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
I was recently asked if I knew how much of the California Lottery’s revenue is actually used for education and what happens to the rest of the money. I didn’t, so I turned to the trusty Google search engine on my computer for the answer. What I found was not at all what I expected, namely that the amount of money that goes to schools is a very small, one might say a tiny percentage of the state’s total education budget.
However, looking at the California Lottery from different perspectives can be misleading. For example, in the 2006 fiscal year 34.6 percent of the Lottery’s revenue was allocated to public education. And, although the dollar amount was a big number, over $1.2 billion, it was only about 1.6 percent of the state’s education budget.
The California Lottery Act (Proposition 37) was sold to the public in 1985 on the premise that a third of the revenue would be used to support education - and, as promised, it has. And, although the Lottery revenue that goes to education accounts for only a small percentage of the state’s total education budget, the dollar amounts are significant. For example, in 2006, the Lottery’s contribution to the state’s education budget, at 34.6% of its total revenue, was allocated as follows: $780 million (65%) was spent on educators’ salaries and benefits; $228 million (19%) was used to buy instructional materials for the classroom, including textbooks, supplies, computers and software, library books and lab equipment; and $192 million (16%) provided support for other programs and services.
In FY 2005-06, in addition to the money that went to the schools, 53.6 percent or $1.7 billion of the Lottery revenue was paid out for the prizes that were awarded to winners, $223 million paid for retailer bonuses and commissions, $90 million was used for operating expenses, and $51 million paid game costs.
The California Lottery website, “Lottery Funds at Work,” notes that FY 2007-08 Lottery revenues generated $132.20 per pupil for the schools “in addition to the $9,488 per pupil or $59 billion provided by California’s general fund.”
The website also states, “Lottery funds don’t just go to K-12 schools; they support students in all areas of public education. Community Colleges, the University of California, the California State University system, Adult Education, Charter Schools and even the schools at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation – Division of Juvenile Justice receive Lottery funds.”
Just how important is this source of income to the schools? At around 1.5 percent of the education budget, it hardly seems like a major factor. Like most people, I suppose, whenever I thought about it, which was rarely, my understanding of the Lottery’s contribution to education was based on a vague recollection that a third of the money goes to the schools. It never occurred to me to see just what percentage of the education budget that might be.
Given that it is such a small percentage, I wonder if the schools could get along without the Lottery’s contribution? It’s interesting to note that almost two-thirds of the money that goes to education is used for salaries and benefits, and I’m curious to know why and who made that decision. Why not more for books and instructional materials? Or for after school activities, such as sports, band, theater arts and other enrichment programs?
Thinking back to the time when the Lottery was put before the voters, I recall that it was strongly opposed by many people on the grounds that it is really a form of regressive taxation on those who are considered “low income,” especially seniors. Some voters opposed the lottery on the basis of religious or moral belief.
Considering that over the years there have been a number of complaints about the Lottery being poorly managed, that it is a form of regressive taxation, and that I don’t agree with the way the money is used by the state’s education establishment, I’m not at all convinced it should be continued.
I also wonder why the state is in the gambling (gaming) business or if it should be? How about horse racing, card clubs and casinos? If the Lottery can generate such large sums for schools, how much money could the government bring in by expanding its role in gambling in the state?
All of which puts me in mind of Mark Twain’s oft quoted observation, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Something about this whole Lottery business strikes me as being not right.
One of Obama’s recurring themes throughout his quest for the presidency of the United States was his admonition to young people to “give back” by pursuing careers in public service or charitable work. In May 2008, he urged Wesleyan graduates to “make us believe again” by dedicating themselves to public service, saying, “We may disagree as Americans on certain issues and positions, but I believe we can be unified in service to a greater good. I intend to make it a cause of my presidency, and I believe with all my heart that this generation is ready and eager and up to the challenge.”
Since becoming President, both he and his wife have continued exhorting young people to “give back.” Michelle Obama, speaking at the University of California, Merced, commencement said, “Remember that you are blessed. Remember that in exchange for those blessings, you must give something back. You must reach back and pull someone up. You must bend down and let someone else stand on your shoulders so that they can see a brighter future.”
Sounds good, right? After all, we do want our young people to grow up with a sense of responsibility to others and the greater good of society, don’t we?
However, economist Walter Williams commented, “In our society, there are people who should give back. These are the thieves and social parasites who live forcibly at the expense of others. They prey on their fellow man. Some do it privately through theft, fraud and robbery. Others use the political mechanism whereby Congress enriches them at the expense of others. If giving back means anything, it should apply to thieves and social parasites, not those who became wealthy by serving us.”
Furthermore, I submit that Obama is not only wrong but that he and Michelle have hardly personally followed the model they so ardently espouse for others, taking advantage of every opportunity to enrich themselves on their way to the top.
For example, Michelle was employed in a public relations position for a large hospital in Chicago, for which she was paid a salary in excess of $300,000 a year. However, when she left after her husband won the presidential election the position was not filled by anyone else, which raises the question of whether the job was ever necessary or simply amounted to financial support for her husband and his political ambitions. That’s hardly what I would consider “giving back.”
I believe that America’s youth should not go to work for the government or charities when they first enter the workforce. Here are some of my reasons:
Armed with a college degree and no experience in the real world, they lack the background and experience to make a significant contribution, other than some entry level position.
Working for the government is not “public service” – it’s a career.
We already have too many people working for government at every level, federal, state, county and municipal. It has gone beyond the point of diminishing return and is breaking the bank.
As with all preceding generations, young people should first gain experience and contribute to society by working and producing the goods and services that support the economy.
Drawing on my personal experience, I devoted about 15 years of my adult life to charitable work, beginning in my late 30s. Having served on about six non-profit boards at various times, including over four years as the president of a major health agency and chairman of a hospital board for another six, I can attest to the value of community service. However, I didn’t become involved until I had completed my education and was working full time in the private sector.
My specialized education and training were assets that could be employed to help the organizations I served, and I “gave back” by “donating” time, effort, energy and expertise to help them.
Over the years, I have known many outstanding business and professional people who did the same. They all “gave back” while working productively at a job or profession or running a business and, I might add, paying taxes and also giving financial support to their particular causes.
I just don’t think non-profit organizations are the right place for young people to launch their working lives. A college education is only the beginning of a young person’s career, not the end. The process continues with on-the-job training and real world experience that never ends. The best time to “give back” is when you have the background, expertise and skills to make a difference.
The media not only reports but often hypes statistics about unemployment and other matters without troubling to put the information into context. For example, a recent unemployment number of over 600,000 who lost their jobs in one month was reported to be the worst in over 40 years. No one seemed to put this into any sort of perspective by comparing it to the increase in population or the size of the labor force since the 1960s. In 1960, total U.S. population was about 189 million, the labor force was around 69 million and the unemployment rate was 5.54 percent. In 2008, the unemployment rate was 5.76 percent but the population had increased over 60 percent to approximately 303 million. This translates to an increase of over five million in the number of unemployed although there was not much increase in the percentage of unemployed. So, without “context” and at least a modicum of analysis, the notion that the unemployment numbers in any given month are the worst in over 40 years, is a meaningless observation.
Obama’s naïve overture to Russia, offering to give up the proposed missile defense shield in Eastern Europe as a tradeoff for their helping to keep Iran from building a nuclear weapon, can only serve to signal his weakness in foreign affairs. He also didn’t help that perception by bowing from the waist to the King of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 Summit in London, which was described as a violation of protocol that was not appropriate for the president of the United States.
TV programs like “The Bachelor” illustrate the juvenile nature of many Americans, who seem to love watching immature people who don’t know one another court and propose marriage in just a few weeks. Does anyone really believe these relationships are real or sincere or can last after the cameras stop rolling?
Joe Armendariz, Executive Director of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association, recently observed: “How much did it cost taxpayers for Das Williams to fly over 4,000 miles (round trip) to meet with Lois Capps? Doesn’t Lois have an office right here in Santa Barbara? And as for him meeting with the other Rep. from “Northern California”, why does an elected official from Southern California need to fly to Washington DC to meet with a Congressman from Northern California? Is California’s congressional delegation (north and south) that weak and ineffective that now we need to spend taxpayer money we don’t have to send part time city council members on junkets to Washington DC so they can lobby our own representatives for their areas share of the government cheese???”
The hypocrisy of our politicians continues to be breathtaking. In what parallel universe can President Obama say that he will not accept any “earmark” expenditures in the federal budget, then sign a bill with some 8,500 earmarks?
Randy Alcorn, writing in the Santa Barbara Independent, commented: “But if (Mike) Brown (Santa Barbara County CEO) is truly ineffective or incompetent, then replace him. His severance pay is relatively modest. Do not, however, dismantle a sound management structure, as some county supervisors are now proposing, in order to undermine one man…With an annual budget of over $750 million, county government is a huge operation. It employs more than 4,000 people, scattered throughout two dozen departments that provide services ranging from public safety and infrastructure, to justice and social welfare. Eventually, all county residents rely on the services of county government…Whether in the public or private sector, organizations that fail to adhere to a coherent chain of command suffer diminished efficiency, lowered morale and disunity of purpose.” Amen to that!
Obama’s budget provides an insight into the goals and objectives of his administration, which are clearly intended to increase the size and power of government. His leadership to date raises the specter of fascism, which is defined by ThirdWorldTraveler.com as “A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life.” Sheldon Richman, editor of The Freeman, describes fascism as government domination of nominally private owners of the means of production. We don’t have to look much beyond the Obama administration’s takeover of the banks, including refusing to accept repayment from those institutions that don’t want or need TARP money, and taking over General Motors, to see where Obama is taking our society. I’m not at all convinced that those who voted for Obama would agree that this is where they want the country to go.
A lot of articles, commentaries and letters to the editor have been appearing in Santa Barbara newspapers about the Jesusita fire, which has dominated the news of late. After reading various observations, criticisms and suggestions about everything from fire fighting policies to how major fires can be prevented in the future and how fires should be fought on the ground, I decided to find out what the facts are.
So, I talked with my friend, Don Oaks, who is a retired chief officer with the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. Don has had 30 years experience fighting brush and forest fires, including having been in charge of many such activities over the years.
Following are some of the facts about fighting major fires that I gleaned from Don:
COMMENT: There is a fundamental failure in the “official” fire fighting philosophy employed in Santa Barbara. They did not seek to extinguish the fire!
FACT: Simply not true. There is no philosophy of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, or any other south coast fire agency, that is other than the containment and control of the fire as quickly as possible.
COMMENT: Fire fighting authorities have an incorrect conceptualization of the way to fight fires here. They seem to take a “let it burn” attitude except as it directly or immediately threatens structures. They, of course, place highest priority on vigorous direct action when lives are threatened.
FACT: The appearance of the so-called “let it burn” attitude stems from the reality that in high winds, such as “Santa Anas,” major brush fires are not put out by direct action. Bombarding these fires with fire retardant or water does not extinguish them. It takes personnel on the ground to extinguish the fire. Retardant and water drops are very valuable but they merely slow the progress of the fire, and take heat out of it, enabling the personnel on the ground to be successful. Direct attack on the ground with hose streams is successful on fires in the early stages, and the Fire Department’s ‘philosophy’ is to do just that.
Their initial attack is aggressive. Many fires are extinguished by this aggressive initial attack every year. You don’t hear about them because they don’t grow to be a Gap or Tea or a Jesusita. But if they are not able to get the fire when it is still small, they must utilize a variety of tactics, including incorporating pre-existing and incident developed fuel breaks, and burning out pockets of vegetation. And here the weather drives the fire beyond control of any city, county or regional fire department. No jurisdiction could possible afford the standing army necessary to stop all such fires. And even with the assembly of 4,000 firefighters, as on the Jesusita, it still takes cooperation from Mother Nature.
Where such active, weather driven fire behaviour occurs, protecting individual structures is generally only possible when adequate steps have been taken by homeowners, such as clearing brush at least 100 feet from the residence, sealing doors and windows, vents and other openings that might allow embers and hot ash to penetrate into the interior.
COMMENT: Because of the potential for hot-burning wildfires in Santa Barbara County to create their own wind and weather conditions, the degree of threat should be changed from hazardous to extremely dangerous and potentially deadly.
FACT: Trust me (Don Oaks), the fire fighters and fire managers view these fires as ‘extremely dangerous and potentially deadly’. Every year firefighters die fighting these kinds of fires. Three were sent to the burn ward from the Jesusita. One is still there. When their position was compromised, something that often happens when you are aggressively attacking a fire, the men moved into a garage as the fire front moved through. Unfortunately, the garage had windows that were not installed to today’s code requirements for wildland-urban interface development. When the fire front hit, the windows failed and the men were burned.
COMMENT: The official approach to fighting wildfires should be changed as follows: No fire on the south slopes of the Santa Ynez Mountains or anywhere within the greater Goleta, Santa Barbara, Montecito or Carpinteria areas should be allowed to burn.
FACT: Unfortunately, “allowing” fires to burn is often not a choice. Fire fighters only “allow” fires to burn in situations where it can’t be avoided. Once brush fires start they tend to take on a life of their own, especially in high winds. And, generally, they can’t be put out by direct assault.
COMMENT: Any burning fire should be extinguished, completely.
FACT: This has been a long-standing policy in fire fighting. The problem is that embers can be sneaky. They often lurk below the surface, only to ignite again when the wind picks up. Procedures for completely snuffing embers are well established – and carefully followed by fire fighters. Unfortunately, the public does not always know or use recommended methods of extinguishing fires, which appears to have been the case with the recent Tea Fire.
COMMENT: Firefighting aircraft should be stationed year round at the Santa Barbara Airport, along with an eight-hour supply of dousing materials with ongoing quick resupply (two hours by truck) backup materials available. This means at least two fixed-wing and several (four-plus) helicopters.
FACT: This may be a worthwhile policy, however, it will clearly run up against cost. Just guessing, but specialized helicopters could conceivably cost upwards of $20 million, in addition to the cost of fixed wing airplanes. Four or more fire fighting helicopters plus two fixed-wing aircraft could add up to over $100 million, which is almost twice as much as the entire County Fire Department budget for the current fiscal year.
Considering that Santa Barbara County has not been able to find the money for the North County jail that has been needed for over 20 years, it seems highly unlikely that this level of funding could be found for fire fighting aircraft. In addition, the cost of keeping six or eight pilots on 24-hour “call” duty could also increase the personnel budget by another $600,000 or $800,000 a year, or more.
Given the fact that the County is currently operating in the red, it’s hard to see where the money would come from. When it comes to public safety, much as no one likes it, budget considerations often determine the choices that are available.
COMMENT: Firefighting aircraft should be local government-controlled, even if owned and operated by the federal government.
FACT: Perhaps, but getting the federal government to co-operate with a local jurisdiction for such a request is highly unlikely.
COMMENT: The equipment based here should be part of a year-round training center for National Guard, state and local aerial firefighting missions.
FACT: The question is: Why would the state establish such a training center in Santa Barbara County, as opposed to some other jurisdiction that may also be subject to fires.
COMMENT: Santa Barbara should be considered a worst-case target area for firefighting training and technology so that it becomes a permanent funding priority for federal, state and local governments.
FACT: How about other areas that are also prone to fires, such as Malibu, which has had a number of major fires over the years, some of which have consumed thousands of acres and destroyed many homes? My guess is that the same argument can be made for other locales in California where they have extensive brush covered land and may also be adjacent to a national forest.
COMMENT: In the urban-suburban high-density population area that is Santa Barbara, Goleta and Carpinteria, we cannot allow the existing limited action, “let it burn itself out” philosophy to continue threatening our community.
FACT: “Let it burn itself out” is not the philosophy of the Fire Departments or fire fighters. Containment is, for the simple reason that major fires are not put out by attacking them head on and attempting to snuff them out. Even streams of water from high pressure hoses will not put out a raging fire that is shooting walls of flames 20 or 30 feet into the air.
COMMENT: While waiting for a fire to burn itself out in an isolated forest may be an acceptable forest “resource management” tool. It is not appropriate for our Santa Barbara locale.
FACT: It’s often not even a matter of “waiting” for a fire to “burn itself out.” If you think back to the Sycamore Canyon fire, the Painted Cave fire or the more recent Tea fire or the Coyote Fire in the mid 1960s, you may recall that entire sections of the community and surrounding areas were overwhelmed by fast moving fires that could not be stopped – not by choice, but by circumstance.
COMMENT: Let’s resolve to fix this problem now!
FACT: Until we learn to control the weather, there is probably no ‘fix’ available. We can, however, improve the likelihood of losing fewer homes in a similar fire event. The Fire Departments “resolved” many years ago to do that. One of the ways to accomplish that is to build safer new homes, modify existing homes, and maintain them according to accepted standards.
Future fires would probably create the same size black spot on the map but many of the houses need not be lost. Homes are not lost because of a giant conspiracy. They are not lost because of an ‘act of god’. They are not lost because of our fire department’s philosophies. They are lost because of physics and chemistry. Homes burn as a result of flying burning embers, direct flame impingement and radiant heat. Those things can be mitigated in most homes by conventional fire protection measures that are not unreasonably expensive and not aesthetically distracting. But it takes awareness and appreciation of the problem, and attention to details. It also takes a mix of homeowners accepting responsibility and government having the ‘political will’ to prioritize support for the effort.
What happens when government massively overspends and either goes into debt or prints money to covers it expenditures? The answer has been known for generations: The ultimate result is inflation. How much and how fast is anyone’s guess, but history is clear about the consequence of increasing the supply of a nation’s currency without appropriate controls and corresponding increases in production. It’s simply a matter of too much money chasing too few goods.
However, what is not discussed much is how rapidly accelerating rates of inflation affect life for those who are forced to deal with it, and the steps that governments generally take in their efforts to control it.
The process begins with the creation of substantial amounts of money, either by borrowing or printing currency without any “backing,” or both. That is, without a corresponding increase in production (productivity) to offset rapidly rising prices, as consumers compete for available goods.
As it continues, the value of savings and investments is eroded, until they eventually become worthless, with the result that retirees and others living on a fixed income quickly descend into poverty.
Argentina experienced chronic inflation from 1949 through the 1980s. Hyperinflation exploded to almost 5,000 percent in 1989, when government expenditures reached 35.6 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and subsequently topped out at an annual rate of over 20,000 percent.
“Living in Argentina in the 1980s” by Dale and Lynette Martin, who were missionaries in southern Argentina from 1988 to 1990, describes life during hyperinflation in graphic detail:
“On my mission, my parents sent me $400 to support me each month. When I first got to Argentina, that money converted into 4,000 austral. By the time I left (two years later), $400 US gave me 1,000,000 austral.”
“The American dollar was worth so much to them because it was a stable currency. The austral was under constant hyper-inflation. The austral decreased in value every single day. When they went to work on Monday and were working for 3 austral an hour, by Friday they were working for half price. It got to the point where the rich did not keep any of their money in their native currency; it was kept in American dollars…The banks that kept the dollars were not even stable. Sometimes when we went to the bank it was closed…When the banks were closed, all the stores were closed too. Argentines did not have any way to store their food, so they usually went shopping every day. Their food supply ran out very quickly…The austral depreciated at a rate of 50% per day for seventeen days. At this rate 1 million austral at the beginning of the inflation cycle would be worth 7.63 austral at the end compared to the first day’s value.”
“The lines of people trying to get into stores were outrageous. They would be way out the doors and into the street. People stopped going to work because the money they earned for the work they did on Monday, at the Monday price, was worth almost nothing by the time Friday rolled around….Workers demanded to be paid, so they could stand in grocery lines with what little money they had and buy all the food they possibly could. Everything in the stores was sold; the shelves were complete empty. The owners had to restock during the night for the next day…In the few hours from one business day to the next, the store owners had less wealth than they did when they sold the products…The stable food was worth more than the fluctuating money. People started breaking into grocery stores and stealing food. Some people even shot at managers, and some of those managers shot back.”
“Good people do crazy things when they cannot get food. Riots broke out everywhere. The people did not plan on rioting, but their emotions got carried away with them and they were pulled into the panic. I head a story of two missionaries who were on a bus. It was calm and quiet. Then, without warning, a huge eruption of noise and violence raked the air. The missionaries felt an impression to duck, and as they did a bullet shattered the glass where their heads had been. Outside, people were tipping cars and busses on their sides. The police came to stop the crowds, and that’s when the fighting really started. It was mayhem everywhere.”
“It’s hard to say what would have happened if an external source of financial stability hadn’t rescued the country. It’s likely whole sections of the population, especially in the cities, would have died.”
If you think it can’t happen here (in the U.S.), think again. The process has already been launched by Obama’s massive, unfunded spending.
Following is a letter I wrote in March, 1999 to the U.S. Senator who was heading the Republican Presidential Task Force at that time. Re-reading this letter after 10 years, I am saddened that nothing has happened to change my perception of the Republican party. If anything, the situation has continued to deteriorate. It also seems more than a little ironic to me that the Senator to whom the letter is addressed is the same U.S. Senator who was involved in the highly publicized 2007 incident in the men’s room at the Minneapolis airport. In any case, here’s my letter:
U.S. Senator Larry Craig
Republican Presidential Task Force
425 Second Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002
Dear Senator Craig:
I am returning your recent Strategy Poll and solicitation without a contribution. I hope you will take the trouble to read the rest of this letter because it may give you some insight into the thinking of some of your Republican “base”.
I am 70 years old and a long-time Republican supporter who is totally dismayed by the Republicans’ failure to take advantage of their hard-won position as the majority political party in this country. You act more like you lost the election in ’94. So much so that I am about to change my registration to an “Independent.” For what it’s worth, I am not alone. I belong to a group of about 40 senior citizens that meets weekly. Most of them are strong conservatives, so it may surprise you to learn that a number of them are also starting to voice the same intention.
We are sick and tired of watching our party being mismanaged to the point that the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats are almost indistinguishable. Republicans talk a lot about limited government, but they continue to aid and abet the liberals in increasing its size and cost. The Republican platform calls for reducing taxes, but the representatives of our party keep voting for higher taxes or “targeted” tax reductions that only serve to make an already overly complex tax system more complicated and which generally do not result in any true savings. As a businessman and executive who is also a retired Certified Public Accountant, I am outraged that I have not been able to do my own tax returns for a number of years.
The Republicans have let Clinton and the Democrats gut the military to the point that it is questionable whether or not we will be able to continue to adequately defend ourselves. The Democrats have been permitted to usurp many of our conservative positions, and we continuously fail to respond aggressively to their lies and distortions about our values and intentions. Are the Republicans ever going to get the courage to stand up and fight for the things that most of the people who live in “fly-over country” value?
We have created a political class that no longer thinks about anything but getting re-elected and increasing their compensation from the public trough. When is our party going to stop talking about standing on principle and actually do it????
Forgive me if I seem bitter or cynical. It has taken me a long time to get this way, and it has been a very painful and frustrating process. This letter is only the tip of the iceberg of the depth of my feelings.
Many members of my family have served and sacrificed for this country. My father fought and was
seriously wounded in France during WW I, my brother spent four years in the Navy during WW II and lived through eleven major sea battles, I served in the Army in Korea and many of my relatives have similar records of military service. Sadly, I now find myself nearing the end of my years and losing hope for the future generations of Americans. I have six grandchildren, and I am beginning to despair of their future.
Finally, I would like to point out that your letter is downright patronizing. I find it astounding that anyone would believe many of the statements that are made in your appeal for support. Some of them simply insult the intelligence of the reader: “YOU are on my TOP PRIORITY list of people to recruit as Task Force members,” is but one example. Who’s kidding whom?
I could say much more, but if you have read this far, you have probably heard enough. The bottom line is that neither the Republican party nor any of its candidates can expect to receive any financial support from me unless and until some major changes are made in their actions. I am no longer interested in the things Republicans say, only in what they do.
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
