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
Generally, I am a believer in the timeless adage that advice is only worth what you pay for it - but, nevertheless, I feel compelled to give some free advice to Sarah Palin. As one of her enthusiastic supporters, I must admit that I have become somewhat concerned about her recent performance in responding to some of the media’s questions.
As we head into the Vice Presidential debate, there are some important points the McCain campaign seems to be missing, which I believe Sarah should bring up whenever her detractors raise the following issues:
First, Sarah’s lack of experience in foreign affairs matters as a governor: Obama’s supporters repeatedly try to make the point that she is not qualified to be just “a heartbeat away from the presidency” for this reason. Two responses to this occur to me:
(1) If being a governor who has not had any foreign relations experience means she is not qualified to be the Vice-President, how about the following governors, who also did not have foreign relations experience when they became president of the United States: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush - three Republicans and three Democrats? I’m sure there are many more, but these are the first who immediately come to mind.
(2) Barack Obama may have some foreign relations experience but, if so, it is not much more than Sarah Palin’s. As a matter of fact, Obama selected Joe Biden as his running-mate specifically because of his own (Obama’s) lack of qualifications in this area. He is reported to have a staff of three hundred specialists to provide him with answers and strategy in foreign relations matters, and I believe Sarah should constantly contrast this with John McCain’s foreign policy experience.
Given that Sarah’s experience in the foreign relations arena may not be a match for Joe Biden’s, she should consider the following: Senator Biden is noted for his inability to keep from putting his foot in his mouth. He has a reputation for making frequent gaffes, and his record is replete with them. Three recent examples illustrate the point:
(1) Asking a man in a wheelchair to stand and be recognized by the crowd at one of his stump speeches. When Senator Biden realized what he had done, he tried to recover by apologizing from the podium, but his embarrassment was palpable.
(2) Publicly admitting that Hillary is better qualified to be vice-president than he is.
(3) “Speaking about the role of the White House in a financial crisis,” Biden recently told Katie Couric, “When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the princes of greed…He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.’” I don’t know any adult who is not aware that FDR was not president of the United States in 1929 (he first took office in 1933) and that there was no public television in 1929. Do you?
A little research will undoubtedly turn up a long list of Senator Biden’s misstatements and exaggerations.
Here’s the point: Sarah should repeatedly stress that having Joe Biden as vice president, a “heartbeat away from the presidency,” and representing the United States in foreign relations matters, would be too risky.
Given his predilection for embarrassing gaffes and making statements that are exaggerations or just plain untrue, how can he be trusted to deal with leaders of other nations? Can you imagine what would happen if he were to make improper or incorrect statements about another country or their culture at a time when he might be representing the United States in sensitive discussions or negotiations?
Sarah might say something like, “I don’t know about you, but I don’t think our nation can risk having Joe Biden in office either as vice president or as president, if something should happen to a president Obama,” illustrating the point with various examples of his bumbling.
Finally, I believe Sarah should go out of her way to puncture Biden’s ego at every turn. He is noted for his short fuse and is very likely to respond with open aggression and arrogance.
That’s my advice to Sarah Palin. It may well be worth what she is paying for it – nothing. On the other hand, it might help score some important points in her defense against the continuous attacks by the Obama camp and the media.
I’m no longer surprised by the fact that politicians and bureaucrats generally try to hide many of their actions from public view, especially those that may be controversial. In spite of the various “sunshine” laws that are passed to combat this tendency, it’s a constant battle to make government transparent.
However, what does surprise me is the seemingly never-ending efforts of politicians to pass legislation without public awareness and debate that will impact literally millions of people. A good example is the attempt last year to slip immigration bills through Congress that would have conferred legal status on an estimated twelve or thirteen million illegal aliens. It was obvious that the overwhelming majority of the American people were opposed to it, yet many of those in Congress kept attempting to get it approved anyway. Just one more example of the attitude that many politicians have that they know best. The effort was finally stopped, at least for the present, by the overwhelming opposition of the American people.
Once again, we are faced with another stealth attempt to implement a plan that involves far reaching legislation that will surely affect every American. Of course, those who support it believe it is a good thing for the country, while many of those who have become aware of this plan find it highly questionable at best and one that could eventually cause the loss of our sovereignty. It is generally referred to as the NAFTA Superhighway.
In a nutshell, it is a plan to build a highway from Mexico to Canada. And what a highway it is. It will be ten or twelve lanes wide (a distance of several football fields), and stretch from Laredo, Texas, to Texarkana (on the border of Texas and Arkansas), and continuing north to Canada. The cost is estimated to be $183 billion over fifty years. The money for this project is not yet committed.
Jerome R. Corsi, reporting in Human Events.com on June 18, 2008, noted: “The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the hear of America.” He also notes that the first section of this highway will be ready to begin construction, that the U.S. Department of Commerce has an office that is working with the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to develop regulations for the operation of the highway.
The purpose of this massive undertaking is said to be to speed the delivery of goods coming from Mexico. Ron Paul, a Republican Congressman from Texas, contends that millions of acres of private property will be subject to eminent domain,” and that “…the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA…” He also points out that a project of this scope will “…require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses will be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.”
The Congressman believes that “The real issue is national sovereignty” and that “The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – completed with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union.”
Joseph Farah reported in World Net Daily that there seems to be no question about plans to build this superhighway. It is well-known to the Bush administration, including the Secretary of Transportation, and various members of Congress, so it is what might be termed an “open secret.” But we have seen very little reporting about the project and the public seems to be almost completely unaware of it.
The problem is that the Superhighway raises so many questions about such important issues as national security, sovereignty, cost and societal impacts, such as potentially displacing millions of people and businesses, that it cries out for open discussion and vetting. The process is often messy, but it invariably produces refinements, information and ideas that often improve large undertakings, in addition to gaining support by creating public awareness.
We saw the consequences of excessive secrecy in Hillary Clinton’s attempt to develop a health care plan during her husband’s first administration. When the information was finally exposed, the failings of a very bad plan were exposed and the entire effort collapsed.
The Superhighway is just another in a long line of efforts by politicians to keep the public they are supposed to be representing from knowing what they are up to. It should be exposed and vetted in a national debate.
Recent media coverage has been filled with stories about the meltdown of America’s lending institutions, which have frequently focused on interest rates, loan fees and other charges that have been extracted from borrowers.
However, another lending industry, “payday” lenders, charges interest and fees that are even higher than those of so-called “loan sharks,” whose rates are said to be as much as 250% per annum. Loan sharking is a felony in California.
At what point does the interest rate on a loan become excessive? Is it 10% per annum? 20%? 30%? 50%? 100%? Just how high is up?
Usury is the legal term for excessive interest, specifically the amount of interest in excess of the legal rate. The concept dates back to around 325 B.C., when the First Council of Nicaca “forbade clergy from engaging in usury.” (Wikipedia.org)
Most states regulate interest rates, which vary widely around the country. In California, “…for loans that are made primarily for personal, family or household purposes,” usury laws limit interest rates charged by individuals who are not licensed by the state, such as banks, mortgage lenders and real estate brokers, to 10% per annum. (“Consumers Usury,” www.ag.ca.gov).
California’s legal interest rate for loans that are made for purposes other than personal, family or household purposes is the “higher of 10% or 5% over the amount charged by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or advances to member banks.” However, usury laws do not apply to loans that are secured by real estate, if they are made by real estate brokers. Legal interest rates are also higher for most lending institutions, that is, banks, credit unions, finance companies and pawnbrokers, and they do not apply at all to retail installment contracts (charge accounts). There’s more, but the foregoing should serve to illustrate the complexities of lending in general.
Payday loans are undoubtedly the most egregious of all, charging annual interest rates that range upwards of 700% or 800%, or higher. If you are not familiar with this type of lending, here’s how it works: The borrower simply goes to the lenders place of business, writes a personal check for the amount they wish to borrow plus the finance charge and are given the cash they need. Loans generally range from $100 to $1,000, and the term of the loan is usually about two weeks, for which the finance change is $15 to $30 per $100 borrowed. This translates to annual interest rates between 390% and 780%, sometimes higher for shorter-term loans. And, with late fees, penalties and collection costs, rates on those loans that default can be as high as 2,000% to 3,000%. (“Payday Loan Consumer Information,” www.paydayloaninfo.org/facts.cfm)
The only requirements are that the borrower has “an open bank account in relatively good standing, a steady source of income, and identification. Lenders do not conduct a full credit check…” (www.paydayloaninfo.org)
By any standard, payday lending is big business. PayDay Loan Consumer Information reports that (in 2006) there were “about 25,000 payday loan outlets in the United States and annual loan volume of at least $28 billions, with almost $5 billion in loan fees paid by consumers. Industry analysts estimate annual loan volume of more than $40 billion, with over $6 billion in loan fees paid by consumers.”
You may wonder who would knowingly borrow on such unfavorable terms. The obvious answer is anyone who lives from paycheck to paycheck and has no other source for a short-term loan. Unfortunately, this includes the elderly and disabled (who can always count on receiving their Social Security checks every thirty days) and military personnel, who may become enmeshed in successively rolling over loans in an effort to just get by to the next pay date.
To get a sense of how pervasive the payday lending industry has become, a study by www.csun.ed compared the number of payday lenders with the number of MacDonald’s restaurants in the 50 states. Not surprisingly, California led, with 1,286 more payday lenders than MacDonald’s stores. Tennessee was second, with 1,059 more payday lenders than MacDonald’s outlets. Only nine states had no payday lenders.
In 2006, “The nonprofit Center for Responsible Lending, based in North Carolina, found that the average person borrowing $325 ends up paying $800.” (www.pliwatch.org/news), and Brendan I. Koerner, writing in www.motherjones.com (“Preying on Payday”), noted that interest rates on payday loans average nearly 500% and “one study in Indiana found that more than 75 percent of payday borrowers rolled over at least once, and some rolled over dozens of times…” and can “end up spending hundreds, even thousands, without ever paying down the principal.”
Change is the mantra of the presidential candidates in this election year, but the question is, change from what to what? Winston Churchill is credited with saying, “There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction,” which suggests that the problem facing the American electorate is not whether there will be change, but just what is the “right direction.”
Buddha said, “Everything changes, nothing remains without change.” Another famous saying about change is: “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” (Author unknown)
So, what are we to take from all this?
Life is about change. Nothing ever stays the same. The elderly, which certainly includes me, generally want things to stay the same, as they remember them or think they remember them, while the young are all about change. That’s what they do, as they grow and mature. They easily initiate and/or adapt to the things that are new in their lives, from technology to the latest in fashion and style, music, art, etc.
Barack Obama’s campaign slogan is, “Change we can believe in.” An example of the Senator’s policy position about health care, taken from his campaign website reads:
I…believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can’t take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right…We now face an opportunity - and an obligation - to turn the page on the failed politics of yesterday’s health care debates. It’s time to bring together businesses, the medical community, and members of both parties around a comprehensive solution to this crisis, and it’s time to let the drug and insurance industries know that while they’ll get a seat at the table, they don’t get to buy every chair. - Barack Obama, Speech in Iowa City, IA, 5/27/07
Sounds good, doesn’t it? But, looking at it from Winston Churchill’s perspective, to what end? “A comprehensive solution” implies more government intrusion into the marketplace at great cost and/or less freedom of choice than we currently have, whichever candidate becomes President.
Most people recognize that the government doesn’t run much of anything very well, notwithstanding the fact that they often elect candidates who try to do just that. A good example is the Senate restaurant service, which has been losing money for years – two million dollars in just the last year - so the Senate Oversight Committee, headed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the legislators recently approved privatizing the food service.
So, if the government (read Congress) can’t even successfully operate their own restaurant services when they have a captive market, what makes anyone think they can run something as large and complex as the nation’s health or education systems or provide the energy Americans need without increasing costs and causing significant impacts on our freedom of choice?
An interesting side note is the fact that, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, about half the 100 members of the Senate are millionaires and the average net worth of those in that illustrious body is $8.9 million. “By contrast, less than 1% of the U.S. population has a net worth of $1 million or more.” (The Agonist, November 24, 2006). So, here we have a group who are financially well off and can easily afford to pay market rate for their meals, taking advantage of their status to use taxpayer money to give themselves a break on the cost of their food service.
These are the same people who want us to believe that the government (they) can run the health care system for all Americans, solve the energy crisis, bring down the price of gas and food, resolve the complexities of financing the Social Security system and Medicare, in spite of the fact that they have actively participated in causing the problems in the first place.
In the final analysis, “the more things change, the more they stay the same” is still true. Notwithstanding all the hype about “change” in this year’s presidential race, I don’t see much of anything that’s different about the “change” that either candidate is promising. They may talk about “change,” but it will be business as usual when the dust settles after the election.
I would submit that the “change” America really needs is for our politicians and bureaucrats to get out of the way and let the people solve their own problems themselves, their way. Now that would be change I could believe in.
Contemplating the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 Islamofascist attack on America has generated a torrent of thoughts and reactions in my mind. And, I can’t help wondering why our nation is so divided about the War on Terrorism?
I was in high school during WWII, and I don’t remember any major disagreements between Americans about the war, whether we should be fighting it at all, or if we brought the Pearl Harbor attack on ourselves, or whether we should take the fight to the Japanese.
FDR famously memorialized December 7, 1941 as “a date which will live in infamy”. There was no hesitation about what our response should be, nor do I remember any equivocation during the conduct of the war, which did not end until after we dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Everyone understood that we were in a fight for our very existence. A fight we did not start and for which we were not prepared, but surely one we had to finish, or we would have ceased to exist as a nation. It was a simple proposition: They win, we lose, live or die. That’s the nature of wars. You can’t fight wars in a half-hearted or politically correct way. For all the talk about the Geneva Convention, they are not regulated by some sort of Marquis of Queensbury rules, and everyone understood that.
So, what’s different now, 60 plus years later?
For starters, our politics: We are clearly divided over whether the War on Terror is a real war or some sort of regional conflict or if, in fact, it’s a war at all, as opposed to criminal activity that more properly falls within the purview of the justice system.
A clear understanding of who the enemy is: In past wars, everyone knew who the enemy was. That was still true during the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union and communism in general. But today, not everyone seems to fully appreciate or agree that we are fighting an enemy that transcends national boundaries, whose motivation is based on their religious beliefs.
Letting the military run the war: During WWII, we let our military make the essential decisions about how the war should be fought. MacArthur was given a free hand to wage the fight in the Pacific. And, it was pretty much the same for Eisenhower in Europe. We lost Vietnam because our political leaders interfered with the conduct of the war, with disastrous consequences.
Acceptance of the nature of war: Recognizing that war is brutal, that no quarter is given and that it cannot be conducted in a politically correct way. During WWII, Americans did not question the necessity of fighting with no holds barred. The objective in past wars has always been to bring the enemy to their knees, striking against centers of production and destroying their ability to produce weapons. That invariably caused significant civilian casualties. As terrible as that may have been, it was generally accepted as necessary. London and many Russian cities were almost totally destroyed by the Germans, and many German cities were almost bombed out of existence by the Allies.
Agreement on the meaning of the term, “giving aid and comfort to the enemy:” Supporting our enemies during times of war has always been considered treasonous. We went astray during the Vietnam War, as exemplified by the Chicago Seven and the likes of Jane Fonda. But, during WWII there was no doubt what the term meant. Today, there don’t seem to be any limitations on the behavior of American citizens or the media, including releasing classified information to the public.
Wars are messy: For all the strategic and tactical planning that goes on during wars, the fact is that both sides are constantly maneuvering to gain the advantage, and their moves are constantly changing. Dwight Eisenhower, the Commander of Allied Forces in Europe said, “In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”
Recognizing that wars often last for many years: Many Americans are already showing signs of fatigue in the process of what promises to be a fight that could last for a generation. We’ve been in Iraq for five years and people have grown weary of it. But, the Brits didn’t pull their troops out of Northern Ireland for almost 40 years of fighting with Irish terrorists. Many Americans appear to have the mistaken impression that wars are waged in the time span of a T.V. show or a movie, but the reality is that they may last for decades.
America has not been placed on a “war-time” footing: In general, we don’t seem to be deprived of anything because we are at war. For many Americans, there has been little or no direct consequence affecting their personal lifestyles, careers, education or other aspect of their lives: no significant shortages, no rationing, no military draft. Indirectly, of course, everyone has been affected by massive government spending to finance the effort. And, although our individual freedoms have been curtailed somewhat by the Patriot Act, it doesn’t appear to be unreasonably limiting them. There are those, of course, such as the ACLU, who argue otherwise, but I don’t believe it’s possible for us to protect ourselves adequately without also limiting our rights to some degree. Unlimited freedoms are simply not possible in wartime.
As we approached the 6th Anniversary of 9/11, Cal Thomas wrote in Townhall.com
“Why didn’t we see 9/11 coming” was a question frequently asked in the aftermath of that terrorist attack. And the answer should be, because we forgot the attacks preceding that one, or brushed them off as inconsequential aberrations so we could get back to watching the stock market go up and obsess about Bill Clinton’s pants coming down. By not remembering those earlier attacks, the reasons behind them and the intentions of the terrorists and those who trained and incited them, we put ourselves in further jeopardy… Not to remember 9/11, is to forget what brought it about. That can lead to a lowering of our guard and a false sense of security…
That’s what concerns me as I contemplate another anniversary of 9/11, that the attack has not become a battle cry, like “Remember the Alamo,” exhorting Americans to never forget that we are at war, that we must not only remain vigilant but that we must respond directly to the threat of Islamofacists everywhere, at home and abroad, or we risk becoming just another footnote to history.
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
