Hey, conservative governor Arnold, what can you do about this injustice going on in your state?  The US marines have been asked to leave their recruitment offices in Berkeley, while the Code Pink ladies are provided with free parking spaces as they protest the marines.  The peace ladies gone wild group are directing the city attorney to explore issues of sexual discrimination on the part of the marines.   More . . .  “I believe in the Code Pink cause. The Marines don’t belong here, they shouldn’t have come here, and they should leave,” said Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates after votes were cast.   Many of the towns small businesses and residents are not happy with the Pink ladies, but it doesn’t matter in some fascist California towns.

Meanwhile just down the road in Oakland, 200 soldiers returning from Iraq were denied access to the airport terminals in Oakland during a layover on the way to Hawaii.  More . . .    “Airport officials were concerned that the flight’s ground staff could not provide “an adequate level of escort and control of such a large group of military personnel in or around the terminal area,” the inspector’s report said.”    What an insult to these brave men and women, for those officials to be thinking that the soldiers could not handled themselves in the terminal, but instead needed to be escorted.  What they were afraid of was an outbreak of applause and standing ovations to the soldiers as they made their way through the terminal, and that would not set well with their anti-American agendas.

And now, just down the road a piece from Oakland, Clinton and Obama are entertaining the Hollywood bunch at the Kodak theater with what they call a “debate.”   More . . .

I’m thinking that if California was returned to Mexico, the 49 states would be better off.

Why not? 

“No one should have to choose between putting food on the table or staying warm,” said Shane Sweet at the New England Fuel Institute.   More . . .  So, these industry groups, the New England Fuel Institute and the Petroleum Marketer’s Association, want to help these consumers by requesting that the government help pay for the heating costs of low income people. 

Do you really think that they are that interested in helping the poor?   Why now?  My guess is that if the government steps in, then people will not be motivated to conserve on their energy usage to reduce the high cost of winter time heating for comfort.  Even much of the middle class use conserving measures like lowering the thermostat a few degrees, grabbing a blanket, or even stoking up the fireplace to cut those costs down a bit, and that is not considered the best for the heating oil business.  Industry knows that people will just normally do things like that, so the next best is to use their clout, a lobbyist throwing some donations around, and they all spin their concern for the poor.  The media buys into it as it sounds so “people caring for people,” so compassionate.   The bottom line is the bottom line.

When the government pays, there is no need to conserve, so get the boys on the hill to write laws so that people do not have to conserve.

Everybody wins.  Right?

Hey, here’s a real good one by a former President, who could be the first ever first man in the White House.

“In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” 

More . . .

Bill Clinton came up with that duzzie while stumping for his beloved wife in Denver on the 30th.

But that’s the plan of the global climate change bunch of demagogues, because you can’t have it both ways, an industrialized world and an atmosphere thoroughly clean of all pollutants.  Any middle ground, any kind of sensible environmental plans get thrown to the bin of “it’s not enough.”   A catastrophe is just around the corner. 

Wow, just imagine what he could do as the first man. 

Leave it to one of those hasty scripts for a law that would allow illegal immigrants to cash in on the new stimulus package rebates.  Your congress at work.  It’s not their money, so what’s the big deal?  The zeal of getting something going quickly to stimulate the economy that they think needs an outside boost that only Washington could do, leaves a loophole in the law that would have sent the rebate checks out to millions of people here illegally.  It sure is a strange way for Congress to work doing their job of looking after Americans interests.

But there is hope that the script can be changed in time.

But late Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee was scrambling to fix the problem _ contained in the House bill _ by only allowing taxpayers using legitimate Social Security numbers to receive rebates.

The text of the House passed bill contains language making “non resident aliens” _ illegal immigrants _ ineligible for the tax rebates. But every year, hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants use individual taxpayer identification numbers, known as ITINs, to file income tax returns with the IRS. These ID numbers are used instead of Social Security numbers. There are no exact statistics for how many illegal immigrants file tax returns, but this New York Times story from last year details the significant increase in use of ITINs.  This story also lays out the issue.   Lou Dobbs Alert.

All of this snafu brings up another element of how our government works at making further messes.  

“Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative organization, says the problem is not with the economic stimulus bill but with the lack of coordination between the IRS and immigration enforcement agencies.

“If the IRS was cooperating with Social Security or DHS [Homeland Security] … they would know who the illegal immigrants are who file tax returns,” Krikorian said.”

And to hear that a big chunk of the American people think it would be a good idea to turn their health care over to the whims of Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats for regulation, oversight, and coordination.  Ha.  Truly amazing. 

See also Michelle Malkin:  Stimulating tax rebates for illegal aliens

As I see It.

For the like of me, I cannot figure the republican fascination with John McCain in those states that have had their primary.  Now, that McCain  has narrowly won Florida, it further puzzles the daylights out of me.  Why are conservatives supporting this guy?   Here is a Senator who has sided with a democrat, the most liberal of them all, Ted Kennedy, in sponsoring that amnesty bill granting illegal immigrants all sorts of special rights for breaking our laws of entry.  Another snazoo of McCain was that sponsorship with Feinstein, one of California’s finest progressive liberals, of the campaign finance reform package that went too far in limiting free speech before elections.  He is and he isn’t a supporter of the 2nd amendment.  But most of all, John lost his way big time on the issue of immigration reform and environmental radicalism.

What are conservatives thinking?  Is it only that they consider him to have the best chance of beating Hillary the anointed?   Is it because these republican think that democrats would cross the line for McCain to get away from Hillary?  Democrats are more loyal to the party because of the unwritten rule of liberals: “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

Now McCain does have many admirable bed rock conservative qualities, however, it’s always those areas of weakness that comes back and grabs the you know what, off your you know what.  And then it really hurts, as we have seen of George W. Bush hurting conservative principles by expanding the size of government beyond what we would have expected to be done by democrats.

Here are my qualms about McCain.  The stuff that can bite.

McCain is part of the establishment Senator old timers who have been around far too long enough, they know the ropes, all of the twisted yarns, all of the knots, and all of the lobbyists could have the keys to his office.   John is soft on environmental issues, voting against drilling in Anwar, he is for the expansion of alternative fuels like ethanol research, which he was against in ‘99, but now it’s doable when gobs of money are thrown into the research, and Americans would be asked to sacrifice their love of safety first larger more comfortable vehicles, and pay lots more for corn and sugar based food products. 

He is for putting pressure on oil companies to reinvest profits in nuclear power (which is like pressuring McDonalds to invest profits in Kentucky Fried Chicken), and McCain also wants to elevate the EPA into a cabinet level bureaucracy sitting alongside the Dept. of Defense.

He’s a global warming cheerleader wanting to regulate, by the strong arm hand of government, industrial emissions to combat the catastrophic human caused climate changes, and he supports that cap and trade carbon scam that the Gores can envision extending it into every family home.  Nascar races could be shut down for not meeting pollution standards, and for protecting the health of the children in the stands, as the favored establishment jet sets it’s way to Bali for more closed door scheming.

If John cannot see through that simple farce, how can I trust him to have open eyes when it comes to complicated issues like foreign trade and progressive give aways to corrupt governments that won’t help their own people, and where to draw the line between defensive vs. offensive maneuvers with terrorist nations.

Can John be trusted to hold America first against all enemies, those abroad and those within, in spite of what his friends on the left whisper to him, to support the predominant politically correct, peace at any cost, non-offensiveness voices, teaching such stuff by re-writing American history for our public school children?  

Can you trust McCain to hold the runaway growth of the federal government to a zero?   If the NY Times thinks John is the man to take the party away from the old small angry fringe of conservatives, then John is just too chummy with the packaged Hillary and Bill. 

McCain is a live dud, close to senior moments galore, but he could be the republican nominee, the way the results of these first round of primaries are heading.  Principles do matter.  Super Tuesday is next week and that should tell us if the elected Rino conservatives in Washington have infiltrated the party base. 

The time is not yet lost to vote against McCain.

As I See It.

John is passed the age of retirement and should find more happiness with Reid, Murtha and Kennedy rocking away in Martha’s vineyard.

 Read the Michelle Malkin blog about McCain: “No easy peace.“ 

Read Joseph Farah: “Why listen to me.“

Read the Patriot Post profile of John McCain.

And Dick Morris looks at McCain from the aspect of beating Hillary.

“McCain is following Richard Nixon’s path.“  by Ernest Istook.

A new term has been formulated for children who are getting way too much TV, video games, text messaging, Internet browsing and just plain old couching it inside the house; it’s called “nature deficit disorder.”  I agree the current crop of kids are spending too much time using keyboards, and joy sticks of video games rather than forming mud pies, building caves with discarded lumber and the such imaginative play.  

This inside job is also credited as the main reason for the abundance of kids who are obese.  

What happened to the good ole days of yesterdays generation when the kids were told: “Go out and play.”  “Turn off that TV and get out of here till dinner time.” 

So what has caused this transformation of children not being allowed to be children?  Fear.  Stranger fear.  Fear that down the block some sexual predator will take advantage.  Fear that some nutcase will kidnap the lonely child on the way home from the playground.  Fear of drunker drivers.  Fear of all strangers, and that dreaded bogeyman lurking in alleys, under rocks and behind trees.   Fear is being transmitted 24/7 via the news, the papers, the neighbors, the police and well intentioned grandmas 1000 miles away.  The result of keeping the kids inside and under very close tabs on where they are every minute, and under supervision every minute, is a lack of physical activity, which has lead to the obesity epidemic.  The kids are out of touch.

That’s my simple version, which scientists and social psychologists would say is too simple.  It’s more complicated than that. 

One antidote to the fear of “stranger danger” is to start thinking in terms of comparative risk. Yes, there are hazards outside the home. But, in most cases, they pale in comparison to those of raising young people under what amounts to protective house arrest. Kids growing up indoors may suffer fewer broken bones and skinned knees, but pediatricians now report an increase in children with repetitive stress injuries, which can last for decades. Too many limits on outdoor play may also put children at risk of diabetes: A third of U.S. children and teens–25 million kids–are either overweight or nearly so. That’s the highest number ever recorded, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.  Sierra Club

So a couple of new terms are invented, which may lead to a government program or two.  Or, if enough interest is shown, perhaps a qualifying disability, which demands action to help and remedy the problem by the government.

Nature deficit disorder: “It’s the cumulative effect of withdrawing nature from children’s experiences, but not just individual children. Families too can show the symptoms — increased feelings of stress, trouble paying attention, feelings of not being rooted in the world. So can communities, so can whole cities. Really, what I’m talking about is a disorder of society — and children are victimized by it.”   It’s been coined by the author of the book “Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder.“  

He was asked why did he apply a disorder label to this phenomenon.

“Because I do think it is a disorder, just one of society. I am very careful in the book not to give the suggestion that this is some kind of clinical diagnosis. Maybe someday it will be, but until the scientists come up with a better name, that’s the one I’m using.” Link to more . . .

So now the pendulum is swinging back to the emphasis for children to get back outside, and to make it more acceptably acceptable, a new twist has been added: let’s all re-connect with nature, and a new term is invented: Ecophobia, which is a debilitating fear for the future of the planet.  Stranger danger fear coupled with polar bears loosing ice fear.

The city government of Seattle is doing something, through their very own parks department, they are establishing the Seward Park Audubon Center in Southeast Seattle for schoolchildren and their families.  “At the Seward Park center, kids will study matters related to the outdoors, but they’ll also make their own discoveries. They will walk under tall firs and watch the resident eagles, and learn about themselves through the full use of their senses. Eventually, the center will serve nearly 60,000 people a year with more than 800 programs.”   More here to read . . .

A zoo full of birds, but still a zoo.  So this is what is meant by getting kids re-connected to nature, get the kids to a zoo.  And they call it  “What a rare opportunity to plant the seeds of an alternative future and to strengthen child development.”  Parents, take your kids to see the birds. 

How long have every major and minor city across the land had thousands of acres set aside for zoos, for families to come and walk the paths together and hoot and whistle at the strange creatures locked up inside the bars, stopping at the snack bars along the way.  But now we’ve got a new dimension to the need for more public access nature centers, supervised 24/7 naturally, it’s called No Child Left Inside.

Where is all of this back to nature (supervised of course) heading?  It has to be paid for, by someone, either by entrance fees, and/or direct taxation of the general populace, right?  Building a path through the woods to grandmas house of birds is not cheap.

A lawmaker in New Mexico wants to put a special tax on TV’s and video games to fund the cost of programs to educate parents and kids to get out of the house and into nature in order to fight obesity etc.  he calls his bill “Leave no Child Inside.”   A bit more  “The goals of the bill are to improve the academic performances of our kids, to promote a more healthy lifestyle and to provide our children with outdoor learning experiences, using our state parks and public lands as classrooms.” 

Again, I call this supervised playing at play.  An adult must be in attendance at all times watching and waiting for children not to get hurt, so they do not get their pants sued off by a mother whose little Johnny bruised his knee jumping off a swing to impress the new little girl he just made eyeball contact with, while the parents of the girl were on a bench nearby chatting with a Starbucks latte.  It was their fault.

And we still end up with nature deficit disorder because kids will still not be connecting with nature, but with a supervised planned activity called outdoor school with teachers, administrators and lawyers.  The obese will continue to be obese, and the kids will still be watching TV, playing video games, unless . . . unless parents take matters into their own hands and say “turn off that game/ TV and go out and play until dinner time.”

As I See It Now.

You will not hear these questions being asked of the candidates from our wonderful peaceful, loving, politically correct, liberal, progressive media as they endlessly interview the candidates for sound bites, scandalous hearsay, and set up polls for divisiveness.  But, do you not think that Americans need to know exactly what each of the candidates and their respective party intend to do, or would recommend be done to thwart off this continual threat to America by Islamic jihadists?   We want to know?  

Robert Spencer has those questions that should be presented and answered during one of the upcoming debates(?).  

1. What would you do to deal with the national security aspect of immigration? With plans afoot to bring large groups of Iraqis, including Iraqi Muslims, into the United States, what kind of screening will you implement to ensure that we are not importing jihad terrorists into the country? Will you reevaluate immigration levels from Muslim countries based on recognition of the fact that there is no reliable way to distinguish a peaceful Muslim from a jihadist sympathizer or potential jihadist?

2. Forty percent of the foreign jihadists fighting against American troops in Iraq come from a putative ally of the United States, Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is also one of the world’s leading bankrollers of terror. A Treasury Department official who tracks terror financing, Stuart Levey, recently remarked: “If I could somehow snap my fingers and cut off the funding from one country, it would be Saudi Arabia.” What will you do as President to work toward ending the absurd situation we find ourselves in today, of financing by means of oil revenue our own destruction by means of jihad terrorism? What steps would you take to put our relationship with Saudi Arabia on a more realistic footing than it is on today?

3. Some members of Congress are now considering opening hearings on the firing of the Pentagon’s sole expert on Islamic law, Major Stephen Coughlin. Apparently, a top aide to Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Hesham Islam, took exception to what Coughlin was telling Pentagon brass about the elements of Islam that jihadists use to recruit terrorists and justify acts of violence, and got Coughlin canned.

Of course, we cannot defeat an enemy we do not understand, and haven’t studied. Moreover, there are also serious questions about England’s aide: terrorism expert Stephen Emerson has called Hesham Islam “an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who has brought in groups to the Pentagon who have been unindicted co-conspirators.”

If that is true, it raises serious questions about the extent of jihadist infiltration within the highest levels of our defense apparatus.

If you are elected President, what will you do to root out possible Muslim Brotherhood operatives and other jihadist sympathizers from sensitive government positions? What kind of screening will you institute for Muslim military and intelligence officials in order to try to ensure their loyalty to the United States and their rejection of the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism? And specifically, what will you do about Hesham Islam and Stephen Coughlin?

4. In the last week, Spanish officials thwarted a jihad attack on the transit system in Barcelona, arresting ten suspects. It has come to light that these terrorists planned their attacks at meetings inside a Barcelona mosque, where bombmaking materials were discovered. It also came to light last week that jihadists were recruiting for terrorist attacks in mosques in Montreal before 9/11.

These revelations follow a large number of other incidents in which jihadists used mosques to plot terrorist attacks and to recruit. As President, would you favor the monitoring of mosques in the United States in order to ensure that that kind of thing is not happening here? What other steps would you take? Would you call upon the Muslim community in America to institute comprehensive and transparent programs in mosques and Islamic schools, teaching against the jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism, and extolling the virtues of American pluralism, democracy, and the non-establishment of a state religion?

If we saw questions like those asked — and answered, fully and honestly — we might be on the way toward a comprehensive and sensible response to the jihad challenge both abroad and right here at home. But we aren’t even close to there yet, and one thing is certain: nothing like these questions will be asked of any of the candidates this week.  Link to Jihad Watch.

But don’t hold your breath, as our officials and media do not wish to offend any of the Muslim organizations.  Can you visualize ANY of the candidates being candid with his/her answers to these questions in front of a nationwide audience that includes a host of Muslims planning their next maneuver against the west?  

As I See It.

When I first saw this headline by AP reporter, journalist, writer Glen Johnson, the thought whizzed through this crinkled head of mine of “so.”

So what?  Of course, all the candidates raise money from outside sources, so why is this news?  Why would this writer think it is headline news?  Upon reading through the entire article, there was not one mention of any of the democratic candidates spending time raising money for the campaign, despite their wealth.   Slanted?  Biased?  What else would we expect?

“Mitt Romney’s millions aren’t limitless, nor is his willingness to spend them, so the Republican presidential contender has begun taking valuable time from his primary campaign to raise money from outsiders.”

OK, let’s dig into the money issues of all the candidates, meaning, I will not leave out the democrats, and sure I’ll include the republicans also, and then just to make this a bit more interesting, I’ll gather some information on what industries are contributing to who.

Hillary Clinton:  90,935,788               Romney:     62,829,069

Obama:            80,256,427               Guiliani:       47,253,521

Edwards:          30,329,152               McCain:       32,124,785

Total               $201,521,367             Huckabee:    2,345,798

                                                          Paul:             8,268,453

                                                         Total:        $152,821,626

Conclusion: the democrats are either better fund raisers, or the people favor them over the republicans, or most likely, the industrial/lobbying/PACs groups favor the democrats over the republicans.  Who gives what?

“Employees of Wall Street firms are the single largest source of campaign cash, accounting for a total of $50.4 million in financial contributions to the candidates so far this election cycle,” according to the Wall Street Journal.”

Contributions from some selected industry groups favor Clinton and Obama, with Romney coming in 3rd 6 times.

Open Secrets has the details. 

It takes big bucks to win the nomination and they all go after the biggest slice of the pie, but writers like Johnson only report negatively on the republicans.  But, don’t listen to the gurus.

Americans get turned off by the length of the campaign, and the lies and lies, half truths, and just plain bull that comes out of the mouths of ALL the candidates, which should keep reporters like Glen Johnson busy researching the statements and writing about those lies so that Americans would know who they could trust.   Read Thomas Sowell and his two articles on “Dangerous Demagoguery“  and “part two”

Most people have too much of a sense of decency and too much common sense to have gone along with those horrors unless someone found a way to turn off their thinking and turn on their emotions.  That is how Jim Jones led hundreds of people to their deaths at Jonestown. On a much larger scale, that is how Lenin created a regime of mass murder in Russia, how Hitler did the same thing in Germany and Mao in China.

So, turn off the emotions, get informed yourself, and do not listen to the news at 6 on your local station, nor the biggies in New York, nor the pundits with plenty of short term opinions, and my opinions don’t get very far.  

Democracy Isn’t About Opinion or What Everyone Else Thinks - but About the Individual Mattering in the Process

Listen to Your Gut, not the talking Heads.

Your candidate should be forthright, honest, reliable and free from scandal. To vote for someone without these qualities is a terrible disservice to your country. Your candidate should not be expected to know everything about every issue – no one does. However, your candidate should be able to demonstrate the ability to get good information and make rational decisions.

Unfortunately, most people wake up from their political slumber one or two weeks before the November presidential election, throw up their hands and say,

What kind of choice is this? I don’t feel good about either candidate. It’s Tweedledum and Tweedledee. What happened?

And that’s As I See It.

Our enlightened politicians saw the need to amend the constitution to right an injustice to blacks way back there in the civil war days when States were denying citizenship to native born blacks.  Section 1 also includes the due process and equal protection of the law provisions for all citizens.  It was  needed then.  Today, however, the natural born citizenship part is killing America. 

About every six months the population of the U.S. increases about as much as the population of Tallahassee. Who are these hundreds of thousands of new citizens? They are newborns, children of illegal aliens born in the United States — birthright citizens, “anchor babies” — not illegal aliens. This quirky legal right then allows the mother’s parents and siblings to remain, and later a whole bunch of their relatives to immigrate legally. This why they are also known as “Jackpot babies.”   More . . .

Gone too far, yes.  Is it time for to kill the anchor baby provision?  Yes.

Help could be on the way, but don’t hold your breath. In 2007 Representative Nathan Deal, R-Ga., introduced H.R. 1940, The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would end automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. For those Americans who look to Europe — the cradle of our American civilization — for guidance, Ireland, in 2004 voted to end automatic citizenship. That was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of just being born there.

It will be a difficult fight as the special forces of the Hispanic caucus will unload the lobbying arsenal against politicians voicing approval, and CAIR and the ACLU will also un lease their lawyers to defeat any move to cancel the anchor baby provision.  Civil rights and all of that stuff.

But what does anchor babies have to do with the EPA? 

Once established into law, a federal program, a bureaucracy, an agency of the federal government lives forever and ever and grows and expands as it self generates additional work proving its own need to exist into perpetuity.  The anchor babies of the past generations have grown into working responsible adults proving the usefulness of the provision.  The IRS has grown into uncountable lawyers and agents policing ever more aspects of our details proving the agencies worthiness.   The social security administration has grown and spread its chapters and benefits into every known possible affliction with a name proving its own usefulness. 

The EPA likewise.  Besides the global warming, climate change myth as inconveniently put forth by Gore as “truth”, espoused by scientists on government payrolls, accepted by the UN, adopted as truth by the EPA and hundreds of politicians wishing to join the enlightened crowd, the EPA has their tentacles into every aspect of the lives of ordinary citizens.

And now, with the help of CDC, the department of education, and other federal agencies expanding their powers into perpetuity, under the mantra of protecting the health of children, the EPA is spending 69 million to study the effects that unseen particles of environmental chemicals have on the long term health of children.  Thus, the birth of the National Children’s Study in 2000.  They will be monitoring 100,000 children from birth through the age of 21.   That 69 million will grow also as time demands inflationary adjustments and the ever current need reevaluation studies expand.

It’s yet another self-generating proof for existence of the EPA and other agencies.  What politician, what federal agency wants to be accused of being against the health of the children?

So it expands.  The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a public policy organization focusing on issues of environment and development, has an excellent article about this expanse.

Nonetheless, the scientists involved in the pursuit of chemicals in the National Children’s Study are not neutral on the subject at hand. They are committed to the assumption that trace chemicals are harming children — instead of investigating a premise, they are engaged in proving it. Bluntly put, EPA is funding scientists who have an anti-chemical mindset. The list of fundees does not include one scientist known to reject the claim that trace chemicals pose a hazard.  

CFACT. link to the article.

Anchor babies and the EPA expand and grow into adults forever needing further subsidies to sustain their existence for further taxation.

As I See It.

Here’s another of the Clinton ideas that will make America a better place, that will make America stronger, that will help everyday Americans live better, be healthier and happier, and live more prosperous lives in a more comfortable environment. Living the American dream.

But that dream is harder to achieve for millions of Americans because they spend too much of their hard-earned money on fees to cash their paychecks or pay off high-priced loans meant to carry them over until they get paid at work.

Bill Clinton wants to spend billions to help the unfortunate open bank accounts. Along with governor Arnold, Clinton writes in the Wall Street Journal: “helping the “unbanked” enter the financial mainstream by opening checking and savings accounts, and working collaboratively with financial institutions and community groups to develop and market products that work for this untapped market. This will put money in the pockets of individuals and grow the economy. And it won’t cost taxpayers a dime.” [snip]

And consider that, according to a new Brookings Institution report, as much as $360,000 in pre-tax wealth could be created if the average, full-time unbanked worker invested in the stock market what he will spend over his lifetime paying to cash his paychecks. That would allow one of those workers to finance about 25 years of retirement at his current standard of living.

Well, fine idea, every working person could use a checking and savings account to help manage their money. But, how will this program be enforced by the feds, or the states? How will the feds get the word out to those that choose the alternative to bank accounts? Why are these people unbanked? Why do they not want even a basic checking account? The government thinks that everyone should. The government thinks the banks should help. And now, Bill Clinton is promoting the stock market, an evil tool of the free market system that goes up and then goes down, up and down in cycles, unpredictable. That’s pretty remarkable. But what kind of educational programs would the feds use to instruct the unbanked on how to invest in the stock market?   Of course, the entire program must be translated into Spanish so as not to disenfranchise the Hispanics among us.   Did the thought come to you that the illegal aliens could be those cashing their checks at Cash-R-Us?

Do you think this is a black eye to our public educational system when millions of graduates fall into the trap of payday loans and those high interest rates for short term cash?  Or, do you think it has something to do roping in a targeted block of votes?

The Clinton’s have all the ideas and believe that the government is the answer to solve All of Americas problems, for Americans, and paid for by other Americans. Billions of dollars of taxpayer cash is chump change to liberals.

Nanny, Nanny, I want my nanny, I broke a finger nail and there’s no cash to get a manicure.

Speaking of nanny state government programs, the British are considering paying people to lose weight, “that people should receive financial rewards or shopping vouchers for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight.”

As I see It.