Now to my Story.

Back in early 2009, just as the fall out of the financial crisis was really unfolding, I received a notice from my credit card company that beginning at the end of my yearly term they were going to double my interest rate. At this time I was carrying a small balance on the account. Needless to say I could not understand why? I had been a “member” with this issuer for over 15 years, always paid on time and very rarely carried a balance (Perhaps that’s the reason I was targeted – They were not making any money off me). I’m sure I’m not the only person that received such a noticed. So I decided to dispute it. How dare they unilaterally change “rules of engagement”, especially on a balance that was already incurred, and especially since I was a “good” customer in good standing! I later realized the reason why.

Thinking about this for a while I came to realize the banks were trying to recoup terrible losses through risky investments that were drive by pure greed and total disregard to morals or ethics. But why target me and, I’m sure, many other consumers that are in good standing? Well, it’s very easy to see their motives.

Who is the biggest economic demographic in this country? The middle class. Who is most likely to carry a balance on a credit card? The middle class. Doubt me? Ask any middle class family how much credit card debt they carry. Is there a reason why? Of course. Are they valid? Yes and No. Do I decide to probe the reasons any deeper? No. But I will say that we Americans tend to live outside our means. If you can simply agree with my hypothesis that the middle class carries a fair amount of credit card debt, then it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that by slamming this demographic with an interest rate hike, banks could bolster their balance sheets. To me this was just one of the many ways banks were trying to fix their missteps by riding on the backs of the middle class.

My attempts to dispute this proposed interest rate hike were fruitless. After a painfully long and drawn out conversation with the issuer and after stating I was a long time customer in good standing time after time, I was given two options: 1) At the end of my yearly term I could accept the new interest rate or 2) Close the account and pay any remaining balance in full.

Fortunately, I am in a position where I could choose the latter, so I let the whole issue just sit, waiting for the end of my term to see what would happen. Before I ended my telephone conversation with the credit card representative, I was informed that I would be receiving a confirmation of the new terms (options) in the mail. I made it very clear that if my interest rate were to increase, I would be closing the account. Months passed and I have yet to receive this confirmation. My yearly term came and went, a yearly enrollment fee was posted, I paid the fee, and my interest rate did not increase. Interesting. Guess they had a change of heart? I doubt it.

So now I carry a small balance on this credit card. I figured, “Hey, I guess they deserve to make a little money off me.” Or perhaps, just maybe, I have some national pride and figured the interest I paid would help my poor banker friends, the economy and the nation recover from their self-imposed disaster (cough). Hey, you never know! I did purchase a new vehicle this year and I stuck strictly to American made (Ford, to be exact). But I digress.

As many of my friends know, I am not one to perform banking over the Internet. In fact, I am so paranoid (with good reasons) that I even hesitate to shop on line. I work in the Information Technology industry and hear about security breaches and identity theft all the time. Putting my account information out there in cyberspace scares the living hell out of me. But I do subscribe to paying my credit card online. It’s a nice feature to have. I get an e-mail notification when my statement is available, one for when my payment is close to coming due, one for when they receive my on-line payment request and one for when my on-line payment is posted to my account. There is some convenience to this electronic banking thing.

But now I have noticed an interesting trend.

With my “Credit Card” account, I have noticed the time between confirmation of receipt of my on-line payment and confirmation of when my on-line payment is posted to my account has increased. Historically, this has been anywhere between 12 to 24 hours from time of submit to time of post. However, for the past two billing cycles, the time between receipt and post has increased up to 3 days!

After another painful and fruitless inquiry to the issuer, I was informed that this delay was probably due to my financial institution not clearing the payment in a timely manner. I made an inquiry to my financial institution and was informed that the transaction took 15 seconds from the time of receipt to the time of transfer.

Think about it. What if I had waited to pay my bill just the day before it was due? The 3 day delay to clear the transaction would have put me in default. And, based on the terms and conditions of many credit cards, the issuer would have the right to penalize me with a late fee and, more importantly, would be within the law to increase my interest rate to a default rate, with some default rates as high as 27%.

Obviously, they (the Issuer) lost the battle of arbitrarily raising my interest rate for fear of losing a good customer. So now they have launched a back-door attack on me, trying to get me, in my estimation, to default.

My warning to all: Pay your credit card days before the due date, even if you only afford the minimum payment. The credit card companies are out to squeeze the middle class and they will be attempting to find any loop holes in the “Credit Card Act of 2009.” Pray that Congress accelerates the implementation of the law. It will not save you if you are delinquent, but at least the issuers can’t arbitrarily increase your rates on previous balances.

This was an article submitted by T.L. Donnelly, a resident of upstate New York.

The media’s attention shifted from the diabolical and threatening visage of al-Qa’ida and Islamic extremists in Yemen to a scene of horror and futility in Port-au-Prince. In response to the threats of terrorism, where one is less likely to die in contrast to a natural disaster, there is an iron-fist mentality; where the response to human-submitted chaos is force.

The events tragedy in Port-au-Prince systematically derailed the Yemen conversation of whether or not the United States should take military action because it would be unprecedented, illogical, irrational, and absurd for tens of thousands of deaths to be overshadowed by one Nigerian with his trousers on fire.

The tragedy in Port-au-Prince entranced international attention away from Yemen and the Nigerian with enflamed trousers. There is no argument as to the rationale behind this switch, as the Haitian earthquake involved the deaths of many. However, the rhetoric the media used when talking about the Christmas Day attack was one that constituted on the two premises of “what if he succeeded” and “what it means for American national security”. For our purpose it is useful to distinguish the coverage of the earthquake and the Christmas Day attack, as the former is an example of orthodox journalism while the latter is a filler, void of any real substance; no doubt that the establishment of a twenty-four hour news broadcast forced corporate news company executives to accept this filler material.

No clairvoyance is necessary to predict that once the viewership of the Haiti tragedy dwindles, the mainstream media will return to covering the debate against terrorism in the name of ratings. The past decade is riddled with the asperity that a single event, such as Hurricane Katrina or the December 2006 tsunami that killed 220,000 people along coasts of the Indian Ocean is filler between debates on extremism. It is insanity that suggests terrorism threatens more lives than natural disasters. Such a paradigm gives a response as to why the War on Terror (collective military operations since 2001) is paid with $1 trillion and the 2005 Hurricane Katrina devastation, which directly affected 800,000 people and killed similar numbers as terrorism in the United States starting with 9/11, was paid with $16.7 billion.

I bring this insatiable appetite for understanding the complexities of the human paradigm to this parabolic table of counter-terrorism because what is terrorism if it is not a mind-game? The objective for the counter-terrorist is to prevent the terrorist from terrorizing; to say to the probable terrorized that they should donate their confidence in the measures you are taking to protect them, a vote of confidence.

If sandbags placed around rivers in the dawn before a major storm is the preventative measure of natural disasters, then striking al-Qa’ida safe-havens in Yemen is the preventative measure of terrorism. Lunacy is turned into logic once the ends justify the means, thus the preventative measures in the War on Terrorism are justifiable, right?

If there is one true aspect of the mainstream media’s attention deficit, then it must be that events, such as the Haiti earthquake are unpredictable. Putting the sandbags around a flood prone river does not prevent the storm from coming. It only eases the repercussions of the storm;, it might stop some areas from flooding. Similarly, striking at al-Qa’ida safe-havens in Yemen does not prevent terrorism, as terrorism is an embedded part of human nature; counter-terrorism is easing the unsettled feeling of the terrorized.

We task government with our safety. Through votes and taxes we give them the legitimacy that is required to undertake preventative measures. If the New Orleans levees and 9/11 is any indicator of the capability of the government to safeguard lives, then we have sanctioned a dubious faculty to be our shield against danger.

As the Haiti disaster and Christmas Day attempt proves, tragedy and death is always lurking, and what we really ask of our government is whether or not our safety is built upon foundations of chance or upon action. Will the sandbags ever stop the storm from coming?

This was a guest submission written by Jeff Morris. Jeff Morris is a writer and Political Science Major at Appalachian State University. Email him at morrisjr@appstate.edu.

Consider following WeThePeoplePolitics.com on Twitter.

By threatening to potentially call for the repayment of the government bonds they have purchased, it would be a dangerous move against the United States, especially during a time of tough economic growth. President Obama must rethink his approach to Taiwan and China else suffer some serious consequences.

China is one of the countries that will shape tomorrow’s world. They will do it in one of two ways. The first is in a way that is in their own best interest without regard to what America or any other country likes. The second is in a way that will be both mutual and beneficial for the entire world. It’s this second route that I worry is going to be damaged if President Obama continues pushing too hard against China. The Chinese have already begun to get involved in Afghanistan, but there are many other things that China could help with that America is potentially losing out on if we push too hard.

Selling weapons to Taiwan is a completely useless action that only will cause harm. The argument that Taiwan deserves these weapons is nice, but it doesn’t justify losing the capability of China to aid in a globalizing world. Considering the fact that both parties that ran for political office in 2008 were looking to strengthen ties with Beijing, this attempt to almost derail that is ridiculous. All these weapons do is demonstrate to China that Taiwan is trying to pull away again which is only going to further infuriate it.

Think of in another regard: if Texas wanted to pull away from the Union and China was sending weaponry to aim at the rest of the Union in case of invasion, how would the Americans feel? I doubt they’d be happy. Therefore, it is imperative that Obama cease the shipment of weapons to Taiwan. We must allow China and Taiwan to handle their own issues.

As much as I hate the idea that meeting with the Dalai Lama is going to further cause strife with China, this is one aspect that should happen. A meeting – despite China’s insistence – does not mean anything unless the Americans act on it. I am fine with the meeting occurring; however, action taken because of what the Dalai Lama says can be dangerous. I support human rights, but one has to be careful because to save one group, more damage might be brought upon many others.

The days of China in the Cold War are over. They are no longer this “Communist Pig” country. Instead, they are rising capitalistic country – that tries to be communist – which will, sooner or later, get rid of their single party dictatorship. As economic reform occurs, political and legal reform will follow. However, if the United States interferes in this reform, the government will tighten up and ensure nothing good happens.

Selling weapons to Taiwan is a dangerous move for the United States and it demonstrates how stubborn we are as a nation. We must tread carefully with China and Taiwan. It would be incredibly foolish for us to risk losing an important economic ally as well as a future military ally. They are one of the strongest countries in the world. We went head to head against another super power once and it resulted in decades of a cold war. Why should we make the same mistake with China? We must be careful when trying to do “good” around the world.

The Shi’a dominating government wanted to ensure that Sunni officials who had served under Hussein would never rise to power. Their justification made sense because there was a fear that other power hungry individuals who had served Hussein would assume control and do damage. While there was some argument that it was a Shi’a attempt to prevent Sunni Muslims from attaining control, there were many Shi’a in the list of blocked politicians.

The truth about it, though, was that the current government was trying to do what they could to ensure a much smoother victory for themselves. By blocking potentially successful candidates from positions, the current government could ensure that they were safe. This is the first step toward a dictatorship and that is not what the American people fought for in Iraq for so many years. The American people, under whatever pretense, fought so that Iraq could have a fair government.

Fortunately, the courts ruled that this was not allowed. The last time something like this happened, the Sunnis boycotted the election and it turned into an incredibly blood sectarian war. At a time when the United States is beginning to pull out of Iraq and when the country is standing for the first time on its own legs, a reemergence of blood warfare in the streets of Iraq is exactly what the country doesn’t need. So, I personally applaud the courts for allowing these officials to run in the election.

Iraq is the staging ground for an incredible “revolution” throughout the Middle East. If Iraq can stand on its own two legs and show the world that democracy honestly works there (Turkey doesn’t count, that’s Europe), other people in other Middle Eastern countries will begin demanding stronger political equalities. You want Iran to stop making nukes? That comes with political reform. Want people in Saudi Arabia to be allowed to pick their ruler rather than the monarchy there currently? That comes with political reform.

What the courts did by allowing these officials to run is demonstrate that the voter’s are the ones who are most important. It demonstrates that the voters have the right to pick who they feel is most qualified to be in the Iraqi parliament. If that means that it is an old Bathist official, so be it. The people deserve the right to pick who they feel is most qualified.

While this is only a step, it does open the flood-gates for full elections and the opportunity for new people to get their faces seen in Iraqi politics. As more people realize that politics is not going to become this corrupt entity in the country, more people will participate and American involvement in the country can finally cease to exist.

Iraq is ready to be on its own. It just needs a fair democracy there to ensure that things are done effectively. It needs the chance for the people to elect their representatives to ensure that things are done right for the people of Iraq. The courts ruling that these individuals could, in fact, run is a great step toward political reform in Iraq. Now, as the American soldiers pull out, we can rest easy knowing that the past seven years has not been for naught.

Consider subscribing to our newsletter (see sidebar) and make sure to follow us on Twitter.

A lot of the low level soldiers fighting for the Taliban are not fighting because of religious zeal, but instead, because they are in need of a job. According to a CNN article, “Afghan leaders and our military [United States] say that local Taliban fighters are motivated largely by the need for a job or loyalty to the local leader who pays them and not by ideology or religious zeal.” Therefore, the need to put food on the table and ensure that their families are safe is one of the driving motivations for working with the Taliban.

The issue with this is that Afghanistan is still developing their economy. It has had sound improvements, but it is still a very weak economy. That means there is no money for the Taliban fighters. Therefore, no matter how hard the Afghan government tries to convince the Taliban to set down their weapons, it won’t happen until the economy develops more efficiently.

Despite this, people feel that dealing with the Taliban can be done effectively right now. President Karzai of Afghanistan made it clear that reaching out to the Taliban would be a main part of his war policy. So long as there is more money fighting for the Taliban than against the Taliban, there is no way that the fighters are going to leave the Taliban. Add on the fact that the fighters are worried about being killed by the Taliban and this plan quickly becomes a weak one.

The effective way of dealing with the Taliban peacefully is to ensure that the economy is developing. When it becomes more profitable to deal in apples than it is to deal in opium, the Taliban loses out on a big economic profit and the fighters leave to go back to their farms. However, without security in Afghanistan, that is not going to be a possibility.

If Karzai does go forward with this plan to meet with the Taliban and work with them, that’s fine and I support that. However, if Karzai doesn’t have a sound economic plan to make it attractive for low-level Taliban fighters to leave the Taliban, all that will happen is a reappearance of a strong, centralized Taliban. This time, though, they will be in Afghanistan rather than in Pakistan. When that happens, it’ll be very easy for the Taliban to assume control again.

In tough economic times, the people will support groups who are more radical. It was a tough economic time in the 1930s in Germany. Adolf Hitler was able to assume control. In China, the economy was tough for the peasants and that was how Mao was able to assume control. If the economy in Afghanistan stays weak, the Taliban will easily take power once again. Then, the United States will lick her wounds and invade all over again. It is important that we do it right the first time.

Allow Afghanistan to develop her economy and begin pulling the fighters away from the Taliban. Then, as the country continues to grow stronger, even without the United States there, Afghanistan will be able to handles its own defense against any insurgents. If we don’t do it correct, we’ll be back in the next 5-7 years.

“To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve some problems, not run for the hills. And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town – a super majority – then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.”

For too long, the two parties have spent more time worrying about how they can beat each other and less time on what they can do to help the American people. With the economy still in shambles, the war in Afghanistan being renewed with a surge of soldiers and the deficit and debt bloated to extremes, the last thing America needs is considerably hostile partisan battles.

What the American people need now is for the American political parties to work together on getting things done. They aren’t going to agree all the time. That’s fine. However, my big reason for supporting Scott Brown was that it would prevent the Democrats from having their super majority. Now that the Republicans have taken that super majority away, they need to do their part in ensuring that bills get passed that are most beneficial to the American people.

Obama said something that I have been feeling for quite some time. Politicians have become so concerned with getting reelected that they spend so much of their time trying to bash the opposite side that they don’t get anything done.

When President Obama mentioned his plan to freeze the budget, instead of offering opinions on what else could be done, the Michael Steel, one of Representative John Boehner’s spokesmen said, “Given Washington Democrats’ unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest.”

How does that help? How does it give the American people faith that their elected officials are going to do any good?

If nothing changes, the Democratic Party will lose in the elections come November. While Republicans might love that, the same thing will happen to the Republicans when the time came for the elections of 2012 or 2014. The Democrats will turn around and throw their insults and mudslinging comments at the Republicans. This, in turn, will create resentment towards the Republicans and the Democrats will win again.

This vicious cycle will continue to steal faith and hope from the American people that their elected officials are doing anything to benefit them.

To correct this, the two major parties in American politics need to start working together to fix issues. That means that the Democrats need to stop their deals done behind closed doors. That also means that the Republicans cannot continue being the party of no. If both parties can work together on getting important issues done, we won’t have ridiculous health care bills that are totally far fetched. At the same time, though, we might be able to get a lot more fiscal responsibility in Congress.

However, if both parties continue their attempts at short-term politics rather than leadership, faith in the American government will continue to dwindle until it doesn’t last any more. That isn’t beneficial for anyone.

The issue with this plan is that he doesn’t get rid of any of the defense department’s budget. While I support the need for a strong military, there are still so many programs that are being paid for that are entirely useless to the current goals of the United States. If Obama really wants to cut the deficit, one of the things that he should consider getting rid of are a lot of the military bases that are in Western Europe. These bases are relics of the Cold War, an era that we have long since left.

When the Soviet Union was threatening to pour into Germany and the spread of Communists had everyone afraid, it was easy to justify building bases in countries such as Germany and Italy. However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, there is no need for these bases. So, instead of keeping them open, the United States should close them, take that money and apply it to beating down the deficit. There are bases all over that, if closed, would do a lot more to the deficit.

Obama has taken some steps forward that might make for a strong attack against the growing debt, even if he and the Democratic Congress were the ones that started it from the get-go. Finally going along with Senator Evan Bayh from Indiana, he has proposed the creation of a bipartisan commission whose responsibility it is to ensure that tough fiscal decisions are made. With the commission making the decisions, the politics of the economy could be greatly diminished.

Finally, close down the TARP program. Chris Dodd said that there was about $320 billion that was unspent in that program. Instead of waiting to use it, close the program down and take that $320 billion and apply it to the deficit. That is a considerable amount of money that would do a lot of good in beating the deficit back.

If President Obama is honestly serious about cutting the deficit, he is going to need to get out of the Cold War mentality of having the biggest and baddest military. So much money is wasted each year on programs that are absolutely crazy. More importantly, he is going to have to cut back on his bail out funding. If President Obama can demonstrate to the American people that he is honestly serious about getting rid of the deficit and perhaps, in the future, getting rid of debt, he stands a chance at helping the Democrats revive in time for the midterm elections.

The one damaging thing that Obama could do, though, is raise taxes. The answer in bad economic times is not to raise taxes, but cut spending. Allow the American people to correct their issues; we are a resourceful people that can fix our problems. Ensuring that taxes don’t rise in the coming years will be one sure way of getting the deficit to drop so long as it goes hand in hand with spending cuts. As the money circulates back into the economy, it will increase the GDP and that, in turn, will result in more revenues in the long run.

In the end, the United States has a debt and deficit that is far too large. If we want to continue being a strong, powerful country, we are going to need to enforce policies that get our spending in order. While I support a strong military, I do not support ridiculous spending. I do not support massive bail outs. Obama’s freeze on domestic policies is a step in the right direction, but won’t be enough to get rid of the deficit.

Image courtesty Wikimedia.org.

The American people, while they might possess tremendous political apathy, have a knack for knowing when something is just not right. The government bailouts, the increased spending and the ridiculous health care bill that Pelosi tried to pass off as constitutional are all examples of things that the American people just didn’t agree with. The truth was, the American people had gone through increased government spending, bailouts (TARP came under Bush) and other programs under the Bush administration and when they voted Obama in, they wanted change.

Since that change didn’t come from Obama, they decided to find it elsewhere. That change came in the form of Scott Brown. Do I think Brown is the next best thing since sliced bread? Absolutely not. There are policies that I disagree with. However, what Brown comes the ability for bipartisanship, something I have truly wanted for so long. He brings that 41st Republican vote. He brings the ability for Republicans to say, “Um, no, that’s crazy.”

Even Obama realizes that the Democratic Party’s attempts at quietly negotiating bills is at an end. In an interview with ABC, he said, “It is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear-mongering around this bill isn’t true.” In other words, “let’s get past this election and work together on figuring out the key points of this bill.” Bipartisanship.

The big question, though, is what does Brown do to the future of government health care reform? He forces negotiation. Because the Democrats cannot get sixty votes – the necessary amount to have a bill passed – they will have to negotiate with Republicans. They will have to make deals. More importantly, though, the bills won’t be so one sided and Democratic politicians won’t be able to say, “Tough luck, that’s the way it is…We’ve got sixty votes.”

The second thing Brown brings is the idea of fiscal responsibility. So long as he keeps true to his elected agendas, he might be able to team up with some people to work on fixing the economy the correct way. One example would be Evan Bayh, a Democrat, who is actually becoming an enemy of the Democrats because he is so against raising the national debt. Could the two team up to work on something? I’d like to see it happen.

For the first time yesterday, Democrats voted for a Republican because he represented what might be change in Washington. The same reason people voted for Obama is the reason people voted for Brown. Fiscally, Brown could bring the change Washington needs. Forcing Washington to become more responsible would be an effective stance Brown could champion. Hopefully, Scott Brown from Massachusetts takes up the banner and fights it.

When I voted for President Obama, I was voting on the belief of change and the idea that he was going to do good things for America. But, more importantly, when I voted for President Obama, I was voting to get away from so many failed policies under the Bush Administration that, quite frankly, I could not support. President Obama gained my vote because I thought his ideas were alright (since been proven many are wrong save for some foreign policy), but more importantly, because he was not Republican.

The mid-term elections, at least in New York, will force me to decide where I want to throw my vote, but for now, the election in Massachusetts is a strong sign of what the American population might want in the coming months and years. When Obama was voted into office, it was on the premise of change; however, nothing really has changed other than a ridiculous amount of money being spent. The government has grown (which isn’t new since that is what happens with every President).

Then why would Scott Brown have my vote if I was in Massachusetts?

He represents a new movement in the GOP. Unlike the Neocons who, quite frankly, are completely disconnected from what people want, he is a true Conservative. He believes in smaller government which most modern day Republicans don’t. In his opinion, marriage is between a man and a woman – which is against what I believe – but he believes each individual state has the right to choose. He believes that increased taxes on companies is a way of hurting the economy rather than promoting it because industry has less money to hire people.

Scott Brown’s weak points are in his foreign policy. When talking about Iran, his website says that he is for the sanctions on Iran and against talking to Ahmadinejad because that would legitimize all that he is doing. He couldn’t be more wrong here. Sanctions on Iran will only further promote what Ahmadinejad says about Israel and America. By having sanctions on Iran, the people grow resentful towards us and that gives Ahmadinejad power. As for not meeting with Ahmadinejad, that is ridiculous. Meeting with rulers is imperative to figuring out ways to get past all hostilities. Trying to strong arm them will only result in more problems.

What the United States needs right now is someone that is going to truly defend liberty and ensure that the government doesn’t continue to grow. There are too many attempts at stealing what is ours as American citizens. Since the 2008 election, the Democrats have been committing horrendous acts at the cost of the average American. The health care bill? A disaster. Obama has allowed Interpol to have immunity. That is not change. What Brown brings, though, might actually be that change. But, I don’t get to vote…So, my hopes go out to the people of Massachusetts. No matter what the weather is, ensure you vote. Whether it is for Brown or Coakley, ensure you vote. Do your part as an American citizen.

On January 12, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck Haiti, sixteen miles from the capital, Port-au Prince. It was devastated and it is suggested that at least 200,000 people have already been killed by earthquake and everyday, more will die. An immense international effort has been put together with millions of dollars being sent to Haiti, thousands of people on the ground doing work to try and turn this disaster into less of one.

Americans know full how a natural disaster can be. In 2005, the southern parts of America were hit by Hurricane Katrina. Countries around the world donated money to try and help. Cuba and Venezuela, both hostile toward the United States, donated over a million dollars each, but were turned down by the American government. In times of need, hostilities can be put aside and what is best for the common people comes to the forefront.

On behalf of We the People Politics as well as any blogger and writer out there, I have set up a donation page through Mercy Corp. I chose them because they are targeting things that I feel are imperative to Haiti recovering from this disaster, but also potentially rising up from the ashes as a stronger nation than they were once before. Through our donations, they will provide water, food and temporary shelter immediately. However, they plan on using funds for three main projects: clean water, post-trauma for children and job creation. Through the creation of new jobs, Haiti can rise above this disaster.

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere with 80% of people living under the poverty line. Their PPC is only $1,300. This disaster will only set them back even more and further destroy a country that is already suffering from an incredibly poor economic climate and weak infrastructure.

I know that the American people are hurting because of the recession. I know the entire world is aching because of the errors made on politicians economically. However, even if you cannot donate a monetary donation, consider telling other people how they can. If you don’t want to donate through the page I set up, do it right through your cell phone. Simply text “Haiti” to 90999 and $10 will automatically be donated to the Red Cross. That $10 will appear on your cell phone bill.

The people of Haiti need help from the rest of the world. Consider donating some something to try and make the recovery swifter and more successful with as little loss of life as possible.

I thank you for your time and your efforts.

Jacob C. Donnelly