure judgment.

So that is what actually happens in the vast, vast majority of foreclosure situations. Banks rarely pursue deficiency judgments unless they know the homeowners have a lot of cash and other assets that would make it worth suing them. This is not the case in most foreclosures, though. While literally hundreds of online resources and charlatans will threaten homeowners with the possibility of a deficiency judgment and all of its ill effects after foreclosure, the banks themselves are wise enough to recognize that suing their former clients is not in their best interests in all but the most extreme cases. In fact, most lenders would gladly give former foreclosure victims another loan, if they met the qualifications; so there is no reason to turn away future business due to an unfortunate financial hardship that led to the foreclosure.

Besides the central government, a number of state governments have begun to become involved in proposing bailouts and creating legislation designed to protect homeowners from taking out bad loans that inevitably lead to foreclosure. These handouts are designed to help homeowners find other resources to stop foreclosure, and require banks to exercise more caution in their lending policies. However, it will be the banks who benefit most from the new laws, while increasing the cost of a mortgage for home buyers and those attempting to refinance their current homes.

The bailouts being proposed, while paying lip service to assisting homeowners find solutions to foreclosure, are not really for homeowners. Obviously, the bailout will go straight to banks and private corporations and be used to bail them out their current financial difficulties. Homeowners themselves will be extremely lucky to see any benefit directly from the government. The new regulations and subsidies will be directed at the government agencies that intervene in the real estate market and the banking industry as a whole. Nothing of any substance will change for homeowners.

New rules that are being proposed are, interestingly enough, designed to provide homeowners with more and clearer disclosures. No amount of paperwork will convince a home buyer to sit down and actually read through the paperwork, though, and this is one of the main causes of the current foreclosure problem. Banks made all of the necessary disclosures, most of which need to be in writing and signed off on by the loan applicants, but homeowners simply did not understand the type of loan they were getting. They signed their names next to statement that they did understand, but they never really did understand how an adjustable rate mortgage worked.

Banks make the most money on a property if it goes into foreclosure after about 7 years. All of these foreclosures are happening way before 7 years (sometimes before 7 months! ), usually around 1-3 years, and they are not profitable. Banks are stuck with useless loans and property that is not worth very much money, so they need a bailout that "helps homeowners" keep their properties for a few more years. The bailouts will only take money out of the pockets of other people, either through taxes or inflationary measures, and be given to agencies and the banks in order to provide assistance to a very small number of foreclosure victims. Some will definitely be able to stop foreclosure and save their homes, but even more of the general population will lose their purchasing power through higher taxes or the printing of money. The bailouts could cause even more foreclosures, as government intervention often causes a further slowdown in an already slowing economy.

Handing a homeowner a wad of cash or directing them to a government agency that has a new avoid foreclosure program is not going to solve the problem of overspending, overconsumption, and not saving. The next financial hardship that comes along will cause the homeowners to fall right back into foreclosure, but hopefully the market will have stabilized by then and the bank can sell the property at a profit after taking it back. That is exactly what the bailout will be designed for: providing homeowners a bridge from "unprofitable foreclosure victims" to "profitable foreclosure victims." This is one reason why it is so important for homeowners to take responsibility for themselves, do their best to utilize the bailout if they receive it, or find an alternate solution to foreclosure if they are not one of the lucky ones. In fact, it may finally be time for foreclosure victims to begin reading the paperwork they signed when they got the loan and obtain relevant foreclosure advice to understand how the process works and what can be done to prevent from losing their homes.

Free government handouts only increase the likelihood of more bad loans by banks and homeowners. Why make good financial decisions when you can just rely on government to make everything alright again and tuck you in at night? So, yes, the government knows exactly what this bailout will accomplish for the vast majority of homeowners, and once it fails to provide the promised results, they will only recommend more government intervention, even higher taxes (federal and state/local) and more bailouts (created through printing money out of thin air and giving it to special interests and new and existing government agencies). If anyone thinks that the current foreclosure crisis is bad, just wait until the government gets more directly involved.

Many homes that are now going into foreclosure were purchased with no money down and, therefore, have no equity when the lender begins the foreclosure process. Other home buyers, though, put down large amounts to receive lower interest rates and build up the equity in their homes. However, they are now facing foreclosure due to a financial setback. When the home goes through foreclosure, the down payment will often be eaten away by accelerated interest, court costs, attorneys fees, and late fees; although having the extra equity may also help homeowners stop foreclosure before the situation is too far gone.

When properties go into foreclosure, the acceleration clause in the mortgage paperwork allows lenders to begin adding interest and fees in order to increase the total amount necessary to reinstate the loan or pay it off in full. This is to provide the bank with some of the lost profits that will result from the foreclosure, as opposed to having the loan paid off in full throughout the life of the mortgage, or paid off through a refinance or sale of the property. Banks also want as high of a payoff as possible, in case the property sells for a substantial amount at the sheriff sale, where they can take the largest portion of the sale proceeds. Homeowners typically see their mortgage balance grow by several tens of thousands of dollars during foreclosure, as the bank adds in numerous legitimate and junk fees.

These fees are primarily responsible for the complete lack of equity in the property by the time of the sheriff sale. Even homeowners who put down 10%, 20%, or more will find that this money has simply been eaten up by interest added to interest added to late fees and court costs. It is also not uncommon for homeowners to owe more on the home than it is worth. This situation ensures that the bank will receive all of the proceeds of the sheriff sale, even while taking a loss on the total amount that they are owed through the foreclosure judgment. Also, foreclosure victims who are upside-down in their homes will find it very difficult to put together a plan to stop foreclosure, as they have no equity.

This makes it a very serious decision for homeowners to make when considering how much of a down payment to make. Obviously, a higher down payment allows for more protection of the home with higher equity, and often results in a lower interest rate for the term of the loan. However, if the homeowners do not have access to more liquid assets, such as an emergency fund in a bank account, a temporary financial setback can push them into foreclosure, where their equity will quickly disappear. Having both as much equity as possible and a reasonable emergency fund will provide homeowners with the best deal on their mortgage and the best insurance to contain the damage of an unforeseen hardship.

No matter how high a down payment a home purchaser makes at the time the mortgage is signed, there is no easy way to access this equity in the event of a financial hardship. Lenders will be reluctant to provide a loan to stop foreclosure, and the acceleration of the mortgage will continue to eat up the homeowners' down payment and remaining equity. This is why a large down payment is only a good idea in conjunction with easily accessible funds that can quickly be converted to cash. Without an emergency fund and with the erosion of equity due to the foreclosure, homeowners will quickly run out of options that could have saved their homes from foreclosure.

Some homeowners, when the know they will no longer be able to afford their home, decide that they will simply move out of the house. They may do this for a number of reasons: the bank may be calling them incessantly and they want an escape, they may believe that moving out will allow the bank to take the home back quicker, or they may just have found another place to live. Abandoning a home to foreclosure, though, is often the least desirable option when attempting to stop foreclosure. Surrendering the house through a deed in lieu of foreclosure will have much the same end results in terms of allowing the homeowners to move out and move on with their lives, but they will also be able to preserve a small amount of their credit, as well.

If the foreclosures victims just move out and abandon the home, this action will not surrender the title to the home. It is simply abandoning the property. The foreclosure process will continue since the foreclosure victims are still the legal owners of the house and the bank will have to take it back through the court system. Just moving out does not transfer ownership, as they could move out to rent the house to a tenant, go on vacation for a month, or any other reason. The bank and the court have no ability to take the house back just because the homeowners are no longer living there, as they have no real way of knowing why the homeowners moved out, or if they will return. Unless the foreclosure victims let the bank know that they have abandoned the house, the bank will simply believe that their phone calls and letters are continuing to be ignored by the foreclosure victims.

The mortgage company can, however, change the locks and prevent the house from vandalism if the foreclosure victims have moved out. This is not considered taking the property back but protecting the lender's interest in having a property that is not destroyed by thieves and vandals. In addition, the bank will not receive title to the home by having the locks changed, because there is still no transfer of ownership rights. The homeowners are simply assumed to have abandoned the house and the bank has the right to protect the collateral for the loan. In most cases, if the homeowners return to the property after the locks are changed, they can contact the court system or the county sheriffs department to regain entry into the house -- they are still the legal owners so they have the right to possess the property even throughout the foreclosure process.

Moving out of the house and going through the foreclosure process will have the same negative effects on the homeowners' credit as if they stayed in the house and went through foreclosure. A foreclosure will show on their credit report and will drag down their credit scores. Simply moving out, because it does not materially affect the foreclosure process itself as it works through the courts, will do nothing to help the homeowners either stop foreclosure on the home or recover their credit. In fact, homeowners may as well stay in the property and begin saving up an emergency fund or paying down other debts to utilize their time in the house in the most effective way. Even if they can not afford the mortgage, it may be better to make good on other debts, such as car loans or credit cards, rather than take on a new housing payment or renting an apartment right away.

Surrendering a house is usually done with a deed in lieu of foreclosure, and is done before the house is sold at sheriff sale. Homeowners can call their lender to offer the deed in lieu of foreclosure, and the bank will evaluate whether to accept or not. A deed in lieu will be slightly better on the homeowners' credit, because they did at least something to avoid the entire foreclosure process, even if it was merely giving the property back and admitting that they could not afford the mortgage any longer. The fact that this option will allow the lender to avoid a costly legal battle will give the foreclosure victims a slightly less negative mark on their credit, though, as it shows they worked with the bank to transfer the property and give the collateral back instead of face foreclosure.

Abandoning a home does not affect the foreclosure process or its negative consequences. A deed in lieu can effectively surrender a house to the bank. This makes offering the bank a deed in lieu of foreclosure a much wiser decision for the long-term financial health of the foreclosure victims. Rather than leaving the house before the foreclosure process is over, homeowners can stay until the transfer is completed, using the time to get out of debt, save up an emergency fund, or otherwise improve their financial health. Once the deed is transferred to the bank, the homeowners will then be free to move out of the house, having found a solution to stop foreclosure and avoid the more devastating effects of the foreclosure process.

"Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected," reads one of the reviews on the back of the book 33 Questions about American History You're not Supposed to Ask, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. This is as an appropriate summary of the book as one could expect, as Woods sets out to revisit some of the most common myths of American history and look at them in the light of non-politically correct thought. As the description of the book states, "there's the history you know and then there's the truth." It is this not so idealized truth that Woods presents to answer his thirty-three questions.

As a whole, the book is quite enlightening and filled with conclusions supported by numerous citations of books, various government and private studies, and scholarly articles. In a book this short (around 260 pages), having nearly thirty pages of endnotes and citations shows that Woods has done a fair amount of research and fact-checking. Thus, while the discussions of questions that are presented may contain much information contrary to conventional wisdom, the book encourages readers to verify the correctness of every chapter. Assumptions are not made when discussing facts and historical events, but Woods does draw out some overarching themes throughout the book, in addition to dispelling some commonly-held myths about American history.

One of the themes that Woods discusses in several chapters of the book is the issue of small government and free markets versus big government and a command-type economy. Woods shows that the “Wild West” was not really all that wild, despite a marked absence of government institutions and protectors. Instead of lawlessness and violence, “even in the absence of government, the old West was far less violent than most American cities today. Frontiersmen developed private mechanisms to enforce the law and define and enforce property rights.” Another example of big government interference in private enterprise is the example of Hoover’s and Roosevelt’s interactions in the economy during the Great Depression. Woods shows that both presidents intervened in the market, enacting controls and spending programs that only caused the Depression to become longer, deeper, and more financially ruinous to the general population.

Another theme that is present in various chapters is that of the powers of Congress and the Presidency, and how they have changed over time and their original intents in the Constitution have been distorted. Woods examines the claim that the US Constitution is a “living, breathing document,” by showing that this is exactly the result the framers wanted to avoid: the British constitution was considered to be a living, breathing entity that forced itself upon the colonies. The Founding Fathers wanted a Constitution that was a written agreement between the people and the government and was able to be changed through various methods, but would not just change with the times. The book also looks at the interstate commerce clause, which the federal government now uses to regulate all gainful activity, which was not the founders’ intent. Woods argues that the phrase “among the states” refers to “commerce between one state and another, not commerce that occurs in one state and merely concerns of has effects upon others,” although the government has distorted this into regulating everything and anything that may affect commerce, which have granted it “extraordinary power to interfere in Americans’ lives.” The role of the government was meant by the Constitution to be small, although it has taken on more and more powers to legislate the lives of Americans.

The powers of the president of the United States are also examined by Woods, who determines that the president now wields much more power than was originally granted. Theodore Roosevelt is seen as the instigator of the rise of the “imperial presidency,” due to his increased visibility in Americans’ lives, and the extraordinary use of presidential executive orders (1,006 total). However, Congress has also transferred the power to the president to send troops anywhere in the world without a declaration of war. This transfer of power is now so complete, according to Woods, that “In 2002, on the eve of war with Iraq, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) insisted, as he had throughout the Clinton years, that if the country were to go to war, the Constitution required that Congress approve a declaration of war… He was told by prominent Republicans that his position was outdated and that things weren’t done that way anymore.” In his discussions of questions relating to the theme of the Constitutional powers of the federal government, Woods demonstrates that powers originally granted to the states have been usurped by the federal government, which has resulted in a consolidation of powers in the Congress, judicial branch, and especially the presidency.

There are a number of other themes that Woods examines, such as civil rights myths, government welfare programs, and the legacy of President Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo. Many of the questions raise issues that are little-discussed in mainstream accounts. The root of the problem, according to Woods, may be traceable to the public school system, which teaches students the same myths and the same one-sided stories. This racket can only result in the propaganda of the greatness of big government, the evils of the free market, and the godlike status of presidents. As Woods states, “the same group of people who hold a monopoly on the power to tax and the power to initiate force also wield an effective monopoly on the power to educate future generations of Americans.” Thus, a healthy skepticism is recommended for all official party-line type discussions of these programs and roles.

The book, in the end, is an invitation to critical thinking of some of the major myths of American History. Woods does not attempt to denigrate his targets or examine the issues in minute detail, instead offering a second look at American history. Even though everyone may not agree with Woods’ on all of the issues, it is more important to him that people know that there is another side to many of the best-known stories of America, and draw their own conclusions, rather than take the official public school-taught propaganda at face value.