Romney's VP Select: "Who else but Rubio."

Mitt Romney better get out his calculator!

The key for Republicans to win the election will be Florida. Win Florida and we have a horse race. Lose Florida and we have Barack Obama for another four years. It can't be more cut and dry that that! However, it seems that Govenor Romney may have become sidetracked. The advice that is coming from all corners, ranging from Washington "experts" to his wife, may have clouded his mathematical judgment.

This years Presidential stakes are the highest in history. Barack Obama has laid out his agenda. Half the country looks to be buying it. The other half, the half with the most to lose, is faced with a "must win" election. Lose this election and the America that we cherish may be gone forever.

At times it appears that Romney is running as if he is the incumbent. He evidently forgot that 70% of the Republican party wanted another nominee. He may have decided  that he should play it "safe," essentially playing not to lose. Bad idea!

Imagine playing a basketball game and you have a three-point lead with six minutes to play. How smart would it be to go to a four corners offense in an attempt to run out the clock? Most basketball coaches would say, "bad idea."

How about a football game where you are milking a three-point lead, heading into the fourth quarter. Because passing is more risky than running, it is decided to not chance a pass. The oldtimers call this "sitting on a lead." Most contemporary coaches would tell you, "bad idea."

The point is, Mitt Romney cannot afford to play it safe. He has a mostly reluctant Republican constituency. He is polling behind with women, Hispanics, voters under thirty and first generation Americans. Traditional Republican voters such as Evangelicals and "blue collar" Democrats aren't impressed. His candidacy has some "holes" in it!

Karl Rove, Cal Thomas and Dick Morris amoung others have concluded that Florida will decide the presidency. Why would Mitt Romney look further than the Sunshine state for a running mate? It may come down to "who is available?"

Jeb Bush seemingly has everything. He has executive experience and a successful legacy as Governor. He has a Mexican wife. He is a solid conservative. A lot of Republicans saw Jeb as the ideal opponent for Barack Obama. True, there were those who said that the "Bush hangover" might be detrimental. But the bottom line is, Jeb is evidently not interested in either being President or Vice President.

It is a certainty that he and Governor Romney exchanged ideas. Jeb's recommendation was to "take Marco Rubio."  Rubio has everything that Romney lacks. He could plug virtually every "hole" with the exception of foreign affairs experience. And, he is gaining that with each passing day in the U.S. Senate.

There are some conservatives who see Allen West as an option. But Congressman West has gone on record as "not being ready" for the nod. Insiders believe that West covets Rubio's Senate seat, which would be vacated if Marco became Mitt's VP. That makes sense and Governor Rick Scott has indicated that West would be a "good option" for such an appointment.

Rubio has gone on record as favoring English as the official language. When analyzing the proposed "E" Amendent outlined in "E" is for English, it makes sense for Rubio to "ride point" in presenting the proposed amendment to America. Romney would be in an ideal position. He could propose a plan to improve literacy, reform immigration, eliminate voter fraud and conquer identity theft. He could then turn it over to Rubio. In doing so he would have the ultimate spokesman for carrying out this exceedingly demanding objective.

Unfortunately, Mitt's mind may not be working in this manner. Even though some very smart political strategists are urging him to pick Rubio, he is getting advice from other sources. Starting with these same entrusted "inside the beltway think tankers."  But how good is this advice? Comparing Rubio to Sarah Palin reflects their true naivete.

While Govenor Palin and Senator Rubio share similar ideologies, their comparsion ends abruptly. Palin is a product of rural America. Rubio is an urbanite. Palin briefly ran a geoghaphically large energy state with a mere 650,000 total residents. Rubio was House Speaker of the nation's fourth largest state.  Palin represents the best in "White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism." While Europeon, Rubio is Roman Catholic and represents the largest and fastest growing minority in the country. Palin's husband is part Alaska native. Mrs. Rubio is a French immigrant . Last but not least, Palin's Alaska is a "deep red" state with three electoral votes. Rubio's Florida is a critical swing state with 29 electoral votes that will decide the Presidency.

Then there is Ann Romney. Mrs. Romney favors Tim Pawlenty. After all, she and Mrs. Pawlenty are friends. Never mind that Pawlenty was soundly rejected by voters in the GOP primary. Forget the fact that Minnesota will not be won by Republicans. So what if the former Governer is seen as a "wet dishrag" by most Republicans. The wives like each other! It might also have to do with the memory of how Governor Pawlenty withheld what would have been an knockout blow on Governor Romney in an early debate. Mitt Romney may well feel that he owes Tim Pawlenty.

Rob Portman is as dry and as boring as last week's newspaper. True, he might bring in Ohio and her 18 electoral votes. The problem is "he attracts the same establishment voters already in the Romney fold."  The VP selection is an opportunity to expand the base. Neither Portman or Pawlenty attract women, Latinos, young voters, or first generation Americans.

What about Louisiana's Bobby Jindal?  He is a smart Governor who connects with immigrants and first generation Americans. He would be especially appealing to Asian Americans. His home state of Louisiana will go "red" irregardless  of VP selection. What nobody mentions is that Jindal would be an excellent opponent for Mary Landrieu in the 2014 Louisiana race. Landrieu voted for Obamacare in 2010. She's especially vulnerable! Easy Senate pickups should not be readily disregarded.

The Tea Party Express has endorsed Marco Rubio. Romney has a opportunity to let them know that "they are significant and their opinions do matter." Up until now, he has treated the Tea Party like "bastard children." By selecting Rubio, Romney reaches out to conservatives. Mitt needs an enthusiastic Tea Party this November. To completely ignore their preference would be arrogant. Not to mention ill advised!

In short, Romney is presented with a once in a lifetime opportunity. He can kill "several birds with one stone" with the selection of Marco Rubio. It would start with winning the November election.

From there,.he can effectively introduce legislation that will eliminate future mistakes such as the 2008  Presidential election. He can lay the ground work for a future Republican party and future President. He can drastically expand the party base.

Rubio's selection takes Florida off the board for Democrats. Dick Morris likewise concludes that Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico would be "iced"  for Republicans. Collectively, we're talking about 49 electoral votes. All went to the Democrats in 2008.

Jeanette Rubio is both an Immigrant and an Evangelical! That will help in Iowa,North Carolina and Virginia. Evangicals consider the "Trinity" as the true litmus test of Christianity. If you believe that the "father, son and holy ghost" are not "one in the same," you fail. The key will be to redirect focus from Romney's Morman faith to Obama's actual record.

Mrs. Rubio can define Mr. Obama as "a President not governing under the blood." Government sponsored abortion and normalization of same sex marriage, two of Obama's key initiatives lend credence to such an assertion. This insight is obviously over the head of secular humanists, Chris Mathews and Rachael Maddow. But it touches a critical chord with Evangelical voters. If Republicans can get 50% of them to turnout, these three key states and their 34 electoral votes will be off the board for Democrats. Obama won  all three in 2008.

Rubio will appeal to young Hispanics from coast to coast. There are those who say that his appeal is limited to Cuban Americans. That logic reflects more "inside the beltway" naivete. Rubio grew up in a Spanish speaking household. He is a devout Roman Catholic and strong Christian. He is a family man who reflects the best of America. He is the son of a bartender and a hotel maid. Working people relate to Marco Rubio.

To suggest that Mexican Americans could not "look past the Obama freebees" and "look to individual success," is selling them short! We must never forget that Mexican Americans are some of the hardest working people ever to enter the country. Traditional family values and belief in Jesus Christ places them naturally at odds with the Obama agenda.

Romney would get more than a general election victory with Rubio's appointment. He would gain the ideal ambassador for the proposed "E" Amendment. Legislation geared to reduce the nations debt, reform immigration, improve literacy, eliminate voter fraud and conquer identity theft would be entrusted to Rubio.  He could present it in a manner that would neutralize opponents. In the end, he would share in it's successful implementation. An ideal springboard for continued Republican administration would have been launched!

It would be as if Athletic Director Mitt Romney hired Head Football Coach, Marco Rubio to win the NCAA National Championship. He would be handing Rubio a team that featured six returning All Americans, sixteen returning All Conference performers and two Heisman trophy candidates. The talent on the team would play into Rubio's strengths and experiences.

The "E" Amendment is a perfect match for Marco Rubio's talents. Jeb Bush called him "the best orator in America." He can convince Hispanic Americans that under "E's" implementation, they will immediately be transformed from "Latinos" to "Latin surnamed Americans." He will be able to impress upon African Americans that their true freedom is linked to improved literacy. He will explain to all immigrants that the legislation would ultimately guarantee a bi-lingual population in America. Histories and cultures of the world will be retained and in many instances, rediscovered. Schools would become "teaching children how to think" laboratories. The immigration riddle would be solved fairly, compassinately and in a manner that looked to the future.

Marco Rubio's deep love for the United States of America makes him the ultimate messenger for such a mission. People are touched when they look into his eyes and hear the passion in his voice. His brand of intensity is lacking in America.

It will take every ounce of this instensity, not to mention valor, to overcome the opposition. Make no mistake! The Chuck Schumers and Nancy Pelosi's seek to divide and Balkanize America. They will fight to the death to prevent this kind of awakening in America.

It was once said the the Vice Presidency was as worthless as "a warm bucket of spit." Not anymore! In fact, Romney could set the stage for an eight-year Rubio presidency, following his own successful eight-year run. In doing so, he would be both uniting the party and effectively laying the groundwork for the future.

Rubio could do more than break ties in the Senate. He could spearhead proposed legislation that would bring the country together like nothing ever concieved. In essence, a stronger, smarter, more secure America.

Thus, when considering all of the variables, the question becomes, "who else but Rubio?" Hopefully, Mitt Romney can steal some "quiet time," away from the "experts, cronies and even his beloved,"
and come to the same conclusion.

      

Hidden Dynamics of the "E" Amendment

"Those unable to pass a 4th grade English proficiency examination will not be issued a voter Identification card."

In other words, if you can't pass a 4th grade English proficiency test, you will not participate in the electoral process. That's it! PERIOD!

I can hear Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson now. "A literacy test? Are you kidding? No way! You are attempting to disenfranchise Americans! It is obviously a method of discrimination."

Not really, Jesse and Al! The proposed "American English Unification Amendment" has one thing in mind: 100% English literacy in America. You have had your chance! There continue to be too many people who can't attain this standard. In fact, it's getting worse, not better!

The fact is, we continue to have large segments of our children completing the 4th grade, the 8th grade for that matter, who are still unable to pass such an exam! That's deplorable! And it continues with each passing day. Yet, nothing seems to be done about it. Maybe some don't care!

Everyone will care when these "children" become voter eligible and are looked to sway elections. The old way called for simply telling them how to vote. They would usually comply, especially if they were promised some sort of "goodie" in return. Those days would be over with the "E" Amendment's passage!

Unlike the Al Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons, there is a genuine belief that these Americans who cannot pass a 4th grade English proficiency test are being shortchanged. These are Americans! They count! Period! For any American, it should be an imperative that we, as a society, hold to this conviction. Unfortunately, some give it "lip service" and nothing more.

However, when their value as a voter becomes consistent with their passing a 4th grade English proficiency test, things will change! Suddenly, literacy will become a priority. And it will emerge with an urgency never seen!

Our first hurdle will be the ideologues. They will insist that a literacy test is unconstitutional. And, under the present constitution, it is. The "E" Amendment would introduce this requirement and with it, stir up a "hornets nest" of controversy. In the end it will be the right action.

Creating a "stronger, smarter, more secure" America will not be easy. In fact, there will be opposition! Expect it!

100% English literacy in America in route to making Americans the "masters of the English language" is an aggressive goal. It will make a lot of our leaders uncomfortable. Especially those politicians who cater to the poor and illiterate.

The good news is, "such is to be expected!" There are always those who will resist change. Even good change that benefits everyone. We must "consider the sources, focus on the end result and brush aside  detractors.:

America is more important than any special interest consideration.

"English Only" and the Winning Alliance

Former Clinton Advisor, Dick Morris has an expression regarding political races: "They often go for the low hanging fruit."

In many ways settling for "low hanging fruit" may characterize the current efforts to make English the official language in the United States.

According to Washington D.C. based foundation, U.S. English, 87% of Americans favor making English the official language in the country. Opponents include familiar Senate obstructionist, Chuck Schumer and MSNBC pundit, Rachael Maddow. But these are minority voices. Ask the average man on the street and he'll tell you one of two things: (a) Absolutely or (b) I thought English already was the official language.

With such an overwhelming percentage of Americans favoring English as the official language, why does it seem to be taking forever to get it made into law. A quick study of H.R. 997 will provide insight. Such a process, even for a bill that has this level of support, isn't easy to get through out system. There are committees and sub-committees. Former Pro-English Director, Jayne Cannava can tell you about committees.

Then there are stubborn House Speakers and Senate Majority leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They will do anything possible to keep it from coming to a floor vote. At present, HR 997 looks to be on it's way to passage in the Boehner House. But, the chances of Harry Reid allowing it to come to a floor vote in the Senate are slim and none. The best hope will be to wait until 2013, in anticipation of sufficient Republican Senate victories to replace Reid as Majority leader.

This looks entirely possible. Odds are, Republicans will retake the Senate this November, albeit by a narrow margin. That should take care of it, right? Not so fast!

The opposition to this measure is small but obviously motitvated. Why are they committed to keeping English from becoming the official language? Their answer is the desire for "diversity." Their catch phrase is "lean forward."

Reinforcements are obviously needed!

In previous posts, possible coalitons have been evaluated. Yet, at least one D.C. foundation, U.S. English, wants no part of a coalition with advocates for either immigration reform, identity theft or voter fraud. Pro-English has experienced some turnover and may want to see what happens with HR 997. English First, the third foundation reportedly suffered the loss of a key member and is thought to be regrouping. Nobody knows for certain.

Make no mistake! All foundations have made slow but steady progress at the state level. This is constitutionally the correct approach. But nobody is satisfied to limit the effort to state legislatures.

The proposed "American English Unification Amendment" introduced in "E" is for English goes for the home run! Not only does it mandate English as the official language, it makes it unlawful to use any language but English in everything from drivers license testing to the voting booths. It goes a step further by forcing anyone who wants to participate in the electoral process to learn English! This would amount to a voter identification card, complete with picture and thumb print. Not to mention passage of a fourth grade English proficiency test.

At first glance it would appear that the Tea Parties nationwide would run with it. After all, the savings that would result from English only voting ballots and English only drivers license testing would be astonishing! It would come at a time when Democrats were recommending "shared sacrifice" as in, a tax, while Republicans were countering with the need for "austerity measure." In other words, cuts to benefits and entitlements.

This third alternative would amount to "savings that would come from eliminating previous mandates." Sounds practical. Most Americans would unquestionably like this choice as compared to the first two options. So, what's the problem?

It is called "special interest inertia." Any legislation that eliminates a problem will always have those who stand to lose. Who they are and what they would lose is a topic for another discussion. We'll just leave it at,"this kind of change would cost some people a lot of money."

In other words, we've got a fight on our hands!

By throwing in the identity theft measures that are included in this proposed amendment, you are creating a double objective. When you make it illegal to "outsource jobs offshore that use all or part of an Americans' social security number," you are descibing a measure that everyone understands. The appropriate position is to link the measure to Patriotism. When people become aware of the extent of the practice, they first become alarmed, then angry. The end result question is "how many jobs would be returning to our shores?"

Identity theft in itself, is a separate issue and a winning issue for aspiring politicians. It is the fastest growing crime in America. Most ask, "why are we not hearing more about it?" Same reason: money for a select few!

Think that we need more? I do! And there is no issue that has drawn more criticism and scrutiny than Immigration Reform. The proposed legislation introduced in the "American English Unification Amendment" is the ultimate "bridge for the moderates." It deals with all of the key questions; ranging from "those here illegally through no fault of the own," to "who we should preference for future immigration."

Neither those on the far right or those on the far left will like this proposal. But, as American Foundation for Immigration Control spokesman, John Vinson described, "it's simply common sense." Best of all, it makes English literacy and assimilation part of the equation. Thus, when Chuck Schumers of the world attempt to block English only legislation, they become "opponents of a path to citizenship for illegal aliens and proponents of continued identity theft" in America.

Immigration reform, identity theft and voter fraud are all key needs areas in the country. Also needed are painless methods to cut expenses without compromising benefits or imposing another tax on our people. Coupled with improved literacy which naturally will come from an "English first" standard, we will significantly better our nation by "going for the home run."

Why English only measures have not already passed is a mystery. The bulk of the population wants it. Those opposing it are typically linked to some kind of special interest. It would seem that settling for the "low hanging fruit" would be be a waste.

The desire to make English the official language could be the ultimate catalyst for solving other concerns. Most importantly, such an alliance would make possible a "power move" on any and all who would advocate a weaker America.

"E" and Immigration Reform: More than "Kissing Cousins!"

Are we to the point that politics and political expediency are the only things that matter?

Looks that way! Yet, in the heat of battle, Florida Senator Marco Rubio deserves some credit for attempting to bring closure to an argument that has gone on too long. The President? Well, there is an election taking place in November.

What is puzzling is "why" immigration reform and English as the official language have not joined hands. They are more than merely "kissing cousins!" Maybe it's because it's too simple. Senator Rubio has advocated English as the official language. Now, he is piecing together a plan that actually might gain bi-partisan support.

Obama's actions are not surprising. He made a truckload of promises to the Hispanic community in '08. Then, those aspirations became back seated in favor of a stimulus package, health care and green energy. Sorry, Hispanic community! Your needs are secondary to those of more key Democrat constituencies!

July is breathing down our necks! Time to start thinking about the election! That means, recounting old promises to key voting blocs. There is concern in the Obama camp. They are fortunate that the Republican nominee, in the words of former Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales "doesn't connect" with the Hispanic Community. But that doesn't insure that the 16% of America that they represent will automatically flock to Obama!

41 year-old Florida Senator, Marco Rubio is favored as Romney's running mate by the majority of Republicans. If Mitt listens to them, and to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as well as Tea Party spokeman, Jim DeMint, it will be bad news for Democrats. That's why the 11th hour hoopla of a pieced together immigration plan that bi-passes the legislative process. Rubio's proposal, at least goes about it legally!

What about our plan, proposed in "E" is for English? Why not bring it all together? It isn't that House Speaker, John Boehner hasn't been exposed to it! Maybe it's because I am who I am. Nobody but another voice of mainstream Amertica. I haven't made any significant contributions to the party or GOP candidates! Perhaps there isn't time for anyone save those with the Fortune 500 stamp of approval. Could that be it, Mr. Speaker?

What differentiates the "E" plan from Rubio's is that it provides a direct path to citizenship for those who are here in the U.S. illegally through no fault of their own. All they must do is pass a 10th grade English profiency exam and participate in some sort of service. Rubio's plan allows them to stay legally. But it is vague about eventual citizenship.

Obama's plan is simply the D.R.E.A.M. act which failed to make it through the leglislature. The D.R.E.A.M. act would provide a path to citizenship. But, unlike the "E" plan, it would extend entitlements to offenders. This includes Pell grants, food stamps, student loans and other safety net entitlements. The "E" plan puts these offenders on probation, making them ineligible for entitlements.But, it creates a legitimate route to citizenship.

The "E" plan also takes a second look at the 14th amendment. This is where we need to start! In 1866, "Born in the United States" was a direct reference to the newly freed slaves.  In the proposed "E" Amendment, this definition would be redefined as "anyone born of at least one parent having permanent alien resident status." It would also clarify the "birther issue" by affirming that anyone born of "at least one parent having attained permanent resident alien status would have all of the rights and privileges of an American." In other words, they could run for President or Vice President of the United States of America.

This proposed legislation is truly a "bridge for the moderates." And, in full view, it is superior to Rubio's proposal! It is certainly a better option than the Presidents!

Best of all, it forces the country to go "English only" with all official documents, voting ballots, drivers license testing and literally anything government sponsored, or under the auspices of the federal government. It virtually eliminates voter fraud. It puts a major dent into the identity theft crisis, creating tens of thousands of domestic jobs in the process!

This is about a stronger, smarter, more secure America. The present course does nothing but Balkanize the nation. In the name of political correctness!

I would challenge Senator Rubio to take a look at the "E" proposal. It will be a winner for him. Both with the Immigrant community and long time Americans.

"E" is about making us "one." If there was ever a time to have such a discussion, it's certainly now!

The Dark Side of America

His name was Peter Labruno.(A suedonym) His voice echoed South Philly. He made it clear that it would not be a problem if the subject creditor's identity was compromised. He went on to tell me that his company received fifty dollars per credit report from their "clients." He was referring to the debtors' credit reports.

Peter worked for a collection agency. The professional description is a "debt organization service." He emphasized that he "had no issue with his associates selling "clients" credit reports "out the back door."

In this case the ready buyer for this wealth of private information was AmericaQuest, a subprime lender. When I asked Peter if it might create a compliance problem, he assured me that "most of the guys working here have felonies on their record. It's not a big deal."

That wasn't reassuring! But, it was pretty typical!

The debt recovery industry is completely out of control. Neither, Mitt Romney, the expected Republican nominee, or the incumbant president has had much to say about it. Maybe it's time both parties took a fresh look at it. There may be reasons for the reluctance.

When someone proposed the idea of a "S.A.F.E. like" industry test for debt recovery most political leaders sat on their hands. Maybe they thought that we were "overreacting?" Perhaps they also knew that key contributors to their campaigns might be impacted. True, there have been overtures such as the Fair Debt Recovery Act. But the questions regarding (a) where the collectors sat, (b) the ethics used by these collectors and (c) the actual recovery in relation to the original debt were disregarded.

We need to put this obscure industry under the microscope. Have you had a call from "Jerry from New Dehli" or "John from Taiwan?" If you don't have any "dings" on your bureau, perhaps not. Consider yourself lucky if your don't!

The fastest growing crime in America is identity theft. The debt recovery industry has little if any regulation. Most of it has been outsourced to Asia, the "home of the master computer hacker."The problem is awareness. Only those who have missed a payment or have suffered through some mistake have entered into this private hell. It's called, "pay up, owe it or not, or we'll ruin your credit!"

This is simply the "ugliest part of America." It is the conclusion that "we will ruin your life, because your credit often reflects your character. We will harass you unmercifully if you don't pay...whether you owe it or not! Doesnt't matter if it's $50 or $50,000."

Todays global landscape includes a new breed of debt recovery specialists. They are tough, unscrupulous and take no prisoners. In the logic of debt collectors, the "Golden rule" is for losers and idiots. What's important is making those who owe pay. And if they don't? Haunt them until they see the light and pay up! Period!

Have we reached this point? Afraid that we have! What's next? The most common solution is bankrupcy. This has become an accepted "tool." Twenty years ago, it was scorned, considered a last ditch option for the hopelessly indebted. Today, it is actually encouraged. Knowing that the alternative is "Jerry from New Dehli" and a distinction of being a person lacking in "moral turpitude," the debtor acquiesces.

The question becomes, "is recovering what are generally nickels and dimes worth it?"

After all, the original creditor is lucky to receive "tens cents on a dollar" from debt recovery companies! In the case of a $1500 credit card debt, that equates to $150. Okay! $150 is better than nothing! But what if the debt is half that? Or one-third that? Now we're talking about $50 to $75. And the amounts continue to grow smaller.

Hospitals commonly turn over delinquent accounts owing $30 to collection agencies! I guess they need the three dollars! Unfortunately, these "nickels and dimes" can force a borrow into less desirable credit terms on a major purchase, such as a home or car loan. Good riddance? Serves the "deadbeat" right for not paying! BUT, what if they don't actually owe this money? Amazingly, this is often the case!

Problem identified. Now for a solution!

Let's start by banning all offshore help. It's time for "Jerry from New Delhi" and "John from Tawwan" to say "adieu." A legislative ban of these delightful entities will help! We need to make it clear that this job is "verboten" to all help outside our borders! For those who don't believe it, a $10,000 fine per occurance will await them!

Then, for those inside the borders, a "100 question exam, following an F.B.I. record check," to make sure that there has been no "funny business" in the applicants' past MUST BE IMPLEMENTED. The exam will he rigorous. It will rival the S.A.F.E. exam in difficulty for the taker.

Any collection under $500 will be disallowed for reporting! In other words, if the collection is less than $500, it cannot be reported to the bureaus. If it is, the perpetrator will face a $5,000 fine and a twelve month incarseration in a correctional facility. Nine dollar an hour clerks in accounting departments will not be spared.

Why would we be so willing to give these "deadbeats" a break? Two reasons:

(a) The company might receive 10% of the balance. Selling a $500 collection to a collection agency for $50 isn't going to make one rich. But it can seriously hurt the recipient! Is it really worth it! Has anyone heard of the Golden rule? Or, have we turned it all over to computers?

(b) The second reason is pretty obvious! We want to build a middle class, not destroy it. Simple credit dings can be the difference in elevating a lifestyle or not. True, the original creditor has the right to recover his fifty bucks. But the effort to recover the fifty dollars is now imbeded in the system. A better option would be to encourage companies to keep the debts in-house and work out repayment terms with their borrowers.

The end result will yield more positives than negatives. Such as more borrowers with better credit scores. Not to mention fewer bankruptcies! It's time to "stop tripping over a dollar to make a dime."

In short, protecting middle class interests is more important that making $50. We must look past this "he owed it, or they said that he owed it! Let him pay or make him pay!" It's important for credit reports to be cherished, and protected. We need to give all of our middle class borrowers the benefit of the doubt!

The debt recovery industry is the "dark side of America." We need to get it under control. REALLY under control. It should be as regulated as Securities or Mortages. If anything, more so.

It's time for political leaders to stop running from this issue. They need to deal with it. It's the unspoken nightmare of the middle class. It MUST be addressed.

How?

We must get past these dogmatic vocalists who think that "if they owe it, they owe it. No quarter. To hell with them! May 'em pay." This point of view may give gratification to a few. But is it condusive to bettering the country?

For those who don't care, think about this: "What if it were you?" Don't say it couldn't be. Never say never!

An Unexpected Ally for English as Official Language

Have you checked your credit card balance lately?

Some can triumphantly proclaim, "thank God, I don't have credit cards!" But for those of us who might, it's painfully obvious that the person we often speak to on the other end isn't local! In fact, they are quite a ways off! As in on the other side of the planet!

To have an intelligent discussion about identity theft prevention, we must first determine potential security breaches. Which leads to the first question: "Should consumer sensitive information be entrusted to someone not required to conform to the normal security measures required in the United States?"

To work in banking, securities, insurance, real estate or mortgage lending a person must be fingerprinted and checked by the F.B.I. in Washington, D.C. for prior arrests, felonies and misdemeanors. Are these same rules required for employees working offshore? Fair question.

In reality, some of these companies are so large, they may not be able to answer the question! What they can tell you is that "in America, companies would be required to pay $7.25 per hour for this help. In India, Central America, Indonesia and the Philippines, it is MUCH cheaper." Furthermore there are often no overtime requirements, benefit standards and cumbersome restrictions that can come with banking in America.

Consumers may find this "help" somewhat deficient at times. But the alleged tradeoff is cost. Or, in their case savings. Most never think past the point of "free" services. We have been conditioned to think globally. It is assumed that the only important consideration is the cost of the service.

As internet use has risen, so has identity theft. Is there a correlation between increased offshore employment in the service sector and identity theft? Fortune 500 companies would say "no" and suggest that any link between the two is "coincidental."

Most Americans take the practice for granted. However, when brought to light, it's easy to say, "wait a minute!" Why are we taking these jobs abroad when we have high unemployment at home? It's a fair question.

Defenders of the practice are quick to point out that "only encrypted" social security numbers are utilized. This isn't always the case. But even in instances that it is, four digits may be four digits too many! Some of the finest internet hackers in the world reside in Asia. Therefore, why even take such chances?

This is a great non-partisan issue. It is politically popular to bash companies who would compromise Americans' privacy, in the name of making an increased profit. The thought of banning the practice would spread like a prairie fire across the parched West Texan Llano in August!

Packaging this measure with a sweeping bill that featured English as the Official Language would be doubly delightful! If there was ever an idea that would cross party lines it's "banning any and all offshore outsourcing that utilized all or part of an Americans' social security number." The identity theft prevention foundations would be receiving a major consideration. American politicians could talk about "returning tens of thousand jobs to our shores."

Amazingly, no English foundation has considered pairing with anti-identity theft advocates. Yet, the two causes actually parallel." English, as the official language, would impact information processing in America. "Making Americans the masters of the English language" points toward a goal of an eventual world monopoly on English information processing. It will begin with banking and the financial services sector. Debt recovery, an industry sorely in need of restraints will follow. The last link will be accurate credit reporting.

It begins with linking "English only" with identity theft prevention. Expect some flak!

Diversity cultists would be horrified at such a Populist proposition. It completely discredits their claim that English as the country's official language "discriminates." It makes it possible for proponents to correctly align diversity cultists with globalists. In a mood of growing nationalism, America is looking for scapegoats. It would be a severely inopportune time for any constituency to oppose either measure.

English as Official Language Key to Other American Ails

English only foundations have made steady progress, especially on the state level.

Visit their websites! U.S. English, Pro-English.org and English First all can be applauded for their advancements. It has been a slow process! But, state by state, piece by piece, it is happening! And, if you are a 10th amendment advocate, it is being done in the correct manner. English is, after all, a state concern. Isn't it?

A question was recently asked at a Taylorsville, Kentucky Tea Party function. "Is English as an official language a violation of the 10th amendment? Or, is it like the military, where each state has it's own militia but the country has a national armed forces?" The second amendment stipulates that the states have the right to bear arms and hold a militia. There is nothing in the constitution about a national language.

Diversity proponents would argue that there is no official language in the United States. They might reference the 10th amendment as a state's right to speak whatever language the majority wanted. Or, to have multiple languages as acceptable. This seems to be the direction that we have settled upon. The foundations evidently see this opposition as something to avoid. A better path may be to focus on the most "English friendly" states gaining victories whenever possible.

The opposite argument is simply, "87% of America favors English as the official language." These U.S. English numbers would indicate an overwhelming majority of the country wants it. What are the disadvantages?

Opponents use "discrimination" as a reason for not adopting English as our official language. This familiar excuse seems to resonate with diversity cultists. For some reason, they continue to believe that a uniform, first language excludes unfortunates who can't or won't assimilate. I know that they exist. But, they seem to be increasingly difficult to find!

The foundations seem to have some disagreement on "to what extent" English as the official language should be advanced. Pro English and English First like the idea of English only voting ballots and drivers license testing. They have a potential ally in some of the Tea Party groups. This development would save federal, state and local governments billions. Seems prudent! What's the problem?

To truly understand the question, it becomes important to understand the true importance of assimilation. And when that occurs, it becomes obvious that to truly have equally in the country, we must all have comparable understanding of one language. The diversity cultists argue vehemently that this isn't the case! But are they looking at the question from a "multidimensional sense?"

American tradition is one of a vast "melting pot." We come from nations all over the world, intermarry and our children are the fruits of our diversity. It can be easily argued that this is the "true diversity" of America. It makes us unique and the products of why our ancestors sought a new life in a new world. These opponents who object to English as the official language may have ulterior motives.

A "Balkanized" America offers profit and control to the limited few. In exchange for compromising assimilation for many, they continue to reap big dividends in the way of alternative language marketing. Plus, they maintain control of various segments of the population by making it easy to remain separate. Assimilation translates to a loss of both profit and control.

It begins with advancing English literacy in America. The more literate in English a citizen is, the more difficult that he or she will be to influence. It amounts to having improved access to communication. The more information that is available, the more knowledgeable the native. The more knowledgeable the native, the less dependent they are to those who would tell them what and how to think.

Should the foundations be taking a more aggressive approach?

Some would suggest that this isn't their place. They have a goal and they are quietly moving toward it. The alternative argument is that that the overwhelming support for English as the official language in America may create opportunities to address and resolve other needs.

With 87% of the population in favor of an idea, and a group founded on fiscal conservatism in solid support of it, you have the beginning of a coalition. Add those who strive to eliminate voter fraud and the coalition grows larger. Bring those groups in who are addressing identity theft and the coalition grows even larger.

To discuss English as the official language, coupled with the need for Charter schools, merit pay for teachers, school choice and six years of a second language in the public schools creates the potential of still another coalition. But would these goals "mesh?" It would appear so, but not so fast? There are actually education foundations who favor Charter schools, merit pay and school choice who would turn "thumbs down" to English as the official language. Why? Good question!

Then there is the issue that always seems interrelated with English as the official language: Immigration reform. This may explain the reluctance of some foundations to form coalitions. There are many proponents on the state level who might become alienated with foundations who sought alliances with Immigration reformers!

Immigration reform is a touchy item. It is, in the words of Karl Rove, "a politically toxic" subject. Still, if a moderate plan could be introduced with promise of advocates' support for English only, voter I.D.'s and Identity theft measures, a sweeping, far reaching compromise might come together.