US Chamber and Alex Sink agree: We need more workers to clean hotel rooms and mow lawns

It appears that Democrat Alex Sink, candidate FL 13th Congressional District, is accurately stating the US Chamber of Commerce’s position on immigration.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/_w4peAzj5hw[/youtube]

 

Now listen to the US Chamber interview with Republican Grover Norquist and others talking about immigration reform:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ToGQXhyWHnY#aid=P9DJ4Mbv2Uw[/youtube]

 

According to the US Chamber immigration website, “Immigrants do not typically compete with Americans for jobs, and, in fact, create more jobs through entrepreneurship, economic activity, and tax revenues. Immigrants serve as a complement to U.S.-born workers and can help fill labor shortages across the skill spectrum and in key sectors.”

“Across the skill spectrum” is code for more low cost workers to pick oranges, clean hotel rooms and mow lawns.

Appearances by Grover Norquist, the President of Americans for Tax Reform, Frank Keating, the President & CEO of the American Bankers Association, Alberto R. Cardenas, the Chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the President of the American Action Forum explain why Immigration Reform is important to the Conservative cause in the United States.

EDITORS NOTE: Featured images is courtesy of MSNBC.

RELATED COLUMN: Ann Coulter – RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $14 AN HOUR USING THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK!

What Is Polycentric Law? by Tom W. Bell

Do you like having options when you look for a new bank, dry cleaner, or veterinarian? Of course you do. You want to find the service that will best satisfy your particular demands, after all, and you know that when banks, cleaners, and vets have to compete they have a powerful incentive to make you happy. A monopoly, in contrast, can take its customers for granted.

Polycentric law simply extends that observation from commercial services to government ones. Just as competition makes life better for those who seek banking, cleaning, and pet care, it can benefit those seeking fair and efficient legal systems. Competition helps consumers and citizens alike.

Polycentric law regards the sorts of legal services that governments provide—defining rules, policing their application, and settling disputes—as a ripe field for competition. When a government claims a monopoly in the law, it tends to neglect the needs of its subjects. In a polycentric system, however, providers of legal services care more about what consumers want. They have to, if they don’t want to go out of business.

Our Polycentric World

But won’t competition between legal services lead to chaos? Evidently not. We already live in a world that offers us a fair degree of choice between the sorts of rules we live under. Polycentric law simply takes note of that fact, sees the good in it, and argues for more of the same.

It may not always seem as if you can choose the legal system you will live under. If you like the culture and climate of United States, for instance, but not the commands that issue from the federal government, you indeed face a hard choice: Suck it up or hit the road.

And even if you do decide to leave in search of a better legal system, you have no guarantee of finding one. Because they typically impose uniform rules across large geographic areas, governments tend more toward monopolistic law than polycentric law.

Even so, excepting totalitarian regimes such as the former Soviet Union and present-day North Korea, most governments allow disgruntled residents the freedom to escape to better legal systems. Most also allow movement within their borders, from one state, county, or town to another, affording the freedom to choose between local legal systems. To some degree, therefore, governments already compete against each other. But the influence of polycentric law goes deeper than that.

From Plain Old Law to Polycentric Law

To fully understand the extent of polycentric law, you have to understand the nature of law itself. Legal philosopher Lon Fuller aptly described it as “the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules.” So described, the law is not just a service provided by public organizations. It also issues from private sources such as homeowners’ associations, businesses, religions, clubs, and myriad other organizations that subject their members’ conduct to the governance of rules.

Consider a residential cooperative corporation, for instance. Such a co-op’s members both possess shares of it and lease their homes from it; in effect, they own their landlord. And like other landlords, a residential cooperative corporation subjects its tenants to the governance of rules. A residential co-op might specify quiet hours, for instance, and establish a committee to resolve complaints between member tenants.

That may not sound much like the sort of legal system offered by a conventional government—until you reflect that many residential co-ops rival cities in terms of their size and range of operations. The largest of them, Co-Op City in New York’s Bronx borough, houses over 50,000 members. In addition to shelter, Co-Op City provides an elected government, parks, streets, security, and just about every other service you might expect from a conventional city.

Homeowners’ associations (HOAs) likewise often grow as large and capable as cities. The largest HOA in the United States, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, includes over 30,000 homes and 90,000 residents. In all respects but its origins and legal status, it resembles a conventional municipality.

Other private organizations also effectively duplicate cities on a small scale. Malls and hotels, for instance, provide their users with transportation networks, shelter from the elements, utilities, fire protection, security, and (most pertinently for present purposes) rules of conduct.

The scale and scope of residential co-ops, HOAs, malls, and hotels make it easy to see how the private sector can rival the public one in providing governing services. Polycentric law is not solely the province of huge, private quasi-cities, however. Under Fuller’s definition, even a small organization that regulates only a narrow range of behavior—a church that imposes strict dietary rules on its members, for instance—also qualifies as a source of law. Size and breadth matter less than whether an organization subjects human conduct to the governance of rules.

For More Polycentricity

We thus already live in a somewhat polycentric legal order. Except when they completely imprison their subjects, governments have to compete against each other for financial and human capital. This means that, in the long run, governments that fail to supply adequate legal services tend to end up poor and unpopulated. Alas for consumers of governing services, though, that “long run” can last for generations. To make governments better sooner, we need to make them face more competition.

Except when a totalitarian government completely eradicates them, intermediary institutions also compete in the market for law. Towns compete with residential co-ops and HOAs to provide housing arrangements; main streets compete with malls to provide shopping environments; religious institutions compete with each other to provide moral instruction, and so forth. Because each subjects human conduct to the governance of rules, each of these institutions competes in providing the law. Here, too, though, we might benefit from more competition.

How can we make the law more polycentric? We can start by recognizing that legal systems do not differ in principle from banks, vets, cleaners, or other services. All face some competition and, insofar as they do, consumers benefit. Legal systems differ from other services not because they escape the effect of market forces, but because they have for too long pretended to do so.

Once we recognize that competitive forces already shape legal services, we can turn to increasing their influence. We should seek ways to make it easier for disgruntled subjects to flee, either physically or virtually, from bad governments to better ones. Bitcoin, for instance, seems likely to help on that front. And we should encourage the rise of special jurisdictions, such as the ZEDE/LEAP zones recently introduced in Honduras, where locals can opt into legal rules imported from abroad.

From a Good World to a Better One

Far from a mere theoretical ideal, polycentric law already shapes our world. We need only appreciate its latent power and invite more of the same. Once more fully realized, polycentric law can give to the consumers of legal services the same benefits that free and open competition already gives to the consumers of banking, cleaning, and veterinary services.

ABOUT TOM W. BELL

20121126_TomBell

Tom Bell

Tom W. Bell is a professor at Chapman University School of Law.

A Quest for Commonality

The Adult Catholic Education program, held recently at a local Catholic parish hall, was entitled, “Under Abraham’s Tent: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the World Today.” The evening, designed to “foster peaceful relationships” of three religions through their shared patriarch, Abraham, attracted about 200 guests.

The first speaker, Rabbi “J,” related the story of Abram, who smashed all but one of his father’s idols, leaving a hammer in the hand of the largest. When his father, Terach the idol carver, returned to the store and saw the damage, Abram alibied that a war had ensued among the gods, and the largest idol won. Terach scoffed, saying, “The idols have no life or power,” to which Abraham responded, “Then why do you worship them?”

Thus did Abram show the folly of idol worship and introduce the belief of monotheism into civilization. “J” further explained that the Jews, through Moses, were also the first to bring laws of morality and humanity to humankind, the rules by which civilizations have prospered since. Regrettably, she did not offer a definition of Judaism, the role of Jews in world history, or the significance of Israel to the Jewish people.

Although Jews had resided in Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Mesopotamia, and despite their persecution through the centuries, they nevertheless did not declare these lands as theirs. She might have dismantled the accusation that Jews are colonialists, had she noted the Jewish claim to the land has very specific boundaries set forth in the ancient Torah – the same boundaries established by the League of Nations in 1920, and again by the United Nations in 1948. .

It may be that the rabbi simply forgot these exhaustively documented facts, or she felt compelled to abandon her own and her religion’s survival for the fashionable multiculturalism and diversity.

“J” related an anecdote about being asked about the origin of people Cain met after his banishment from Eden. The Torah explains that Adam fathered many children before he died at age 930, and Cain may well have met these others in Nod, where he married and built a city. Rather, she responded that she told “our story,” and that could be another’s story, thereby allowing for the intrusion of a revisionist narrative!

She also mistakenly said that Ishmael was Muslim. In this, her timeline was off because it is well known that Mohammad did not proselytize for Islam until the 7th century AD, some two and a half millennia later. In fact, Ishmael was an Arab, but not a Muslim.

Another fact is that Muhammad’s conquests for an Islamic people began with the slaying of Jews, Christians, and idolaters of Mecca and Medina – beheading the men and raping and enslaving their women and children. Hence, the first Muslims were children of all four groups in the Middle East.

To a prompt about the 1967 origin of “Palestinians” (in quotation marks because before that date, the term meant any Jew or Arab who lived in that geographical area), “J” replied, “I don’t want to go there.” It is a well-documented reality that Yasser Arafat began using that terminology to provide a false bond for these usurpers to the land, but she saw it as a threat to multiculturalism and Islamic revisionism.

A reminder to the rabbi: throughout history, Jews have argued that if they abandoned their traditions and rituals, and conformed to their host society, they would be less likely to face persecution. But during the Spanish Inquisition, Jews who embraced their heritage were either converted, murdered, or expelled en masse in 1492. And, of course, during the Holocaust, Jews who trusted the concept in the 1930s and ‘40s were savagely annihilated.

Father “C,” the second speaker, also referred to Abram’s belief system as the beginning of monotheism, and to Jesus Christ’s ministry for the beginning of Christianity. He seemed distressed when an audience member asked, “Do Muslims and Jews need to trust in Jesus to get into heaven?” Whereas the Catholic Church may mandate conversion as an entrée to heaven, the Father seemed to abjure an exclusionary viewpoint. He did not reference Catholic Charities’ efforts to convert Muslims to Christianity or Muslim efforts to convert Jews and Christians to Islam. Neither did he reveal that the Qur’an restricts Muslims from designating zakat (charity) to any but Muslims, except for outreach and conversion.

Imam “M,” the last of the three, speakers, stated he would discuss historical accounts, revisionism, the universalism of Islam, and the “pre-Islamists” (Jews and Christians) who rejected Muhammad’s message.

His claim that Islam’s history is akin to Judaism’s, and that the two religions “shared ethics,” is fallacious. The Jewish Bible exclusively introduced the early Noahide Laws and Ten Commandments that provided God’s universal and timeless standard of right and wrong for all civilizations. In stark contrast, Islam’s laws contain none of those ethics and morals, and their purpose, as stated by modern-day imams and throughout the Qur’an, is to require strict adherence to Mohammed’s stern teachings of Mohammed by virtually everyone.

Further omitted was that Islam combines both political ideology and religion; they are inextricably linked. “M” stated that Sharia law is based on scripture, words of the prophet, and human intellect (an ambiguous statement), but failed to inform that 83% of the Qur’an deals severely with the infidel. Shari’a laws are meant to regulate non-Muslim as well as Muslim life.

At this point, “M” reminded us of earlier statements – that Jews argued with God (that God must live up to His promise to the Jewish people), that Christians agree with Jesus, and that, “Under the Qur’an, all people would agree to be one faith, one religion, follow the laws of their prophet/role model, have the same behavior, attitude, and there would be no fighting. A quick check at the countries around the world disproves that easily enough. He also assured the audience that Muslims kill other Muslims more than they kill Jews and Christians – a hardly comforting gen.

He went on to say that Muslims have a high degree of illiteracy. It is a fact that domination and oppression thrive as long as the masses are kept in ignorance. The importance of education goes back to Biblical times and is inherent in our Constitution.

Before closing, the imam added, “The ethnic people of the Middle East includes Palestinians,” yet another invention left unchallenged. The Philistines from Crete are long gone, and the current Palestinians are traceable to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, from which they came to the nascent Israel in search of employment. Adopting “Palestinians” for their appellation was a stealth war tactic to provide a false bond to the region they coveted.

It became quite evident that a mountain of historical revisionism was required to create a very false and tenuous harmony. Only when the Jews diminished their history, when the Christians moderated their beliefs, and when Muslims eluded questions that there could be any semblance of sharing and understanding. So this was not educational, but in doctrinal.

If the church members brought these three philosophies together in the name of harmony and understanding, then at least harmony prevailed for a couple of hours. But I knew that the morrow would bring more news of violent Jew-hatred, church burnings, and other catastrophic acts of jihad, and the parishioners would remain terribly misinformed. In the name of multiculturalism, diversity, and political-correctness, they were left with dishonesty and self-congratulatory egotism.

Hollande government chokes on “Gender Theory”

The French government’s attempts to have old-fashioned pink and blue sexual stereotypes replaced with a basket of new kinky stereotypes celebrating same-sex parents, homosexuals, transvestites and the like – have run into trouble.

France’s Socialist Hollande government, mired in unprecedented depths of unpopularity, was caught red-handed with its latest social engineering experiment: a pilot project in some 600 kindergartens based on gender theory. The issue had been stewing ever since the passage last spring of the same-sex marriage law that granted homosexuals the right to marry and raise children in wholesome families. Adoption rights are extended, children born in previous heterosexual relationships can be cuddled in recomposed matrimonially united 2-mother or 2-father families.

The implied promise of normalization of children brought into the world with the help of artificial insemination and womb rental and the eventual legalization of these methods in France rounded out the package. But widespread opposition to the indoctrination of male-female equality, starting with day care centers and kindergartens, has blocked the “social progress” momentum.

While tens of thousands of well-behaved citizens marched for five hours on February 2 in protest against the government’s “family phobic” measures, cabinet ministers, commentators and, for some reason, journalists, too, parroted government talking points: the demonstration was totally uncalled for. Neither womb-rental nor artificial insemination for lesbian couples is in the proposed Family Affairs bill. As for the decried gender theory, it doesn’t exist. Women’s Rights Minister & government spokesperson Najat Vallaud-Belkacem kept repeating: This demonstration is uncalled for, it’s based on fear mongering and vicious rumors, there is no such thing as gender theory, we are teaching male-female equality, helping children overcome stereotypes that lead to homophobia and violence again women while stifling their professional ambitions.

The Family Affairs bill is indefinitely postponed. Family values advocates are not reassured, the LGBT contingent is furious, and social engineering is alienating the Left’s Muslim clientele.

Farida Belghoul, who was in the forefront of the Beur [second generation Arab-Muslim immigrants] movement in the 1980s is back with JRE [journée de retraite de l’école]: Parents opposed to gender theory indoctrination keep their children home from school in a once-a-month boycott organized by Belghoul via her text message network. Farida Belghoul has forged an alliance with Alain Soral, France’s most unashamed National Socialist [= Nazi], 100 percent anti-Semite, and buddy-buddy with the comedian Dieudonné. Videos of her talks are posted on Soral’s Egalité et Réconciliation [Equality and Reconciliation] website, cheek to jowl with tirades against the “Jew-loving” Interior Minister Manuel Valls; the Minister of Education, Vincent Peillon, who is a Jew; and long winded exposés on the civilization Soral is defending… from the Jews.

Belghoul has no compunction about drawing French Muslims, including banlieue youths, into her coalition with Soral. A strong Catholic society, she declares, is the best protection for Muslims in France and worldwide. “If France falls, we all fall.” Her discourse and her physical appearance are frantic. Her plea for family reconciliation – husbands with wives, children with parents – seems to be fuelled by personal disappointments. She concludes her talks with a resounding “Vaincre ou mourir” [vanquish or perish]. Her claims about sexual indoctrination in the schools may be oversimplified and exaggerated, but when she displays a merry multiple family book that celebrates all combinations – mother & father + child, 2 mothers + child, 2 fathers + child, 1 female-female couple & 1 male-male couple + child, etc. – her exasperation is shared by multitudes outside of her unsavory movement.

Scores of titles were exposed in the aftermath of the February 2 demonstration. Opposition leader Jean-François Copé discovered “Tous à poil” [everybody strips]: everyone from the baby-sitter to the grandfather and including the postman, the teacher, the traffic cop is realistically drawn in explicit nakedness with full display of what used to be called the “private parts.” The publisher did a new print run of 2,000 to satisfy demand stimulated by the controversy. Vallaud-Belkacem said Copé is an Inquisitionist book burner.

Other titles emerged, celebrating same-sex parents, homosexuals, transvestites etc. via animals or human beings: Two male birds raise an egg deposited in their empty nest by an anonymous donor, a princess doesn’t like princes, a tomboy, a boy in frilly dresses, brother and sister toddlers playing tickly games in bed… in short, those silly old-fashioned pink and blue stereotypes are replaced with a basket of new kinky stereotypes. It turned into a game of ping pong: opponents of gender theory would display a title on official reading lists, national education authorities would deny it and simultaneously take it off the lists. The ABCs of Equality used in schools, they said, owes nothing to gender theory. It doesn’t exist.

Why do politicians keep lying in the old fashioned way when everything they ever said is available with one click of the mouse? Interviewed in August 2011 by the giveaway newspaper 20 Minutes,  Belkacem is asked how “gender theory” can help change society. She replies: “By showing that the socio-cultural context is as much a factor as biology in determining  ‘sexual identity’ gender theory raises the question of unacceptable, persistent inequalities between men and women, and homosexuality, and shows us how to educate on these subjects.” I noted Vallaud-Belkacem’s LGBT commitments in my profile [Dispatch International May 2013], and her intention to develop programs based on the findings of a commission she appointed to study sexual stereotypes. The report included an enthusiastic account of an experimental Norwegian kindergarten where the children were never identified as boys or girls.

Having copiously fawned over its Muslim clientele for decades – it is estimated that Francois Hollande got 80 percent of the Muslim vote to 14 percent for Sarkozy – the Left is alienating this electorate with its social engineering. On the other hand, voters attracted by the Left’s progressive agenda are drastically disappointed. The extent of the damage will be counted in the coming municipal elections (March 23 and 30).

Speaking of stereotypes, isn’t Najat Vallaud-Belkacem a sterling example of the use of feminine charm to defend anything and everything? Despite her boyish haircut and unisex style Vallaud-Belkacem is an attractive young woman with lovely eyes and French elegance. As befits her role, she speaks the words put in her mouth by the government, lies with disarming sincerity, attacks her opponents with a delicately sheathed blade.

As for President Hollande, he runs a full range of feminine attributes, from the fertility companion Ségolène Royal, mother of his four children, to Valerie Trierweiller, maturely glamorous journalist, to the sexy young movie star, Julie Gayet. And Najat asks kindergarteners why so few girls want to be stonemasons?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured picture is of François Hollande à Saint-Cyr-sur-Loire taken by Ludovic Lepeltier. The photo is under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

Affordable Care Act Parody: The True Purpose of ObamaCare Revealed

Political parody is at times more powerful than and mirrors reality. Americans are becoming acutely aware of the impacts of the Affordable Care Act on them and their families. In Florida alone over 500,000 individual policies have been canceled because they do not meet the ACA criteria. Those who have signed up find their insurance premiums increase, their coverage limited and their ability to choose their doctor restricted.

While this video parody is tongue in cheek, it represents a startling reality of the impact of bad public policy.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/OelTOGhfDSo[/youtube]

The featured photo was taken on March 19, 2010 “After dinner, the President returned to the Oval Office to continue pressing Congressmen to vote for the health care reform bill. In those final days before the vote, the President made hundreds of calls.” (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza).

RELATED COLUMN: Obamacare’s Dumping Ground

EDITORS NOTE: According to the YouTube video site for this video, “International E-Sports Group, R.T.I. & Constantin Film own the rights to this video. I own nothing & make no copyright claim whatsoever.”

Oh No! Another Black Conservative Republican Running For Office

In the tradition of Sarah Palin, black tea party leader Katrina Pierson is a beautiful God, family, country and Constitution loving conservative Republican. Fearless and outspoken, Pierson’s inspiring life story nukes the Democrats’ mythical Republican War on Women.

Sad that I even have to go there, Pierson’s skin-color derails the Democrats’ deplorable narrative that Republican equals racist.

Pierson is running for office, Texas 32nd Congressional District. After hurdling over establishment Republican Pete Sessions in the primary and defeating her Democrat opponent, Pierson will be the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/uE_6eOM2duo[/youtube]

 

The last thing Democrats want on the national stage is a black conservative Republican, anti-abortion, successful single mom who worked her way through college to achieve her American dream (without seeking government for answers). They do not want another non victim-minded black elected official out there touting traditional values; preaching that the rewards of hard work and self-reliance are self-respect and dignity. It would drive Democrats to drink.

Oh my gosh, what if women across America became inspired to emulate Pierson rather than the totally government dependent pathetic character in the Democrats’ Julia ad.

Pierson boldly stated, “Democrat policies keep women in poverty”.

Black politicians like Katrina Pierson, Sen. Tim Scott, Niger Innis, Allen West and others who view themselves as Americans rather than members of a victimized voting bloc, offering common sense solutions, will not be tolerated.

Prime examples are the Democrats’ relentless attacks on former Congressman Allen West and the NAACP’s campaign to destroy Sen. Tim Scott. 

Pierson is sure to suffer a similar fate with every rise in her poll numbers and successes.

This is why it is vitally important that we bolster Pierson with our utmost support and encouragement.

Yes, Obama and the Democrats appear to be holding all the cards; a complicit mainstream media and a spineless GOP petrified of being called racist. Our ace in the hole is a diligent army of patriots armed with right, truth and a relentless resolve to restore liberty and freedom to America.

Staying focused on confidently espousing the virtues of Conservatism, getting conservatives elected and holding positive role models high and proud for all the world to see will produce results. When presented correctly, Conservatism speaks to the human spirit. Liberalism is counter to the higher nature of man. This is how we make a difference folks. This is how we defeat this evil Administration which encourages sloth and is attempting to transform our great nation. This is how we win!

GOP establishment pundits seek to disqualify Pierson saying she lacks experience.

I say Pierson has “the right stuff” and epitomizes the intentions of our Founding Fathers; sending concerned citizens committed to service to Washington rather than career politicians skilled in making deals solely for personal gain.

Five years ago, Pierson’s speech at a Texas tea party endeared her to patriots across America. She has been a rising star in the movement ever since.

Pierson is ready, willing and able to take the next step toward making a significant difference serving “the people” — Texas 32nd Congressional District.

The tidal wave effect of a Pierson victory will reap national rewards; adding to the ranks of Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and others; conservative warriors fighting for the rights, freedom and liberty of We The People.

Let Katrina Pierson know that we have her back. Be there for her folks.

Facebook event calls for execution of Operation American Spring organizer

On Saturday, a complaint was filed with the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center against Colorado resident Nathaniel C. Marshall over a Facebook event calling for the execution of Col. Harry Riley, the retired officer heading up Operation American Spring, a protest movement that seeks to remove President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden from power, along with congressional leaders of both parties, Col. Riley said in an exclusive interview.

The now-defunct event, titled “Operation American Spring Target: Citizens arrest trial and execution of Harry Riley,” had a total of four attendees, according to a photograph provided to Examiner. The photo also indicates Marshall allegedly established the event.

We reached out to all four individuals listed on the event page. Three said they never heard of the event, but Marshall did not respond.

Instead, he set up a petition at Change.org accusing Col. Riley of treason and demanding he, along with other organizers, be indicted for treason and given the death penalty.

“Colonel Harry Riley is committing treason,” the petition says. “His top Operation American Spring aides and he are organizing a coup to be held on May 16, 2014 in Washington DC. This is blatant treason and sedition and needs to be not just addressed but we need indictments and the death penalty!”

As of this writing, five people have signed the petition. The petition does not display the names of those who have signed.

An OAS volunteer who asked to remain anonymous told Examiner Marshall has caused problems before and was booted off the site.

Further research shows that a person by the same name with the same physical features was arrested in 2011 on charges of criminal impersonation and a computer crime in connection with a Craigslist scam involving a condominium.

“On March 17, 9NEWS spoke to Boris Umanskiy who tried to rent a Steamboat Springs condo the weekend of March 12. Umanskiy said he found a Craigslist ad from Marshall offering a condo in The Antlers,” Channel 9 News reported.

Christina Dickinson added:

Umanskiy said his friends paid Marshall $250 for the place, but they arrived at the condo and they learned it wasn’t for rent; it was for sale.

Marshall agreed to cooperate with investigators and promised to help identify victims who’ve not come forward so they can get their money back.Accord

According to the report, Marshall allegedly needed the money to help pay for medical bills.

Having served over 34 years in the military, Col. Riley is no stranger to danger, having received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Defense Meritorious Service Medal and a number of other decorations for his service.

The adversaries he faced in the military, he said, were soldiers worthy of respect.

But, he added, the individuals engaging in these attacks are something else.

“It’s quite amazing to me that a man, who I assume is a United States citizen, views any other citizen that wishes to exercise his/her constitutional rights of free speech, assembly in a non-violent, peaceful, unarmed status, challenging elected leadership, is an act of treason,” Col. Riley said in a statement to Examiner. “Leadership in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches have all violated their oath, and numerous examples of constitutional violation. Lawlessness abounds in Washington, D.C., individuals must be held accountable for unconstitutional and lawless behavior.”

Read more. 

Col. Riley said in an online interview Wednesday his protest has grown to about 1.8 million participants. That interview can be heard here:

Joe Newby – (Interview Only) with Col. Riley On Operation American Spring 2.19.2014 by Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children on Mixcloud

RELATED COLUMN: Americans rising up against government – USA Today

Allen West: What the GOP Should Stand For

We believe in the individual. We believe in the indomitable American spirit. We believe in individualism and entrepreneurship that can cause us to be here together in this great hall, that can allow a young man from the inner city from Georgia to stand before you tonight. That is who we are. – Allen West

This video is courtesy of The Shark Tank:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/LCDGEFn6tzc[/youtube]

Hawaii Governor Poll: Republican Aiona 48% – Democrat Abercrombie 40%

HNN:  Hundreds of registered voters were asked if the election were held for Governor today, who would you vote for in the Democratic primary? 47% said incumbent Neil Abercrombie while 38% chose State Senator David Ige. 14% were undecided with a 4% margin of error….

Hawaii News Now – KGMB and KHNL

However the poll shows Republican Duke Aiona leads Neil Abercrombie in a head-to-head matchup 48 to 40 percent.

“I’m a little shocked, but very encouraged by these numbers” said Aiona. “I think what this is is confirmation that the people of Hawaii are just not happy with the way things are right now.”

45% polled have an unfavorable opinion of Neil Abercrombie. 45% have a favorable view. In this race Duke Aiona has the highest approval rating at 58%. David Ige polled 30% favorable, but 38% have never heard of him….

Aiona enjoys a 51 to 34% edge over David Ige.

A wildcard is Mufi Hannemann. The poll asked  if Hannemann runs for Governor as Independent, are you likely to consider voting for him? 39% answered yes, 57% said no. Hannemann sees the results as a viable indication he could win a three-way race.

Hannemann responded to the poll by phone, saying “the fact that 4 out of 10 would pull a ballot for me in a 3 way race, we get 40 percent of the vote.” ….

(Translation: Mufi can still save Neil by launching a three-way race and splitting the vote.)

SA: Aiona led both Abercrombie and Ige

“To me what it is is a confirmation that the people of Hawaii are just not happy with what’s going on with the administration,” Aiona said.

Aiona discounted the idea that the poll results were merely a protest against Abercrombie.

“I say it’s what you call voter remorse,” he said.

SA: Teachers union backs Ige over Abercrombie for governor

Hawaii Poll Tables: http://hine.ws/2014hipoll1

read … Aiona tops Abercrombie

Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes

Michael Rubin, former Bush era Pentagon official who is currently a Resident Scholar at the Washington, DC –based American Enterprise Institute(AEI), has been engaged in intense media interviews since the launch of his new book, Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue RegimesDancing with the Devil covers Rubin’s research on fifty years of US and Western experience with rogue regimes and terrorist groups. The Encounter Books release on the publication of Rubin’s book noted:

The American response of first resort is to talk with such rogues, on the theory that, “It never hurts to talk to enemies.” Seldom is conventional wisdom so wrong. It is true that sanctions and military force come at high costs. However, case studies examining the history of American diplomacy with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, the Taliban’s Afghanistan, and Pakistan demonstrate that problems with both strategies do not make engagement with rogue regimes a cost-free option. Rogue regimes have one thing in common—they pretend to be aggrieved in order to put Western diplomats on the defensive. Whether they are in Pyongyang, Tehran, or Islamabad, rogue leaders understand that the West rewards bluster with incentives. The State Department, the process of holding talks is often deemed more important than results.

We met Rubin in 2005 when he returned to Yale to discuss his experience as a former Pentagon official on Iran and Iraq who also served as a political advisor to  the Provisional Coalition Authority. He spoke  about the emergence of the nuclear Iran threat under the ‘reformist’ regime in Tehran led by Ayatollah Khatami. See Rubin’s background and blog at the AEI website, here and here.

Our interview with Rubin ranged across an array of prevailing issues. Among these are the Iranian nuclear and ICBM threat and Putin’s great game of one sided politics in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. He also addresses Pakistan’s tolerance of terrorism and the  lack of US support for the Kurds in both Iraq and Syria. He criticizes the folly of the Administration’s support of Turkey under Premier Erdogan and the folly of its lead in the Final Status negotiations with the Palestinians imperiling Israel’s security.

Here are some of his observations.

Dr. Michael Rubin

Back in 2000 to 2005 the EU’s pursuit of engagement with Iran under President Khatami enabled the Islamic Republic to devote 70 percent of its hard currency reserves to both ICBM and nuclear weapons development. Moreover Rubin’s research on that period revealed that Iran took the lead from North Korea in its negotiating posture with the West alternating bluster with soothing words about the dialogue of civilizations. That raises the question of whether the present P5+1 negotiations backed by the US Administration with another reformist, President Rouhani, might be what  baseball legend Yogi Berra  called “déjà vu all over again”? Rouhani was Iran’s nuclear negotiator under former President Khatami. On Putin’s great game strategy in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, in the midst of the crisis in the Ukraine, Rubin had the following observations.

The Administration’s current negotiations posture with the Russian President is the equivalent of ”Chamberlain negotiating with Machiavelli, and Machiavelli always wins.” Rubin believes that Putin is “playing a zero sum game” in both the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Based on recent speeches by an Iranian Revolutionary Guards leader, Iran believes itself the head of the Islamic world.

The Administration’s outreach to Islamist non-state actors like the Muslim Brotherhood he considers a catastrophe reflected in recent conversations with senior leaders in Kuwait and the UAE. Rubin believes that the Administration has made a mistake not supporting secular Kurdish regimes in the Iraqi regional government and the virtual autonomous Kurdish region in the Northeastern province of Hazaka in Syria.  He believes this stems from our support of Turkey under the Erdogan government. Rubin suggests that Turkey’s embattled Premier Erdogan may be creating another rogue regime in Ankara.

We will be publishing both an article based on our interview with Rubin and a review of Dancing with the Devil in the March edition of the New English Review.

Listen to senior editor Jerry Gordon’s interview with Michael Rubin, here.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Pardon My Paranoia

An organization, Patriots for America, is calling for millions of Americans to descend on Washington, D.C on May 16th for Operation American Spring whose purpose is to demand that President Obama and others in his administration be removed from office.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Ddg7fYtdGUY[/youtube]

Among the rules of engagement set forth on their Internet site include (1) no weapons, no ammunition. “The Communist forces that control Washington, D.C. do not recognize the 2nd Amendment and have banned all weapons and ammunition from the district. Do not give them the opportunity to arrest you and prosecute you.” (2) Follow all rules of the road. (3) Comply with all constitutional requests of local authorities. And (4) travel in groups of four or greater.

Geoff Ross is identified as the senior chief of the organization that wants participants to be prepared to stay as long as it takes for Congress to take action. The event suggests that he and many supportive groups think the U.S. is at risk of losing its constitutional government so long as Barack Obama is President.

The worst possible scenario to the event would be if some element of the law enforcement authority is ordered to fire on the gathering, but I recall that in July 2008 presidential candidate Obama said that Americans could no longer “…continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

America does not need a civilian national security force.

We have the military whose job is to protect us against foreign invasion and we have state and local police authorities in our towns and cities to address riots and large protests. The force the President wants would exist solely to intimidate and control Americans who he deems his enemies.

What we do have in the wake of 9/11 is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and it is not intended to be a military force although it does include the Coast Guard. On March 23, 2013, Capt. Terry M. Hestilow, U.S. Army retired, wrote to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) warning that DHS is preparing to go to war with the citizens of the United States.

“It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the DHS that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America.” He expressed his concerns over “recent purchases of almost 3,000 mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) armored personnel carriers, 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition (with associated weapons), and other weapons systems.”

“One needs only look to the rise of Adolf Hitler,” wrote Capt. Hestilow, “and his associated DHS organizations, the SA and the SS, of 1932-1934, to see the outcome of allowing an agency of government this kind of control over the free citizens of a nation.”

In a February 5, 2014 article on Infowars.com, Kit Daniels reported that “The U.S. Postal Service is currently seeking companies that can provide “assorted small arms ammunition in the new future. The U.S. Postal Service joins the long list of non-military federal agencies purchasing large amounts of ammunition.”

What has a growing number of Americans concerned is this arming of government agencies we do not associate with the need to be heavily armed. “Since 2001, the U.S. Department of Education has been building a massive arsenal through purchases orchestrated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” reported Daniels. “Back in July, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also purchased 72,000 rounds of 40 Smith and Wesson, following a 2012 purchase for 46,000 rounds of .40 S&W jacketed hollow point by the National Weather Service.”

One might assume that the DHS needs to be armed to some degree, but there is no logical reason for the Post Office, the Department of Education, and NOAA to be heavily armed. Reportedly DHS spent over $58 million to hire security details for just two Social Security offices in Maryland and $80 million for armed guards to protect government buildings in New York and more guards for federal facilities in Wisconsin and Minnesota. “Even the Environmental Protection Agency has its own SWAT teams conducting raids on peaceful Americans,” wrote Daniels.

DHS has been engaged in a program to provide military-style weapons and vehicles to local police forces around the nations.

My most profound fear, my paranoia, concerning the May 16 protest, despite its instructions to participants not be armed, is that some incident would escalate to a point where shots were exchanged. One can conceive of that serving as the reason to initiate an “emergency” proclamation and/or to declare martial law.

One gets the feeling that this government, under the direction of President Obama, is preparing for a national insurrection against his often lawless administration. The May 16 event would provide an excuse to initiate actions that would put us all under the gun.

I no longer believe “it can’t happen here.” We have a President who sees no reason to work with Congress and who recently “joked” that he can do whatever he wants.

I worry that members of our military and others would obey orders to impose governmental control to the extent that we might see widespread resistance by millions of armed Americans. I regard the surge in the purchase of weapons by private citizens during Obama’s terms in office as a reflection of the paranoia that I am feeling these days.

But is it paranoia? Or is it a reasonable assumption that a President who feels free to ignore the Constitution might have plans that do not include peaceful elections or his departure from the office?

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED COLUMNS:

Americans rising up against government – USA Today

Unrest In Venezuela And Ukraine Coming To America?

Victory For Ukrainian Revolution

VIDEO: Yulia: ‘I Am A Ukrainian’

Unrest in Venezuela and Ukraine coming to America?

The prevailing theme for this week is liberty. A lot of attention is being focused towards the events in Ukraine. However, just south of us here in South Florida there is another example, Venezuela.

In Venezuela we see what always happens when socialism takes root, as described so aptly by Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” When Hugo Chavez rose to power in Venezuela, he promised everything for everyone: shared prosperity, fair share, economic equality. He enacted policies that directed the government to nationalize more of the country’s production — especially the lucrative oil industry.

He took over the means of informing the people – hm, I wonder if he started with a “critical information needs” study similar to what the Obama administration’s FCC is seeking to initiate?

What resulted? The same that always happens when you punish, demonize, and denigrate the individual entrepreneurial spirit. The same that always happens when you disincentivize work for a government subsidy check. The same that always happens when there is a promotion of a welfare nanny-state focused on dependency rather than opportunity.

The producers stop producing and flee. We see it right here in South Florida in Broward County in the city of Weston, where the Venezuelan flag flies right along with the American. So as Prime Minister Thatcher poignantly stated, socialism fails because its empty promises are rooted in the legal plunder of others based upon some ill-conceived – I submit, actually demented — sense of benevolence. And then come the riots — because after all, you promised stuff but in the end what do the people gain? Nothing. What do they lose? Liberty.

In the Ukraine the fight for liberty is not against socialism but rather totalitarianism. A quarter of a century ago, Ukraine was given a new lease on life, a chance to determine its own future. It had once been a central part of the Soviet Union but then became an independent state.

However, old desires don’t fade away easily and control is a powerful motivator. Ukraine is caught in the middle of a fight to gain control of its future and it centers around a very important commodity: natural gas. Control of energy resources is a vital aspect of foreign policy and national security strategy — as well as important to the resurgence of Putin’s Russia. Liberty is the result of independence. Subjugation is the result of totalitarianism. Ukrainians seek the former, not the latter, and so they are making a stand.

There are lessons to be learned for us here in America. Venezuelans and many from Eastern Europe have fled to our shores to enjoy liberty and freedom as they escape the ills of their home countries. But if America succumbs to progressive socialism and totalitarian control of our government, where will people go? If America succumbs, who will be the beacon of liberty and freedom? Let me refresh your memory about what’s happening in America. Democrats and the New York Times are advocating for the IRS to eliminate and attack Americans. The FCC is seeking to put monitors into newsrooms. Our president feels he does not need to govern by legislative process but rule by edict — executive order. Elected officials such as Obama and DeBlasio are leading the charge to punish hard-working successful Americans — for what purpose? Redistribute their wealth.

So where do Americans flee? What is actually perplexing is that liberal progressives run away from failing liberal states such as California and New York. Unfortunately, they do not leave behind their damaging political beliefs. Like locusts they migrate to states like Colorado, Montana, and Florida with their cancerous political philosophy and destroy those states — message to Texans: you may want to stop asking Californians to relocate, unless they renounce liberal progressivism!

As we watch unrest in Venezuela and Ukraine unfold, I wonder, will we soon reach a tipping point in America?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com.

RELATED COLUMN: Americans rising up against government – USA Today

Its R.I.N.O. Season!

Republican campaign poster from 1896 attacking free silver

Tired of Republicans betraying their oath and their constituents? Here is how to solve the problem: time for bold talk. Take away “the lesser of two evils” vote.

Time for a third party?

[youtube]http://youtu.be/uqdGr8p2WmM[/youtube]

Inside Obama’s Head

In the August 18, 2011 edition of The American Thinker, writer Matt Patterson published an article titled, “Obama: The Affirmative Action President.”

Patterson wrote, “Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?”

He continued, “Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a ‘community organizer;’ a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.”

Looking at Obama from a distance, Patterson provides an accurate picture of how any objective observer might see him.  But how does Obama see himself?  Putting ourselves inside his skin and inside his head would be a far more interesting and instructive exercise.

Just imagine a young black man living in a family of all white people… mother, grandfather, and grandmother… after having been deserted by his black father.  Just as welfare recipients come to resent the hand that feeds them, it is easy to see how a young black man growing up in a white family, his skin color a constant reminder that he was “different,” would come to resent his white parent and grandparents… and by extension, all white people.

Obama stressed his struggle with self-identity in his book Dreams from My Father.  Regarding white people, he said, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

In describing the man who gave him the only job he ever held outside the halls of government, his job as a “community organizer” in south Chicago, he said, “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe.  And white.”

By the time he entered college, Obama was fully committed to the racial divide between blacks and whites.  Of his years as a student at Occidental College, he wrote, “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names… I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own.  It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”

We have all been confronted on occasion by challenges for which we felt totally unprepared…  challenges that appeared insurmountable.  That being the case, it is all the more mystifying how a man of Obama’s meager background and experience could believe that he should be seen as a viable candidate for president of the United States.  How could a young man, such as Patterson describes, suddenly see himself in that role, knowing that he has never run so much as a sidewalk lemonade stand, knowing that he has no qualifications whatsoever for the job?

What must it be like to one day look into a mirror and say to the person reflected therin, “You’re a pretty good looking guy.  You were lucky enough to grow up in the tropics, in Hawaii and Indonesia, and even though your parents and grandparents weren’t wealthy, you were lucky enough to go to a private prep school and Ivy League colleges on someone else’s dime.  You spent several years working with black activists on the streets of Chicago and you spent a few years as a back-bencher in the Illinois state senate.  Hey!!  You’re something really special!  You should run for president of the United States.”  What sort of man could have that conversation with himself… and do it with a straight face?

Fortunately for Obama, there was an oversupply of pent-up white guilt within the ranks of the Democrat Party.  And in spite of the fact that party leaders knew him to be not only unqualified, but ineligible as well, he was the sort of “rock star” politician who would appeal to white liberals and young white Democrats.  It mattered little that he would be incapable of governing; all they cared about was that he would look good before the TV cameras and that he could read convincingly from a teleprompter.  They would put the necessary words in his mouth.

But, of all of Obama’s current responsibilities, his relationship with the military is where he appears to be most out of place and ill at ease… a pair of brown shoes at a black tie ball.  In neither of his memoirs does he give the slightest hint that he ever considered enrolling in the ROTC programs at either Occidental College or Columbia University.  Yet, just sixteen years after graduating from Harvard Law School, he stood before the American people and proclaimed that he felt capable of serving as commander in chief of the largest and most powerful military machine in the history of the world.  What sort of outsized ego would that require?

Those of us who’ve placed our lives on the line as members of the uniformed services can’t help but experience a stomach-turning revulsion each time we see Obama bounding down the steps of Marine One on the south lawn of the White House, flashing a sloppy half-salute at the well-turned out young Marine standing at the base of the stairs.  Any normal person of Obama’s background and experience would feel an overwhelming sense of inadequacy.  But what goes though Obama’s mind?  And what goes through the minds of those young Marines?

To serve as a member of the Silent Drill Platoon and Color Guard at the 8th & I Street Barracks in Washington… the Marine contingent responsible for guard and escort duty at the White House… is a much coveted assignment in the Marine Corps.  But it would be interesting to know what went through the minds of all those young Marines when they first learned that Barack Obama,  a man who was too cowardly to wear the uniform of the U.S. military, a usurper who was ineligible to serve in the office, would be occupying the White House for at least the next four years.  How could they bring themselves to salute a man so undeserving of their respect?

Most Marines would rather take their chances on the field of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan than to suffer the embarrassment of standing in the rain next to Obama, dressed in spiffy blue-white dress uniform, holding an umbrella over the usurper’s head while he addressed a small group of fawning sycophants in the White House rose garden.

And while it is easy to understand the revulsion felt by the men and women of the enlisted ranks, what goes through the minds of long-serving generals and admirals, their chests covered with row upon row of medals and service ribbons, evidence of their long service to God and country,  when they are forced to salute him and address him as “sir” or “mister president?”  What sort of colossal ego does it take for such an unremarkable man to expect that kind of treatment from men and women of real accomplishment?

What all of this tells us is that what motivates Barack Obama is far more than a super-inflated ego, far more than pathological narcissism.  He is, as Dr. Samuel Vaknin has described him, a “total incognito with zero accomplishment.”  But even that does not describe how Obama sees himself, what goes on inside his head.  Instead, we can only conclude that Obama’s opinion of himself is simply beyond human comprehension.  Just as the human mind is incapable of comprehending the infinite nature of the universe, neither can the human mind comprehend the boundaries of what Obama appears to see in himself.

When Obama proclaimed in his June 4, 2008 nomination acceptance speech that, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” most of us laughed because we knew that just the opposite was true.  But there were many who actually believed him and were inspired by his soaring rhetoric.  What those of us who laughed knew, intuitively, is that what appeared to be bravado was actually a cover for nothingness.

What best describes Obama is a brief two sentence quotation from Eric Hoffer, the renowned longshoreman/philosopher, who said, “Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness.  The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”

Yes, Barack Obama is an evil man and the political philosophy that guiders his every word and deed are truly ugly.  It is that evil and that ugliness that Obama seeks to hide by his bravado and his pretentiousness; it is the emptiness of his promise of hope and change that is at the heart of his pretentions.

And while a majority of Americans still find Obama to be “likeable,” an even larger majority have come to see that there is no real substance to him.  As Hofer tells us, “The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”   Where Barack Obama is concerned, there is no there, there.

How Do We Cut Federal Growth and Spending?

Most Americans agree that the federal government is totally out of control, that it is too large, spends too much money, and should be reduced in size.  In fact, a recent headline for a Rasmussen Poll reported that “73% Think Federal Government Should Cut Spending to Help Economy.”

There are too many government agencies, too many regulations, too many federal employees, and too much waste. As new regulations are created, new employees are hired to enforce the regulations—then those employees expand their area with more regulations, which requires the hiring of even more federal employees—and the government grows and grows.  If we had perpetual motion it would be a government agency.  As Heritage Foundation budget expert, Romina Boccia stated, “you have so much waste in the federal government, it is really outrageous and we need to be cutting the federal budget, not increasing it.”

The Investor’s Business Daily reported:

 “A new study of government data says that since Oct. 1, federal workers, including bureaucrats and members of Congress, have worked less than three-fourths of the time… Compared to civilian workers, federal employees are underworked.  Rather than criticize them for working so little, maybe we should see this as an opportunity. If they can cut back on work with so little impact on the rest of us, why don’t we simply cut government employment by 25%?  If the country can survive the government working 25% fewer hours, doesn’t it make sense to cut an equivalent amount and make those still on board work full-time like the rest of us?”

How do we cut the federal budget?  First, we need to study all government departments/agencies and assure that none of them receive more funding than they received in the last fiscal year. To accomplish this, we must establish a commission similar to the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC), which has been effectively used throughout the Department of Defense (DOD).

I mention a BRAC-like commission because it could get much more done to trim government than any group within Congress.  Historically, Congressional legislation only adds federal agencies or increases their size.  We need a commission with a mission to review all agencies for current need, consolidation, efficiency, elimination, etc.  Otherwise, we’ll continue to have growing waste in an ever-expanding federal government.

Since BRAC was used successfully in the DOD, which is one of the most important and necessary of the many government agencies, it could be just as useful in other agencies that are less important to our survival as a nation.  Defense is a constitutional requirement, not some questionable freebie program that rewards citizens, and in many cases non-citizens, for not working.  Coming in second in defense of the nation is unacceptable!  And the survival of the nation and our Constitution is, or should be, the most important function of government.

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is a perfect example of the problem.  The USPS defaulted on its debt last year—after seven straight years of deficits. It’s saddled with billions owed in retiree benefits while its customers are sending less and less mail with each passing year. If it is to survive, the USPS realizes that big reforms are needed, and it has recommended some cost-cutting changes.  But in the omnibus spending bill, Congress blocked two money-savers: discontinuing Saturday delivery and closing some rural post offices.  BRAC would not be saddled with such Congressional politics and would have the authority to solve the problem as needed.

Our second step in cutting federal spending should be a Balanced Budget Amendment.  This would allow us to budget only what is needed and exclude unnecessary functions within the current government structure.

The nation wants to see action, not just rhetoric. In baseball, a base hit excites fans when it happens, but if it doesn’t result in a score, it is just another statistic. Likewise, the taxpayers were happy with all the proposals to reduce the federal budget, but the talk did not materialize into a serious reduction in the budget. The job is not done until we see these major reductions.

Congress must get aggressive in controlling government growth and spending by first establishing BRAC for all areas of the three branches of the federal government (except the DOD where it has already been used), and secondly, by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. As the Rasmussen Poll shows, the taxpayers want government spending cut.

This is critical, and failure of the Congress to act accordingly is a gross neglect of its responsibilities to the taxpayers.