American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
The latest question being debated in the media is, “Can we kill an American who is working for al Qaeda overseas?” It may be rhetorical, but it clearly demonstrates the confusion in America today about our status, that is, whether we are at war or not?
The nation is divided over the issue. If we are at war, why aren’t we trying war criminals in military tribunals as opposed to giving them the same rights that our citizens enjoy in civilian courts?
The Bush administration seemed to be clear that we are at war, and that enemy combatants should be tried in military courts. However, although Guantanamo Bay was established as the place to hold people who were picked up on the battlefield or otherwise captured and known to be terrorists, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, in the eight years following the World Trade Center attack, the government never completed the job of updating our laws to deal with such prisoners.
Most of the public seems to believe we are at war and that it is a war on terrorism. However, the Obama administration apparently does not agree.
This leads to confusion and weakens our nation’s defenses. Obama’s position that the word “terrorism” is not to be used by his administration and being unwilling to acknowledge that we are at war is directly at odds with his authorization to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and his approval of attacks by military drones in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The confusion is further exemplified by the administration’s handling of incidents like the Fort Hood shooting, promising to close Gitmo without thoroughly considering the consequences, and moving the trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and the Christmas Day bomber to civilian courts. For the most part, the reasoning behind these decisions is not clear and the public appears to strongly object to them.
Article One, Section Eight of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall have power to…declare War,” so perhaps the question should be, “Why not declare war al Qaeda and any other group that attacks us?”
We seem to be overlooking the fact that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in August 1996. His declaration was published in a London based Arabic language newspaper and followed a long list of attacks on U.S. properties and personnel overseas dating back to 1979, when Iran took U.S. embassy employees hostage. It continued from there with the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon and a succession of other attacks thereafter, the most notable of which were the attacks on the World Trade Center in September 2001 and the attempt to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight from Copenhagen to Detroit on Christmas day 2009.
So, what’s the problem? Are we at war or not? And, if we are, why don’t we formally declare war and move on from there? The obvious question is, “against whom?” There is no easy answer to this, but how about starting with al Qaeda and any nation or group that gives them support or allows them to use their territory for training and staging attacks on other nations?
As for declaring war, that’s the province of Congress, not the president, so why not move the process directly to the legislature where the issue can be openly debated, regardless of what the president may want? Ultimately, the decision is up to them, not him.
My guess is that the American people would strongly favor debating and settling this issue once and for all. We should eliminate any confusion about holding enemy combatants until the war ends and trying them in military tribunals or civilian courts, or killing an American who is openly waging war against his own country.
I know it’s a complicated and confusing issue, but no more than many others that are taken up by Congress. Let them get everything out on the table for all to see and discuss, then decide – so we can go forward with a clear understanding of the alternatives, good and bad, which hopefully would unify the nation behind a single, clear-cut policy.
The problem with the current situation is that it allows our enemies, al Qaeda, Muslim fundamentalists and others, such as Iran, to capitalize on our confusion and adapt their strategy accordingly, while we can’t seem to agree on how to respond.
As long as we continue to allow our enemies to exploit our vacillation and indecision, there are sure to be more attempts to attack our homeland, some of which are bound to succeed. To succeed, they only have to be right once, while to prevent them we must be right 100% of the time.
I believe we should push Congress to debate the issue and vote up or down for an open declaration of war on our enemies.
Turner Catledge, a journalist during the Roosevelt era, described the pattern used by FDR’s administration to sell his legislative proposals to the public as follows: “First there is the early ‘idea’ period, when either the President or some group of his associates hatches the rather rough for of what is to be attempted. Then there is the selling stage, in which the person or the group who thinks up the idea has to ‘sell’ it to the other. There follows in third place the ‘method’ stage when the modus operandi is evolved. Then there comes the final ‘publicity’ stage when the program is announced and the argument is submitted both to Congress and the public in behalf of its adoption.”
Sound familiar? It should. It’s the tried and true formula being used by Obama and his administration to panic the public into accepting the so-called stimulus package that has been wending its way through Congress.
Economist Walter Williams observed: “The stimulus package being discussed is politically smart but economically stupid. It’s that bedeviling, omnipresent Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy problem again. … A far more important measure that Congress can take toward a healthy economy is to ensure that the 2003 tax cuts don’t expire in 2010 as scheduled. If not, there are 15 separate taxes scheduled to rise in 2010, costing Americans $200 billion a year in increased taxes. In the face of a recession, we don’t need that.”
And, columnist Michelle Malkin noted: “Bashing Rush Limbaugh last week, Obama urged GOP lawmakers to ignore the voices of obstructionism and sign on to his behemoth stimulus package: ‘We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.’ … History has shown us that ‘Get Things Done’ is mindless liberal code for passing ineffective legislation and expanding government for government’s sake.”
In an open letter disseminated by the Cato Institute, two hundred economists stated, “More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s ‘lost decade’ in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.”
In short, the stimulus package proposed by Congress is being hyped as the way to spend our way to prosperity. The president has been telling us that if we don’t act immediately, the nation may never recover from its present condition, which he has characterized as the worst economy since the Great Depression. However, if it is really possible to spend our way out of a recession, why are there business cycles at all?
People instinctively know that panicking in an emergency does not solve anything. As a matter of fact, it makes it worse. Panic short-circuits clear thinking and induces action without sufficient facts, especially in complex situations that present a variety of alternatives. And, the worst situation of all is when leaders panic.
President Obama’s image is that of a cool customer who keeps his head under pressure. Yet, he has repeatedly appeared in press conferences and public appearances, telling us that the situation with the American economy is so urgent that if we do not act immediately, we will never recover. I don’t see that as leadership. True leaders try to keep everyone else from overreacting and losing control.
Unfortunately, the initial response of the Bush administration was to immediately push through the $700 billion bailout package and spend the first $350 billion without any accountability. It’s clear that it did not work, yet we are being told that we need more of the same. The reality is that neither Bush nor Obama have provided any clear recommendations about how the causes of the financial crunch that brought the economy down can be fixed, because they don’t know. I would prefer to see our leaders try to keep the public calm while they go about the business of methodically working to solve the problem.
The public, who generally have more sense than their political leaders, appear to agree. Polls now report that the majority of Americans either want to see major changes to the current stimulus plan or they reject it outright.
Politicians can call it stimulus or they can call it change, but it’s just more of the same old tax and spend approach, and the American people know it.
The American people are universally fed up – with Congress, both political parties, the administration, the financial institutions, the lenders and loan brokers who were responsible for the subprime loan mess, and with unqualified borrowers who took on the obligations of home ownership and now expect the government to keep them in homes they can’t afford. They are all culpable, but the public has not yet found a specific target for their anger, partially because they really don’t know who to blame. Their frustration is palpable.
Some political leaders have declared that the situation is a failure of capitalism and that they intend to fix it by spreading billions of dollars around to prop up failing financial institutions. Michael Reagan, among others, sees it as a “socialistic answer to a capitalistic problem.” It has been labeled as the “largest move to socialism and statism since FDR’s new deal.”
There’s plenty of blame to go around, lots of greed and misguided thinking to condemn, the Democrat and Republican parties, and individuals who have gamed the system for personal financial benefit. But, before anyone in particular is pilloried, perhaps we should first look at ourselves. I believe we, the American public in general, are also part of the underlying cause of the events we are now living through, because we allowed our legislators to continuously spend more money than they take in. It’s been going on for generations, and the cumulative effect is taking us to the point of financial failure.
One of the more annoying aspects of this whole ugly mess is the fact that the fox is being allowed to guard the chicken house. Congressman Barney Frank (MA) and Senator Chris Dodd (CT), both Democrats, are two of the leading politicians who are largely responsible for the Freddie Mack/Fannie Mae fiasco, and they have been players in trying to fix the problem, as if they really know what to do. Thomas Sowell observed, “Among the Congressional ‘leaders’ invited to the White House to devise a bailout ‘solution’ are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.”
These are the same politicians who led the effort to relax regulatory oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack for years, which ultimately led to their collapse. The situation actually started during the Clinton administration, when lenders were pressured to relax their standards for qualifying borrowers in order to increase the availability of “affordable” housing.
Where we go from here is anybody’s guess. No one really knows what effect the Bailout will ultimately have on restoring financial markets to some semblance of order. There have already been efforts to exploit the situation in the presidential campaign, primarily by the Democrats, who are trying to blame the Bush administration and tie John McCain to it. On this particular point, Thomas Sowell noted, “In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack.” And, I might add, so did Senator McCain. .
Once again, we witnessed political gamesmanship at work. The failure of the bailout legislation in the House of Representatives was caused by political jockeying for position. The Democrats had enough control to pass the bailout bill, pretty much without Republican votes. However, they insisted on Republican participation for cover, in case the plan did not work as advertised.
The Bailout bill has been passed, but at this point, it is not working and no one really knows what will happen, except that we have already seen the bottom drop out of the stock market, and the specter of unintended consequences is rearing its ugly head.
If McCain is elected President, Susan Sarandon says she is moving to Canada,
or Italy, as if anyone cares. Susan is quick to add she has faith in the
American people (to vote in Obama) so she isn’t making any specific moving
plans.
Logic is a foreign concept to many people in Hollywood, but here goes
anyway. The mantra from the Left these days is: Bush is McCain, McCain is
Bush, Bush is McCain—Ohum.
If the American people voted Bush into the White House twice, why does Susan
have faith they will vote against McCain?
Perhaps she thinks people are sick of Bush and will be sick of McCain.
Maybe she thinks most people are so stupid they’ll not differentiate between
Bush and McCain. ‘I have faith the American people are sick and stupid.’
It could be Susan thinks the majority of Americans no longer care about
sovereignty and security and freedom and capitalism, that they’ve become,
overnight, amoral socialist hammerheads, like her.
‘I have faith the American people are sick, stupid, apathetic hammerheads.’
Maybe Susan has faith in the rest of us because she thinks we’ve come to
believe Bush stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections and it’s Republican
payback time.
(You know, for such a dumb guy, Bush was clever enough to beat legions of
Democrats to the punch, over and over, year and year.)
Perhaps Susan thinks Obama is such an obvious preference, even the moronic
masses will perceive and vote accordingly.
We sincerely hope Susan’s illogical faith somehow keeps her residing here in
the good ol’ USA, because if Obama is elected, and the Dems dominate the
Congress, we will demand tax increases on the rich, and most certainly, the
Dems will oblige, and Susan needs to be here to pay more than her fair
share. (You know, and we all know, Tim will squirrel away sufficient funds
offshore, far from the prying eyes of the IRS. They can then make the
sacrifice without sacrificing a thing!)
What is it about Hollywood people?
Do they take themselves so seriously they really believe the rest of us care
what they think, where they live, what they’ll do next week?
Are Hollywood folk so self-absorbed and out of touch they really think other
people lend them credence? Yup.
Remember in years gone by the likes of Smart-Alec Baldwin, Blah-Blah
Streisand, Robert Ego-Altman, Cher No Underwear, and Pierre Salinger all
promising an exit stage Left if Bush got elected.
Only Salinger kept his promise.
These people can’t even keep one promise, yet they insist they’re morally,
intellectually, politically and socially superior than all those bone-headed
fans who made them rich and famous in the first place.
If the American people do vote for McCain, what will we hear from Susan?
“Let the sick, stupid, lazy, malcontents eat cake!” (Nothing personal.)
“Gag me with a spoon” used to be a popular “Valley Girl” expression. It’s no longer part of our everyday vernacular, but the feeling is the same – which is exactly my reaction every time I hear politicians say, “It’s for the children.”
The current flap over reauthorizing the SCHIP health insurance program for children is just the latest example of the political hyperbole we have become all too accustomed to hearing come out of the Beltway.
Bush’s Veto
“…Democrats and their accomplices in the Leftmedia predictably portrayed the President as a Lone Ranger against “the children.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi cried, “President Bush used his cruel veto pen to say ‘I forbid ten million children from getting the health benefits they deserve’.” (This from the party of abortion.) Of course, most of those ten million currently have health benefits—just not taxpayer funded. Yet. Furthermore, some of these “children” are as old as 25…The Heritage Foundation notes that roughly 70,000 families will be eligible for SCHIP and the Alternative Minimum Tax.” (Patriot Post, No. 07-40, October 5, 2007)
Political Opportunism
The Wall Street Journal highlighted the political opportunism of the SCHIP reauthorization bill with the following observation: “Known as a ‘funding cliff,’ the yearly SCHIP layout increases to $13.9 billion in 2011, then abruptly cuts spending by 65 percent below current funding levels. This helps ‘score’ the bill as costing only $35 billion over the five-year budget window, but it also means that come 2012 Congress will either have to pass new spending or kick kids off the rolls. The chances of the latter happening are approximately zero.” Can you say “campaign issue”? (Patriot Post, No. 07-40, October 5, 2007)“
[The State Children’s Heath Insurance Program (SCHIP)] without a doubt makes it easier for illegal aliens to get taxpayer-funded healthcare. The legislation wipes away the current requirement for multiple sources of identification and requires merely a name and a Social Security number to apply for benefits. The only safeguard is a single statement that says no illegal aliens can get benefits. That’s like opening the door to the chicken coop, but saying its okay because we put up a sign that says ‘No Foxes Allowed’.” —Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) (Patriot Post, No. 07-41, October 8, 2007)
Financing The SCHIP Bill
Looking further at the detail of the SCHIP reauthorization bill, we find that since they don’t have the money in the budget to pay for the expansion of the program, the financing of choice is a tax on cigarettes. Never mind that a cigarette tax is regressive and that it’s a declining source of funding.“By most measures, the average smoker is less privileged than the average nonsmoker. Nearly one-third of all U.S. adults living in poverty are smokers…” (GOP.gov, House Republican Conference)
“‘I know there is very little sympathy for smokers these days,’ Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga, said during the House debate. But it is still a tax increase on the backs of the smokers. And in order to get enough money to pay for this, it would require 22 million new smokers.” (GOP.gov, House Republican Conference)
“If the federal cigarette tax nears $1 per pack, smokers in many states will pay hefty sums into government coffers unless they kick their habit. On top of the federal tax, New Jersey levies a $2.57 per pack tax on cigarettes, followed by Rhode Island at $2.46. (GOP.gov, House Republican Conference)
Columnist Debra J. Saunders also made the following observations, among others, about the SCHIP program in a recent column (Jewish World Review, October 8, 2007):
“The cigarette tax is regressive and inadequate.”
“Supporters talk about providing more health care for poor children. Yet in six states, the Bush administration points out, SCHIP spends more on adults than children.”
“The Bushies also argue that the congressional bill isn’t about providing health care for poor kids – as it would expand SCHIP for children of the middle class, with family incomes as high as $62,000 per year – many of whom already receive employer-funded health care. In short, the vetoed bill does not put the neediest kids first.”
“…a third of the children who would sign up with SCHIP if Congress overrides the Bush veto already have coverage through their parents’ employers.”
How We Can Really Help “The Children”
Following are some of the steps our politicians can take that might make a real difference “for the children” they seem to care so much about:
Stop spending us into the poorhouse. The very same children politicians are so eager to provide health care for will soon become the adults who will have to pay the bills that will be incurred to finance the SCHIP program now. This type of legislation is not free. As is so often the case, payment is being deferred in order to fund the program now, with a promise to pay it back later.
Deal with the immigration problem. Our failure to stop the flood of illegal immigrants is already “breaking the bank” because of the benefits many of them are able to receive, and there appears to be no end in sight.
Fix our tax system. “The children” deserve a fair and equitable tax system that will make it possible for them to live, work and plan for their own retirement after they become adults.
Fix our schools, many of which no longer educate “the children” adequately. The failures of our school system are well documented and, in spite of the fact that we spend more money on education that almost any society in the world, our students consistently score among the lowest in essential subjects, such as mathematics and science.
Do something realistic about the drug problem, which is destroying the lives of so many of “the children” our politicians say they want to help.
Change the “entitlement” mentality that has become part of the accepted agenda of too many Americans and is taking us down the wrong path – toward Socialism.
Fix Social Security - or it won’t be around for “the children” by the time they reach retirement age. “Generation Xers in America, by a margin of two-to-one…think they are more likely to encounter a UFO in their lifetime than they are to ever receive a single Social Security check…” (CATO Institute).
Choosing Between Alternatives
In the final analysis, we can’t have everything we want or think we need. No one can. There simply isn’t enough money available to do that – ever. So, what does that leave us? Choices, that’s what. We must choose between alternatives, and that includes the SCHIP program. President Bush asked for a $5 billion bill, Congress gave him a $35 billion program.The SCHIP bill that was passed by Congress is bad legislation, and President Bush was right to veto it.
If our politicians really cared about “the children” they would stop mortgaging their future with irresponsible spending and avoid the temptation to use these programs as a tool to gain political advantage. Unfortunately, that’s probably asking for too much.
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
