Republicans Form A Circular Firing Squad

"I suppose, indeed, that in public life, a man whose political principles have any decided character and who has energy enough to give them effect must always expect to encounter political hostility from those of adverse principles." — Thomas Jefferson

We may be witnessing the death of the Republican Party. The party apparatus has lied to its faithful for years: The party of small government… the party of freedom… the party that supports the Constitution… the party of the 2nd Amendment — the party of free enterprise. The rhetoric has never matched the performance, but the faithful proles always held out hope that next time would be different. They held their collective noses and voted for the candidate the elites shoved down their throats.

Once again, the party elites have pre-determined the nominee. It’s Mitt Romney. Romney has received endorsements from two of the party’s biggest losers: Senator John McCain and former Senator Bob Dole. With friends like those, no wonder the proles are looking elsewhere. So the party has formed a circular firing squad.

So what is the composition of the circle? It is divided into four quadrants. In quadrant 1 we have the Republican establishment with Mitt Romney as their leader. In quadrant 2 we have the stated conservatives with Newt Gingrich and Rick Sanatorium. In quadrant 3 there is Rick Perry, the social conservative from Texas, and in quadrant 4 we have the extreme Libertarian Ron Paul. John Huntsman until this week was in quadrant 1 with Romney, but he decided to bow out after getting his “ticket to ride” in New Hampshire. Previously Michelle Bachmann was in Quadrant 3 and Herman Cain in Quadrant 2.

In the center of the circle is the condemned man, Barack Obama. Every time the order to fire is given the firing squad shoots at Obama, but they end up hitting other member of the squad and miss Obama.

The utopians and statist have been building their totalitarian state for 150 years now. It’s been a glacial, but inexorable march, because gradualism of the Fabian Socialists works best. They are near their goal, and Paul and the 2012 election is probably their last obstacle.

We are living in the last days of life as we have known it. Our currency has been debauched to nothing; our savings stolen right out from under our noses through inflation and regulations. Our houses have lost a third to a half their values — for those who still have them. Millions of people — 7.3 million were receiving unemployment checks as of Dec. 24 — are looking for jobs that no longer exist. Only food stamps, unemployment checks and welfare are holding off street riots that would make Arab Spring look like a park stroll.

America is not just economically bankrupt; it’s morally bankrupt. Government agencies now promote immoral behavior. The public’s minds are numbed by the cesspool that is prime time television and “art” foisted upon us by Hollywood, and they are caught up in euphoria over the successes of their favorite sports teams.

America has become as Rome. Pleasure, entertainment, empire and money-printing are our drugs.

Real learning is anathema to the people. Having been fed the garbage pushed on them in government (non)education indoctrination centers teaching loyalty to the state, they now wallow about, growing fat on processed foods. Their further education comes from the propaganda that passes as daily news from fools, whose loyalty is to party and the new world order rather than the country and Constitution.

It is this mind-numbed ignorance that allows the Republican Party — the so-called party of conservatism — to promote a pack of status quo moderates, such as John McCain, as conservatives and get away with it. It is what allows the doublethink to thrive: Unless the Republican Party can coalesce around a solid conservative message and begin to line up its shooters in a straight line with the liberals in their sights it’s looking more and more like the GOP is going the way of the Whig Party that spawned it.

This happened to the Democrats in 1968 when the party was in awash in controversy and mixed messages. This allowed Richard Nixon, a statist in his own right, to get elected twice. The Democrats realized they could win the hearts and minds on the electorate, especially minorities and poor, by developing a message that promoted the welfare state. They were able to get their friends in the media on board and since that time they have controlled the dialog and dominated the media. Republicans, on the other hand have tried to be Democrats Lite and have continued to lose. Why is this?

The latest Gallup Poll shows that political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

The percentage of Americans calling themselves "moderate" has gradually diminished in the U.S. since it was 43% in 1992. That is the year Gallup started routinely measuring ideology with the current question. It fell to 39% in 2002 and has been 35% since 2010. At the same time, the country became more politically polarized, with the percentages of Americans calling themselves either "conservative" or "liberal" each increasing.

Gallup measures political ideology by asking Americans to say whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal. Relatively few Americans identify with either extreme on this scale, although 2 in 10 Republicans self-identify as very conservative -- double the proportion of Democrats calling themselves very liberal.

The majority of Republicans say they are either very conservative or conservative, but the total proportion of conservatives grew 10 percentage points between 2002 and 2010, from 62% to 72%. At the same time, the percentage of moderates fell from 31% to 23%. Relatively few Republicans say they are liberal -- just 4% in 2011. Republicans' ideology largely held at the 2010 levels in 2011.

Given that the adults aged 18 to 29 in 2000 make up the majority of 30- to 49-year-olds in 2011, it appears that conservative views take hold as Americans age, which may also explain the even higher rates of conservatism among 50- to 64-year-olds and seniors. However, in addition to these age patterns, it appears that conservatism has increased overall since 2002 because of heightened conservatism among all age groups of Americans 30 and older.

The percentage "liberal" rose slightly among all age groups over the past decade, although spikes in liberalism among certain groups in 2007 and 2008 did not last.

As you can see by these graphs the nation is moving to the right as the population ages. This is no surprise for it was Winston Churchill who said “that if you are not a liberal at the age of 21 you have no heart and if you are not conservative at 40 you have no mind.” This Churchill quip seems to ring true and is no doubt the Republicans are attempting to out conservative each other while the Democrats are going after minorities and the poor who have a vested interest in the welfare state.

The problem is that we are focusing too much on the candidates and not enough on the unified message of the party. Each candidate has a mixed message some conservative, some social conservative, and some libertarian. Each one has some good ideas on governance and each one has some ideas that are not high on the voters list of concerns. This means the message is not unified. Be sure that Obama with his billion dollar war chest will stay on his utopian message.

This conservative message was spawned in 2010 with the advent of the Tea Party, a group that the current pack of Republicans seems to be ignoring. The Tea Party got them to the dance and now they want to dance with the liberals so they will be liked

No more compassionate conservatism or kinder-gentler. No more going along to get along. No more funding of federal programs and departments that work against the interests of the American person and business. No more bloated bureaucracies that rule by fiat. Unless the Republicans can coalesce around a unified conservative and Constitutional message aimed at smaller government, more personal freedom, and fiscal responsibility they may indeed go the way of the Whigs.

Ron Paul Is A Cause, Not A Candidate

"It is on great occasions only, and after time has been given for cool and deliberate reflection, that the real voice of the people can be known." —George Washington.

There are two stories coming out of New Hampshire. The big story is Mitt Romney. The bigger one is Ron Paul.

Romney won a major victory with nearly 40 percent of the vote, 16 points ahead of No. 2. The split among his challengers made the outcome even more decisive. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were diminished by distant, ­lower-tier finishes. Rick Perry got less than 1 percent. And Jon Huntsman, who staked everything on New Hampshire, came in a weak third with less than half of Romney’s vote. He practically moved to the state — and then received exactly one-sixth of the vote in a six-man contest. Where does he go from here?

But the bigger winner was Ron Paul. He got 21 percent in Iowa, 23 in New Hampshire, the only candidate other than Romney to do well with two very different electorates, one more evangelical and socially conservative, the other more moderate and fiscally conservative.

Paul commands a strong, energetic, highly committed following. And he is unlike any of the other candidates. They’re out to win. He admits he doesn’t see himself in the Oval Office. They’re one-time self-contained enterprises aiming for the White House. Paul is out there to build a movement that will long outlive this campaign —Libertarianism

Charles Krauthammer writes in the Washington Post:

“Paul is less a candidate than a “cause,” to cite his election-night New Hampshire speech. Which is why that speech was the only one by a losing candidate that was sincerely, almost giddily joyous. The other candidates had to pretend they were happy with their results.

Paul was genuinely delighted with his, because, after a quarter-century in the wilderness, he’s within reach of putting his cherished cause on the map. Libertarianism will have gone from the fringes — those hopeless, pathetic third-party runs — to a position of prominence in a major party.

Look at him now. He’s getting prime-time air, interviews everywhere and, most important, respect for defeating every Republican candidate but one. His goal is to make himself leader of the opposition — within the Republican Party.

He is Jesse Jackson of the 1980s, who represented a solid, African American, liberal-activist constituency to which, he insisted, attention had to be paid by the Democratic Party. Or Pat Buchanan (briefly) in 1992, who demanded — and gained — on behalf of social conservatives a significant role at a convention that was supposed to be a simple coronation of the moderate George H.W. Bush.”

Those who slight the Republican primary candidates and sneer at their campaigns are either innocently misinforming their audience or strategically misinforming them. In fact, this is the all-around spunkiest campaign season I have witnessed since 1968.

1968 was the year that the Occupy Chicago folks turned the Democratic Convention into a third-world smack down in front of millions of TV viewers and began left-wing takeover of the Democrat Party. We watched as radical leftists and anarchists battled Mayor Daley’s cops while a hapless Hubert Humphrey tried to rally the party faithful inside of the convention. The big issue of the time was the war in Vietnam, or so the leftists claimed. However, what they really wanted was a socialist state and big government.

The 2012 election does not promise to be nearly as amusing or as destructive, but what it has already delivered the most engaging Republican race in my memory, likely ever. In the last year, no fewer than seven candidates — Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Cain, Santorum, Perry, and, early on, Michele Bachmann — have flirted with front runner status.

Although Romney is threatening to, no one has yet run away with the race. There are several reasons why. For one, the major media anoints only Democrats, most notably JFK in 1960 and Obama in 2008. For another, the Republican candidates are appealing to the best-informed electorate since the Athenians elected Pericles.

Historically, in one survey after another, conservatives have proven to be the most knowledgeable of all voters. This year, thanks especially to the social media, blogs, cable news and the Tea Party, they are better informed than ever.

As always, relatively few people watch the primary debates. After this season's debates, however, supporters of the various candidates now post their guy's brightest moments and the front-runner’s dimmest. On paper, Rick Perry seemed the best candidate. On YouTube, he was the worst.

In weeks between debates, Republicans have seen an endless stream of charges and counter-charges flow through their email and Facebook accounts. Unlike in the past, these charges are backed by actual documentation, including video. We can see what Mitt or Newt or the two Ricks actually said in moments of RINO weakness, and they have all had them.

To survive, candidates have been exploiting such weaknesses in their opponents or explaining away their own. With the possible exception of Jon Hunstman, all of them are running to the right, and they are not afraid to say so.

On the Sunday MSNBC debate before the New Hampshire primary, Romney declared himself "a solid conservative," one who was "very proud of the conservative record I have." Gingrich described himself in that same debate as a "Reagan conservative." Santorum boasted of his "90 percent conservative voting record." Rick Perry took them all to task, "There's a bunch of people standing up here that say they're conservatives, but their records don't follow up on that."

The Democrats, by contrast, inevitably run away from labels and strong positions. In an April 2007 MSNBC primary debate — with a broad field that included senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Obama as well as Rep. Kucinich and Gov. Richardson — no one dared to the use words "liberal" or the more trendy "progressive."

In ABC's primary debate of April 2008, with just Clinton and Obama left standing, the candidates and their sympathetic moderators likewise ducked the "L" word. Unwilling to define themselves, the candidates killed the time in both debates with vapid platitudes and hyperbolic attacks on George Bush.

Republican candidates have rarely embraced such strong conservative positions as they are doing this year almost uniformly on hot issues like life, marriage, immigration, regulation and more. In 2000, George Bush felt the need to qualify his brand of conservatism as "compassionate." His father downgraded his own to an even more tepid "kinder and gentler." If the 1996 Republican candidate, Bob Dole, or the 2008 candidate, John McCain, even had a clear position on any domestic issue, it escaped me.

In 1980, Reagan's uniformly squishy primary opponents — John Anderson, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, John Connally, Lowell Weicker — held his conservatism against him, and the media amplified their charges. This year, unless Jon Hunstman successfully poisons his opponents' water glasses at the next debate, the Republican nominee will run the most conservative campaign since Reagan in 1984, and I will vote for him.

That candidate will know, however, that millions of conservatives, armchair or otherwise, will hold him to his stated positions. If he waffles before the election, images of that waffling will spread as quickly and destructively through the Internet as the “ILOVEYOU” virus, and some good portion of us will sit the election out. If the chosen candidate wins and waffles afterwards, he will face a primary challenge in 2016 and lose.

All the Republican candidates are smart enough to know this. Our job is to hold them to their promises and vote Obama out of office. Too much is at stake to do otherwise.

This brings us back to Ron Paul, the nutty Libertarian. Think what you will of Dr. Paul he has moved the Republican debate to the right, especially in matters of the size of government and our fiscal policies. Yes, I realize that many of his supporters are in his camp because of their stance on our military involvement around the world and a laissez-faire philosophy. In this sense they have a lot in common with those Occupy Chicago freaks of 1968. This aside the real impact of Paul’s campaign will be on the Republican’s stance on the size and involvement of government in our lives. For this I commend Ron Paul for his being the tip of the spear in the fight for smaller government and a return to the Constitution.

Paul’s belief in Austrian Economics sits well with me. He professes an adherence to the writings of Bastiat, Hayek, Hazlitt, and von Misses, all advocates of the philosophy of John Locke. He believes government’s role is to protect our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness with the latter including you property which includes the fruits of your labor.

However, there are many of Ron Paul’s beliefs where I deviate by 180 degrees such as accusing Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarding Ronald Reagan’s presidency as a “dramatic failure.” Or proposing the legalization of prostitution and heroin use. Or calling America the most “aggressive, extended and expansionist” empire in world history. Or promising to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blaming terrorism on American militarism, since “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.” Or accusing the American government of a Sept. 11 “cover-up” and calling for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or describing the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.” Or affirming that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust. Or excusing Iranian nuclear ambitions as “natural,” while dismissing evidence of those ambitions as “war propaganda.” Or publishing a newsletter stating that the 1993 World Trade Center attack might have been “a setup by the Israeli Mossad.

Since the election of Barack Obama in 2008 there has never been such a wide-spread knowledge of the Constitution and Austrian Economics among voters. People are now looking at the role of government in a much different light than four or five years ago. This is a good development. Much of this is due to the debate over the passage of ObamaCare, something the American people do not want.

In closing I refer to what Krauthammer had to say in his recent Washington Post column, of which I find much to agree with:

“Paul won’t quit before the Republican convention in Tampa. He probably will not do well in South Carolina or Florida, but with volunteers even in the more neglected caucus states, he will be relentlessly collecting delegates until Tampa. His goal is to have the second-most delegates, a position of leverage from which to influence the platform and demand a prime-time speaking slot — before deigning to support the nominee at the end. The early days of the convention, otherwise devoid of drama, could very well be all about Paul.

The Democratic convention will be a tightly scripted TV extravaganza extolling the Prince and his wise and kindly rule. The Republican convention could conceivably feature a major address by Paul calling for the abolition of the Fed, FEMA and the CIA; American withdrawal from everywhere; acquiescence to the Iranian bomb — and perhaps even Paul’s opposition to a border fence lest it be used to keep Americans in. Not exactly the steady, measured, reassuring message a Republican convention might wish to convey. For libertarianism, however, it would be a historic moment: mainstream recognition at last.

Put aside your own view of libertarianism or of Paul himself. I see libertarianism as an important critique of the Leviathan state, not a governing philosophy. As for Paul himself, I find him a principled, somewhat wacky, highly engaging eccentric. But regardless of my feelings or yours, the plain fact is that Paul is nurturing his movement toward visibility and legitimacy.

Paul is 76. He knows he’ll never enter the promised land. But he’s clearing the path for son Rand, his better placed (Senate vs. House), more moderate, more articulate successor.

And it matters not whether you find amusement in libertarians practicing dynastic succession. What Paul has already wrought is a signal achievement, the biggest story yet of this presidential campaign.”

How About Bob

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance" — James Madison

In 1957 the film The Bridge Over The River Kwai was a box office hit. Based on a book by the French author Pierre Boulle the film is a work of fiction but borrows the construction of the Burma Railway in 1942–43 for its historical setting.

The main theme of the film is the resistance shown by the British POWs as they were forced to construct a bridge over the River Kwai so the railroad could be completed and the Japanese could move their troops and materials through to Burma. This resistance was not taken in the form of sabotage or other acts of violence, but it was demonstrated in the form of building a better bridge the Japanese engineers were able to build. In this was the British showed that their western culture was superior to that of the Japanese.

The Japanese were attempting to build a bridge using the wrong materials, in the wrong location, and with limited engineering skill. They had no real plan except to force the POWs to work under harsh conditions. In essence their plan was to get a bigger hammer.

On the other hand the Brits, skilled in military and civil engineering, built the bridge based on sound engineering principles. They tested the soil where the pilings would go, they measured the distance of the span, they made a blueprint and critiqued it, they created a list of materials needed, and the developed a sound work plan. In essence they constructed the bridge in their minds before ever picking up a shovel or a hammer. This is what their western education and culture had taught them. Ironically, after the war the Japanese went on to adopt western culture and become some of the best engineers in the world.

Israel is another example of the western culture. If you have ever been in Israel as I have so can see a dramatic example of this. If you fly over the border or stand on a hill you can see invisible political border. On the Arab side of the border you see an uncultivated desert and poverty. On the Israeli side you see orchards and fertile fields. It as if someone had taken a ruler and drew a line in the ground between the two cultures. Israel, while being made up of Jews from all over the world is still a western culture. On the other hand the Arabs see a desert as a desert and have neither the vision or will to change it.

Western success is broken down into five stages, the first being imagination or vision. Before one can have success he or she must have a vision of what that success will look like. They must be able to see themselves in that successful enterprise be it an orchard, an iPad or auto repair shop.

Second comes ambition, the burning desire to turn that vision into reality. Without ambition no vision will come to fruition.

Third comes skill. Without skill all the ambition in the world will not be enough. One needs the physical and mental skills to accomplish their dreams.

Fourth is work ethic. This is the willingness to do hours and hours, weeks and weeks or even years of work to accomplish their dream. They must do more than someone who merely drifts along with the current taking what is given and hoping to have a dream fulfilled.

Finally there is perseverance. This means that if your first attempt fails you regroup and try again. It is said that Edison attempted over one hundred variations of the simple light bulb before having success.

Now we come to the Occupy Wall Street crowd. While some of those folks, perhaps one percent, have legitimate gripes over the bank bailouts, big government and crony capitalism, as do I, but the other 99% with their death to capitalism, socialist slogans, drugs, rapes and general lawless behavior are not for me or most conservatives or independents.

Who created these spoiled college kids. We did. We allowed them to go to schools and colleges that filled their heads with indoctrination rather than critical thinking. We handed out trophies for participation and praised mediocrity. We scorned those who excelled as people who were not sharing their success with those who failed.

So how do the five steps to success pertain to the OWS crowd? Let’s begin with imagination and vision. Oh, they have imagination. They imagine themselves with a new car, a house, a high paying job, and all the things society offers. But they have no vision as to how to accomplish these things beyond having a job for someone who pays then well and allows them time for social networking.

On the other hand let’s look a Bob, a high school graduate, who works at a Jiffy Lube. Bob has a vision of owning his own auto repair shop. He sees himself repairing people’s cars and offering quality service. It’s not only a Bob, but it could be someone who wants to open a dry cleaning shop, a burger stand, or a consulting engineering firm. Bob, a high school graduate, has the kind of imagination these OWS college grads do not have.

I don’t see ambition in the OWS crowd. What I do see, however, is entitlement the polar opposite of ambition. Bob has more ambition than the entire OWS gang put together.

All a degree in peace studies, feminine studies, and African-American and Hispanic studies is good for is getting a job as a professor and ripping off the next generation of gullible youth. While Bob, he can fix your car and you are lost without your car. Bob, the high school grad, is useful he is offering a service the market is in need of.

Bob does more useful, grinding, dirty work than most of these OWS college kids have done in their lives. To them cramming for a test is a hard job. If they had a real work ethic they would not be camping out for weeks at end protesting and living like aborigines. I wonder how many engineering students are among the OWS crowd. I have never seen one interviewed.

Yes, they have perseverance. They spend days on end camped out in these Obamavilles painting their signs and mugging for the TV cameras. Ben Shapiro interviewed one of these OWS people and asked him what he wanted. His response was that he wanted to end capitalism and change the world. When Shapiro asked how do you change the world by sitting in a park all day he became outraged and said he had never worked so hard in his life. Give me a break! Sitting in a park holding a sign and smoking pot will change the world. Go invent something like an iPad, that will change the world.

Bob works hard every day and perhaps one day he will ask his uncle to loan him $25,000 to open his own auto repair shop. His uncle will go into his savings and loan Bob the money or guarantee loan from a bank with Bob’s house as collateral. Bob will pay the money back with interest and perhaps one day Bob will franchise his auto repair business and become one of those fat cats that the OWS crowd demonizes and wants to steal all of his hard earned cash so they can pay for their entitlements. All I can add is to wish Bob all the success in the world.

Obama Defies The Constitution Again

"The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." — James Madison

Yesterday Barack Obama gave one of his numerous campaign speeches on our tax dollar at yet another high school. This time it was as Shaker Heights High School in a suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, a swing state in the 2012 presidential election. Shaker Heights, a once affluent suburb on the east side of Cleveland, consisting of upper middle-class professionals, has changed in demographics over the past several decades. Today, those affluent professionals have relocated farther east to places like Solon or Chagrin Falls or moved out of state as the slow creep of the urban welfare class has made its way into the once prestigious suburb.

Obama, who cannot garner an audience in any place except a high school, has been targeting the 14-17 year-old audience of late. In this manner he can round up an enthusiastic gang of Kool Aid drinkers to provide him and the TV with a wildly applauding group hanging on his every word while not knowing a damn thing about the content of his remarks. This is the way Obama will be campaigning for the next months. He can’t even use college campuses; he has to resort to high schools so he can capture the fertile minds of the uninformed.

Unlike his “fairness” speech at Osawatomie, Kansas last month that was pack full of lies and misinformation the focus of this speech was to defend his decision to go ahead and appoint Richard Cordray as head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) without securing the Senate confirmation that is required by the U.S. Constitution.

Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the president:

“shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

So the question arises, is the Congress in recess? Let’s turn to Article I, Section 5 which states:

“Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

The operative words in Article 2, Section 2 are “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” and the operative words; without the Consent of the other. Since the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has not adjourned the House the Senate is not therefore in recess.

Since the Senate is not currently in recess, and the Congress did not give Obama the power to name the head of CFPB without Senate approval. Nonetheless, Obama has appointed Cordray without the constitutionally mandated Senate approval. Obama is acting outside of the Constitution and the rules of the Congress like a dictator

Last year, Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to run the CFPB, which was established by the controversial Dodd-Frank financial reform law in 2010. The Senate did not confirm Cordray.

Obama spoke on Wednesday in Cordray’s home state at the Shaker Heights High School in Shaker Heights, Ohio:

“Without a director in place, the consumer watchdog agency we’ve set up is left without the tools it needs to prevent dishonest mortgage brokers, payday lenders, and debt collectors from taking advantage of consumers,” Obama said. “That’s inexcusable. It’s wrong. And I refuse to take no for an answer.”

Obama said Cordray has the support of Republican and Democratic state attorneys general from across the country, and of a majority of the Senate.

“The only reason Republicans in the Senate have blocked Richard is because they don’t agree with the law setting up the consumer watchdog,” Obama said. “They want to weaken it. Well, that makes no sense at all. Does anyone think the reason we got in such a financial mess was because of too much oversight? Of course not.”

We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability,” said Obama. “We should be strengthening it--especially when it comes to looking out for families like yours. Financial firms have armies of lobbyists in Washington looking out for their interests. It’s time someone fought for you, too.”

Before his nomination, Cordray served as attorney general of Ohio from January 2009 to January 2011. He served two years as Ohio’s state treasurer and four years as the treasurer of Franklin County, Ohio.

In 2008 candidate Sen. Barack Obama famously said: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing and end run around Congress.”

Now, we find that not only was he kidding about signing statements – he recently used one to ignore about 20 provisions of the omnibus spending bill – but Obama also believes he can decide for himself that the Senate is in recess when it is not, overturn at least a hundred years of precedent, and bypass the Constitution’s advice and consent requirement.

Moreover, the president now considers it a political virtue that he is doing precisely what he criticized George Bush for doing: “make laws as he is going along.” Obama now says: “I refuse to take 'No' for an answer… when Congress refuses to act in a way that hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

If he were acting within the confines of the law and the Constitution, the argument might make sense. But Obama has now adopted a theory of executive power so expansive that a reporter at a recent press conference understandably asked whether the president believes we have a virtual monarchy, a president of unlimited powers subject only to periodic elections but not to the rule of law.

According to a 1993 brief from the Clinton Justice Department, Congress must remain adjourned for at least three days before the adjournment constitutes a “recess” for the purposes the recess appointment power.

The origin of this three day period is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, which states: “Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”

In other words, the president can only recess appoint when the Senate has adjourned for more than three days, and the Senate cannot adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the House. Speaker John Boehner has properly withheld that consent to prevent Obama from installing radical appointees into key positions.

There is recent precedent for this action and for its legitimacy. In fact, then-Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote to the Supreme Court on April 26, 2010: “Although a President may fill such vacancies through the use of his recess appointment power the Senate may act to foreclose this option by declining to recess for more than two or three days at a time over a lengthy period. For example, the Senate did not recess intrasession for more than three days at a time for over a year beginning in late 2007.”

Obama’s attempt to “recess appoint” Richard Cordray while the Senate is in pro forma session is especially galling in light of the history of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the broad powers that Cordray – if Obama’s sleight of hand is permitted by the courts – will wield over the United States economy.

The CFPB has the power to interfere with every consumer financial transaction in the economy. It is housed in the Federal Reserve and funded out of Fed operations, not congressional appropriations, avoiding effective congressional oversight and in total contradiction of Article I, Section 8.

All power is vested in one individual – now, presumably Cordray – with no board or commission. None of this was part of Elizabeth Warren’s original design, which included a five-member commission that was funded and overseen by Congress. Senate Republicans have correctly called for reforms to make the new agency accountable before confirming a nominee and allowing it to begin writing rules that could have a major negative impact on the economy.

Last year, 44 Senate Republicans said they would not confirm any nominee as director, regardless of party, until structural changes were made to the bureau’s accountability. “But once again, the President has chosen to circumvent the confirmation process,” McConnell said.

“The CFPB is poised to be one of the least accountable and most powerful agencies in Washington,” McConnell said. “Created by the deeply flawed Dodd-Frank law, it is subject to none of the checks that independent agencies normally operate under, and will have an unprecedented reach and control over individual consumer decisions.”

Cordray should be willing to testify before Congress for a Jan. 24 hearing, said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Services.

“The President should stop allowing his Chicago political campaign to make his Washington policy decisions,” McHenry said in a written statement. “The unprecedented appointment of Mr. Cordray runs counter to the constitutional requirements for a recess appointment and Obama’s own campaign pledge to run ‘the most transparent administration in history.’ There are legitimate policy concerns about the structure of the CFPB. They can be reconciled, but the president refuses to even have the conversation.”

On his radio show last night, Mark Levin, a constitutional expert and president of the Landmark Legal Foundation,  declared that President Barack Obama has caused a “constitutional crisis” caused by appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board and a director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without going through the constitutionally required Senate confirmation process. Levine said:

"The President of the United States is trashing the Constitution now day in and day out,”

Obama’s actions are the moves of a wanabe dictator in the vein of Mussolini, Hitler, Castro, Lenin Stalin, Peron, and Chavez. Every one of these fellows usurped the law of the land the take extra constitutional powers in the name of the people. In the words of Herman Cain, “how did that work out?” If you watch enough of the History Channel you will see hour after hour of how nations fell into totalitarian dictatorship when enough of the population drank enough of the Kool Aid to support the man who promised them bread and circus.

Our founding fathers were extremely wary of what power the president should have. After having stepped out from under the yoke of a sovereign king they wanted to clearly define what powers a president, congress and a supreme court should have. While not wanting to hamstring the president in matters of national security, his primary constitutional function, they did, however, want to limit his power over domestic policy and the public purse.

With this in mind they developed a tripartite form of a republic where congress and the president had equal, but separate powers. Obama has spit in the eyes of the founders and the Constitution, something to which he has no loyalty. He stated so much in 2008 radio interview.

Obama believes, as do all statists, utopians, progressives, and liberals that their superior knowledge and powers of persuasion are the answer to all of our problems. They have a direct pipeline to the Almighty and they what is best for us mere mortals. Every tyrant in the history of the world has taken this tack and Obama is no different than a Hitler or a Mussolini. After all didn’t Hitler bring full employment to Germany and build the autobahns and Mussolini made the trains in Italy run on time. Progressives in this nation and Great Britain spoke highly of them at the time. After all they were transforming their nations and looking after the middle class.

Obama doesn’t care. He’s making is up as he goes along. What a difference four years makes.

The World Is Running Out Of Money

The World Is Running Out Of MoneyGovernment is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. Frederic Bastiat, French economist (1801-1850).

The French socialist IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned Tuesday that the world economy is at a "very dangerous juncture," speaking of the potential impact on poorer nations during her first visit to Africa as head of the fund. Breitbart News reports:

The International Monetary Fund managing director spoke of a crisis of confidence with high unemployment and slowing global growth.

"Currently the world economy stands at a very dangerous juncture," Lagarde told a roundtable on Africa's economic future in the Nigerian city of Lagos.

She said the IMF's revised global growth forecast expected in January looked to be lower than the previous one in September, which was four percent, already down from June's outlook.

"And what's more, there are downside risks on the horizon that are really threatening the recovery process that had started" after the 2008-09 global financial crisis, she said.

The IMF has said Europe's worsening economy and financial market turmoil meant it will revise downwards its predictions for global growth contained in its World Economic Outlook report published three months ago.

Early this month, the UN cut its 2012 world growth forecast to 2.6 percent from 3.6 percent, warning that the global economy is "teetering on the brink of a major downturn".

Lagarde said on Monday during meetings with Nigerian officials that the European debt crisis posed a risk for "all economies of the world".

The Eurozone debt crisis eased slightly Tuesday with an agreement on extra funds for the IMF, strong data from Germany and a good bond sale in Spain which boosted stocks and the euro.

The IMF also said Tuesday that bailed-out Ireland was on track to complete its budget turnaround after the fund completed a fourth review.

But the broader deal on funds for the IMF -- aimed at allowing the crisis lender to come to the aid of European nations caught up in the debt crisis -- fell short of targets, with Britain again out of line with its EU neighbours.

Lagarde did not comment directly on the new pledges of funds from European nations for the IMF, nor did she respond to a question on Britain's stance on the issue.

She said during the roundtable in Lagos that European leaders "have made some very strong decisions" but added later that "it's going to boil down to implementation".

Lagarde spoke of the impact on trade and finance, among other areas, that could cause trouble across the globe, and called on wealthy nations to enact policies that would send clear positive signals to investors and consumers.

"Those problems seem a world away but they are not a world away because what we see very clearly is channels of contagion between those advanced economies and the rest of the world," she told the audience in Nigeria.

She earlier held talks with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan after meeting Finance Minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, a respected former World Bank managing director who also participated in Tuesday's roundtable.

Nigeria has long been held back by corruption and mismanagement despite its vast oil wealth.

Most of its population lives on less than $2 per day and electricity blackouts occur daily, while the country's mainly Muslim north has been hit by scores of deadly attacks attributed to Islamist group Boko Haram.

The government is seeking to enact reforms, including a deeply controversial measure which would lead to an increase in petrol prices, to allow the country to invest more in its badly neglected infrastructure.”

For years the IMF and other international financial organizations such as the World Bank and International Development Bank have been pouring trillions of other people money into failed or corrupt economies with no positive results. The majority of this money ends up in the pockets of corrupt leaders or is used for debt restructuring.

After the end of the Second World War the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD – commonly known as the World Bank) was formed. After the 1944 Bretton Woods conference the IBRD was created to provide loans for the reconstruction of worn-torn Europe. The purpose of this bank was to provide loans (mainly from the United States) to rebuild the infrastructure of Europe. The operative word here is “loans” as the money was expected to be paid back by the recipient nations over a period of time as their economies got back on track.

The IBRD provides loans to governments, and public enterprises, always with a government (or "sovereign") guarantee of repayment subject to general conditions. The funds for this lending come primarily from the issuing of World Bank bonds on the global capital markets—typically $12–15 billion per year. These bonds are rated AAA (the highest possible) because they are backed by member states' share capital, as well as by borrowers' sovereign guarantees. Because of the IBRD's credit rating, it is able to borrow at relatively low interest rates. As most developing countries have considerably lower credit ratings, the IBRD can lend to countries at interest rates that are usually quite attractive to them, even after adding a small margin (about 1%) to cover administrative overheads.

This is still the stated mission of the IBRD as it loans for infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water treatment plants and power generation plants in the developing nations and third world. As an example the loan is for a bridge. This loan will be paid back from an increase in the taxes imposed on drivers and tolls on the bridge. They system has worked well in the past.

Another part of the World Bank is the International Development Association (IDA). The IDA was created in 1960 and is responsible for providing long-term, interest-free loans to the world's 80 poorest countries, 39 of which are in Africa. IDA provides grants and credits with repayment periods of 35 to 40 years. Since its inception, IDA credits and grants have totaled $161 billion, averaging $7–$9 billion a year in recent years and directing the largest share, about 50%, to Africa. While the IBRD raises most of its funds on the world's financial markets, IDA is funded largely by contributions from the governments of the richer member countries. Additional funds come from IBRD income and repayment of IDA credits.

IDA loans address primary education, basic health services, clean water supply and sanitation, environmental safeguards, business-climate improvements, infrastructure and institutional reforms. These projects are intended to pave the way toward economic growth, job creation, higher incomes and better living conditions. IDA’s goal is to reduce inequalities both across and within countries by allowing more people to participate in the mainstream economy, reducing poverty and promoting more equal access to the opportunities created by economic growth. IDA also provides grants to countries at risk of debt distress.

The bulk of these IDA grants are given for social issues and infrastructure and institutional reforms. An institutional reform is actually buttressing a state run economy that has run out of money to pay its government work force and social programs. This is what is happening in Greece where the EU is pumping money into a failed socialist economy that is totally broke.

The IDA is just one of several taxpayer funded institutions. Keep in mind that the contributions by the member states come ultimately from the taxpayers of that state. You have the Asian Bank, African Bank, International Development Bank (which focus on Latin America), and the IMF. These organizations have poured trillions into the coffers of nations run by corrupt leaders who have engaged either in reckless spending or lining their pockets.

These organizations have accomplished very little, if anything, with their social focused give away programs. They are all run by high paid bureaucrats who are dedicated to Keynesian economics. They believe using money from wealthier nations can be used to make poor nations rich. Over 60 years of this policy has brought nothing to these third world nations except more poverty, a dependence on wealthy nations to support them, and in many cases civil strife as the politicians and generals vie for the control of the money.

I have spent time in a third world county, Sri Lanka, working with on a World Bank IDA project. This $30 million dollar project was an environmental project to clean up Colombo. While cleaning up Colombo is a noble idea it does not help the people of Sri Lanka improve their lives. Victoria Secret has done more for the people of Sri Lanka by moving most of their clothing manufacturing business there and providing jobs.

As the world’s economy grinds down we are running out of money for these failed give away programs. It’s time we rethink how to help third world and developing nations grow their economies under a sustainable free market capitalistic system and the secure ownership of private property.

The Most Generous Nation In The World

"Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." — George Washington

Americans: the most generous people in the world. In this season of giving, that’s no idle gloat.

According to a new study, the United States tops a massive global charity survey, rising from fifth place in 2010.

A recent article in the Washington Post points out that according to the British based Charities Aid Foundation the United States ranks at the top of the list when it comes to charitable giving:

“The “World Giving Index,” based on 150,000 interviews with citizens of 153 nations, ranks the U.S. highest on a scale that weighed monetary donations, volunteer work, and willingness to help out a stranger.

“In spite of economic hardships and uncertainty in the future, the American spirit is caring and strong, as these survey findings clearly show,” said David Venne, interim CEO of CAFAmerica, the Virginia-based charities consultant that released the results of the index.

Ireland placed second, followed by Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Canada, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Laos.

At the bottom of the list: China, Russia and India.

The survey relied on data from the Gallup polling organization, and asked whether people had donated money (two-thirds of Americans), volunteered their time (43 percent) or helped a stranger in the preceding month (73 percent).

The survey’s authors noted that charitable behavior is not correlated with wealth. Of the 20 countries that the World Bank ranks richest by gross domestic product, only five made it into the top 20 of the index.”

It’s amazing that Sri Lanka, a country I have spent some time in, ranks above China, Russia and India in charitable giving. Sri Lanka is a poor country, yet the people of that beleaguered nation still can find it their hearts to give to others while the big dog in Asia, China, ranks last.

George Will writes in Political that in 2006, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

Brooks, an Independent, demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. He states:

“If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

• · Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
• · Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• · Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
• · Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
• · In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
• · People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.”

A recent example of this is what happened in the Central Valley of California when some loon stole all of the toys the night before they were to be distributed to the children of Sanger, California.

It happened after a real life Grinch stole dozens of collection boxes filled with Christmas gifts donated to needy children.

The toy drive went on as planned after an outpouring of support from the Valley community, including hundreds of dollars from just one donor.

Around 2,000 toys were handed out to kids Saturday at the Sanger Community Center.

Pastor Paul Zavala of Destiny Church in Sanger said, “About 4 or 5 o’clock, everything broke loose. People started coming in, they started donating toys, little kids started breaking their piggy banks in front of me and donating money. They were bringing zip lock bags of money. People bring toys from under their tree, taking the wrapping off and bringing the toys. I could not fathom… you can’t imagine the lines would be so long.”

The Marines, Sanger’s mayor and even Wal-Mart got involved as well with the community effort.

The families receiving the gifts also got a hot meal and a bag of groceries to take home along with the toys.

This effort was started by conservative radio talker Inga Barks extended her three hour afternoon show to promote an emergency effort to replace the stolen toys. Within hours people began showing up at the toy distribution center in response to Barks’ pleas. The manager of the local Wal-Mart announced on Bark’s show he would extend the employee discount to anyone buying toys for the drive and he bought up the store’s entire stock of children’s bicycles for the drive.

Kern County is area of California that is a very conservative part of a very blue state. The people are farmers, ranchers, and oil workers. Their annual income pales when compared to Los Angeles, San Francisco, or Orange County yet they are willing to give to those they believe to be less fortunate than themselves. This is just another example of how Christian conservatives respond to the needs of their community while the rich and spoiled libs, like the OWS crowd, protest and demand someone else pay for the good works that will make them feel good.

Don’t forget to drop a sawbuck into that red kettle the next time you pass one in front of a store that allows them.

Why I Never Vote For An Educator In A School Board Election

"The truth is that the want of common education with us is not from our poverty, but from the want of an orderly system. More money is now paid for the education of a part than would be paid for that of the whole if systematically arranged." — Thomas Jefferson

Getting involved with your local board of education doesn't have to mean running your own campaign for a seat or taking detailed notes at every single meeting. The first simple step--one that every registered voter should take very seriously — is voting in the election of school board members.

School board members make up the largest body of elected officials in the United States. We entrust them to set the policies of our most treasured institutions: our public elementary, middle and high schools. Every district has a board of education, and boards generally meet every month in meetings that are open to the public.

These gatherings range from tame rubber-stamping sessions to intense, provocative discussions with the community where controversial issues are debated and landmark decisions are made.

School boards are nonpartisan. In most districts, members serve four-year terms, and terms are staggered so seats don't become open all at once. In general, to run for school board, you have to be at least 18 years old, a citizen of the state, a resident of the district, a registered voter and eligible under the state constitution to be elected to public office. You do not have to have a background in education, business, or politics.

In most cases, a school district employee can't be a board member in that district. This means no teacher, principal, librarian, custodian or anyone else that works in a school in the district can serve on the school board, unless they resign from the employed position.

School districts are complex corporations; they’re often the largest employers in a community and the decisions they make reach far, affecting jobs, resources and most importantly, the education of all children. They are also responsible for managing millions, and some cases billions, of taxpayers dollars.

Somewhere in between the agendas, public comment sessions and resolutions, school boards make a number of important decisions. School boards establish a vision for the community's schools. They have to set up and maintain an effective, efficient organizational structure for the district that lets the superintendent and administrators manage the schools, teachers teach and students learn.

They are responsible for hiring and evaluating a superintendent, evaluating and adopting policies that affect all schools in the district, serving as a judicial and appeals body when conflicts go unresolved, monitoring and adjusting district finances, and managing the collective bargaining process in the district. It is this latter function that has become a pint of national controversy due to the influence of the militancy of the various teachers unions.

A school board has a symbolic role as well. The behavior it shows off in the meeting room, the rapport among school board members and the relationships that members have with teachers and administrators in the district all add up to the climate of public education in a community. Whether healthy or dysfunctional, a school board has a heavy influence on the spirit that characterizes a community's impression of its school system.

A report has come out of Hamilton County, Tennessee and is reported in the Timesfreepress.com:

“The leader of Hamilton County's teachers union wants only those who have worked in the education field to serve on state and local school boards.

That's among several ideas pitched by Sandy Hughes, president of the Hamilton County Education Association, for the upcoming state legislative session. She's also hoping the Tennessee General Assembly will put the brakes on some of last year's education reform measures.

When it comes to the qualifications to serve on school boards, Hughes said she's most concerned about state school board members -- who are appointed -- because they set so much of the state's educational rules and regulations. But local school boards -- whose members are picked by voters -- could toughen their qualifications, too, she said.

"I really believe both local and state school board members should have some experience in education besides having just gone to school sometime in the past because education is so complex."

She proposes that to qualify for a school board post a candidate must have been a teacher, administrator or school employee.

The idea wasn't immediately popular.

Though he's heard similar proposals before, Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, said he doesn't think the idea will get much support in the statehouse.

"The school board is a local entity and should be made up of citizens of diverse backgrounds," he said. "It should not be limited to only those in education."

Hamilton County Board of Education member Rhonda Thurman said the voters get to decide what kind of background they want from school board members.

"You elect who the people want," she said. "If they're educators, fine. If they're not, fine."

Thurman, who's a hair stylist, said the board's diverse makeup is an asset in decision making.

Joe Galloway, a retired teacher and administrator with 35 years of experience, said he finds institutional knowledge to be helpful in doing board business.

"I would tend to think that it would be valuable to be in education to be on the school board," Galloway said, "but I don't know that it should be a requirement."

This is nothing but a push by the teachers union to stack the board with advocates for the union. The Timesfreepress continues:

“On the state level, the Tennessee Education Association, the state's largest teachers union, has drafted a list containing dozens of legislative proposals. It asks for higher teacher salaries, programs to eliminate school violence, daily teacher planning time, enhancing teacher retirement benefits and full funding of the state's higher education formula, among other items. HCEA is a local affiliate of the TEA.

Locally, Hughes said she'd like to see the legislature be more careful in opening the door for charter and virtual schools, both of which recently were expanded under Tennessee law. She also hopes to see the legislature repeal the Collaborative Conferencing Act, which stripped unions of negotiating powers.”

What Ms. Hughes is proposing is classic "regulatory capture" That is the process whereby the people that need to be regulated because they are a monopoly or have unusual power-both of which apply here — choose their regulators. Imagine if state public utility commissions were staffed by lawyers looking for high paying jobs with utilities. Imagine if congress regulated the very businesses that can write million dollar checks to their campaigns. This is tantamount to the fox guarding the hen house. This is the kind of idea that only an arrogant monopoly could love.

We have seen riots in Wisconsin over this very issue of collective bargaining for school teachers, something I am dead set against. We have teachers unions that collect dues from their members and then use those dues to finance political campaigns (in most cases Democrats) who will then pass legislation favorable to the teachers unions. All of this is done with money that emanates from the home owning taxpayers.

I never vote for anyone with an education or political background in a school board election. They are too close to the teachers and academia to suit me. I look for people with business backgrounds. If there are not enough of them I then move to someone with a technical background such as an engineer. Also a parent would get my vote as long as they were not part of the academic cabal. I would vote for the person owning the local dry cleaning shop than someone with a PhD in education or school administration. I want people who have a vested interest in how the money is spent rather than those who’s interest is in getting more money and benefits.

There is another aspect to our public K-12 education system that is rarely, if ever mentioned. That aspect is buy-in or stake holding. The stakeholders in our K-12 education system are the property owning residents of the district. A large portion of their property takes goes to the local school district whether they have children in the system or not. Property owners who elect to send their children to a private or parochial school are bullied by the taxing authority to pay the same amount towards the school district even though they do not partake in the system. They cannot even use the public school buses to transport their children to school. This is done in the name of “public good.”

On the other hand people with children in the districts K-12 schools who do not own property pay nothing. Take as an example a couple that owns a home in the district with children going to a private school, or a couple with no children in the school district. They will pay thousands of dollars each year to support something they do not use. On the other hand you have a renter or section-8 dweller with two, three, or more children in the K-12 system. They pay nothing for the use of the school system. And you wonder why their involvement in their children’s education is minimal.

I can understand the traditional support of the government school system by the property taxes, even though I do not agree with it in totality. If you have children in the system the user tax imposed for the school system is legitimate.. If they do not a downward adjustment should be made in their property taxes. On the other hand people who do not pay property taxes with children in the public school system should pay for the use of the schools based on the number of children they have in the system. This would do two things. First it would create equality in the tax base, and second it would make those people stakeholders in the system and hopefully increase their involvement in their child’s education.

I realize the progressives and unions would fight this to the death as their main concern is to look for the deepest pockets to finance their government school monopoly and feather their nests.

Perhaps as we witness the continued depredation of the government school system and the increasing power and control of the teachers union we may someday begin to rethink how we pay for this failing system of government schools.