Published Brownsville Herald October 28, 2007
Many of you may not know that there is an election going on and in fact early voting began on Monday. There are sixteen amendments to the Texas State Constitution being considered, five of which authorize the state to borrow money by issuing bonds and it guarantees that the “first money coming into the treasury each fiscal year” will be used to pay the interest and principal. The fact that these actions require approval by the entire electorate of the State and will become a permanent part of the state Constitution, make them very important. The fact that these actions are being presented at a time of historically low or less than low voter turnout makes them very suspect.
Additionally, a quick reading of the ballot description identified several that showed little resemblance to the actual wording of the resolutions. Bond issues are the taking out of a mortgage that must be paid back with interest over a period of many years in the future which obligates the state and future governments to limit what actions they can take because the money has already been spent. If you think of it in terms of how we live, it is like a mortgage on your house. Such a loan should only be used to purchase a real, definable asset that would be expected to hold its value until the loan has been paid off. Then if something goes wrong with the economy and income, the asset could be sold or used for another purpose. Credit advisors and bankers often advise not to borrow to cover recurring expenses that should be paid for by normal income. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted on Monday, October 29th, 2007
Under: Common Sense | 1 Comment »
I have been reading the commentary about the MEDELLIN V. TEXAS case and those of the 51 other foreign nationals.
At issue is article 36 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations which reads in part ….if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph; It would appear that the arresting or booking officer did not ask the person if he was from another country and did not inform the violator of his right to notify his national Consul…. This is a very important issue as should the U.S. fail to observe this requirement other nations around the world need not advise the U.S. Consuls when U.S. citizens are arrested or detained.To take the issue a step further in sanctuary cities there is an official policy not to determine if an arrestee is a foreign national thereby violating his legal rights. The issue is not one where there is agreement that the International Court can tell us what to do or whether the federal government can tell a state what to do nor has it anything to do with the crime committed and its seriousness. It is all about protecting other Americans from unreasonable detention or arrest when they are traveling outside the United States. A wrong step here can place all of us who travel to Mexico or any other country at a much greater risk.
Posted on Wednesday, October 10th, 2007
Under: Common Sense | 1 Comment »
Published Brownsville Herald 10/14/2007
It is problematic to find out whether a war was begun for “the right reasons”; it is even difficult to determine what the right reasons are before, during or after the event.
I cannot support the initiation of any war that is solely for political or commercial gain, as it as it would seem may have been the reasons for the War of 1812 and World War I . In looking back, I can’t even determine what the reasons, America’s first War, The War of 1812, were if not for commercial ones. A large opposition claimed at the time “…to launch the war was anti-democratic and hostile to “representative liberty”; that “war upon the land” as a response to attacks against “commerce upon the ocean” was not justified or effective; that the war would involve a dangerous entanglement with France, then fighting Britain in the Napoleonic Wars; and that with the U.S. unprepared for war and militarily weak, a disaster might result - “a war of invasion may invite a retort of invasion.” A quote from an Address of Members of the House of Representatives… on the Subject of War with Great Britain,” and was signed by 34 of 36 House Federalists. It appears the war was more for commercial reasons than homeland defense. The prosecution of the war limited any opportunities for finding the truth. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted on Sunday, October 7th, 2007
Under: Common Sense | No Comments »