What is Jade Helm 15?

I have never considered myself a reactionary. Nor do I subscribe to conspiracy theories. But the news that is coming out of the Southwest is disquieting, if not disturbing! Below is an excerpt taken from the Inquisitr, a conservative b log, that has pointed out numerous irregularities that are corroborated by ex-military men from all branches of the services.

To Monitor Federal Troops During Jade Helm Military Exercises, Governor Deploys Troops to Guard Against Martial Law


Texas militia to guard against federal declaration of martial law

Texas Gov. Greg Abbot ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor federal troops as they conduct Jade Helm 15 military exercises later this year that some fear are a prelude to declaring martial law.


Some Texans have been accusing the federal government of using the Jade Helm 15 military exercises as a way to take over, seize their guns and declare martial law.

Operation Jade Helm 15 is a massive training exercise involving 1,200 special operations troops operating clandestinely in several southwest states, including Texas, which, for the duration of the exercise, has been designated a hostile country.

The US military’s most elite soldiers, Navy Seals and Green Berets will attempt to operate covertly without being seen from Texas to California in what the Pentagon is calling, training on the evolving nature of warfare.

Texas Governor deploys militia to monitor federal troops during Jade Helm
KODIAK, AK – DECEMBER 14: Navy SEALs perform Advanced Cold Weather training to experience the physical stress of the environment and how their equipment will operate, or even sound, in adverse conditions December 14, 2003 in Kodiak, Alaska. Photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Eric S. Logsdon/U.S. Navy via Getty Images)

In response to citizen fears of a federal government takeover and amid growing concern of individual rights, Gov. Abbot ordered the Texas military to monitor the US military operations during Jade Helm, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.


“During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property right and civil liberties will not be infringed. I am directing the Texas State Guard to monitor Operation Jade Helm 15.”

Abbot commands the Texas State Guard, a militia of volunteers reserved for times of emergency or catastrophe.

A Texas State Guard spokesman told the San Francisco Chronicle his unit was ready to meet the governor’s command in response to Jade Helm.


“We are always ready to answer the call of the Governor, and we are in the initial planning and coordination phase in response to the Governor’s directive.”

Radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has joined the far right blogosphere in voicing his fear of a federal government takeover during the Jade Helm maneuvers, according to the Dallas Morning News.

Many conservative Texans also view the abrupt closing of five Wal-Mart’s and the firing of 2,200 workers in the southwest with suspicion and fear the superstores could be used as bases for foreign or federal troops operating under Jade Helm, according to the Inquisitr.

Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria, a spokesman for federal military forces attended a Bastrop County Commissioners Court Monday and sought to dispel resident’s fears saying the misinformation about Jade Helm 15 was spread for someone’s personal agenda, according to the Austin American Statesman.


“You may have issues with the administration. So be it. But this institution right here has been with you for over 200 years. I’ve worn this uniform across five different administrations for 27 years.”

Jade Helm military exercises in Victoria and Goliad counties have been cancelled for unknown reasons.

Photo by Photographer’s Mate 2nd Class Eric S. LogsdonU.S. Navy/Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Texas and Utah been designated as "hostile " areas. Colorado and California are labeled "permissive." Could this be coincidental?

Obviously the Governor Texas didn't take it as merely coincidental! One well informed Texan pointed out, that "martial law wouldn't be possible. Perhaps a coup. But, the law enforcement officials and sheriffs in the small towns, not the cities, would be with us. We would have them outnumbered 20 to one."

A big to do about nothing? Fox News evidently thinks so! But why are Turkish Soldiers in Texas. But, of course! They are actually UN Peacekeepers! Which brings us to the next question: "What are UN Peacekeepers doing in the United States?"

The official line is "the plan is to dress men of war in civilian clothing and blend in with the local population."

What?

At latest report, Jade Helm 15 had spread to 10 states, most recently adding Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. Military exercise? Perhaps. But, it certainly doesn't' resemble anything that we have seen!

Anger, Fear Growing Rapidly in America

Anger, mixed with a little bit of fear, is increasingly prevalent in America.

Recently, I spoke to a friend from Nashville who shared an alarming tidbit of information. Her son, serving in the military had a patch on his uniform. It read, "Geneva U.C." Or, so she thought.

What does "Geneva" have to do with American troops stationed in Tennessee?

No real answer. Just like all of the ready made coffins recently discovered somewhere in Michigan. Not to mention "camp like compounds," seen near Flint. What is this?

The N.S.A. is supported by members of both parties. I noticed this morning on Facebook how Jeb Bush is singing the accolades of the N.S.A., professing that they are "keeping us safe." As I understand it, however, the N.S.A. can arrest any American who is deemed a terrorist without due process. They can intern the suspected terrorist; without telling the family where. And, they can hold them indefinitely. This can't be right! Can it?

I am not one for conspiracy theories. Nor, do I consider myself a paranoid person. But, if all of this is true, we have big problems!

Friends have urged me to purchase a couple of AR-15's, and plenty of rounds. I listened but didn't respond. Then, I read that the President is attempting to rid the country of AR-15 rounds. Marketing? Or, could it be something more? I certainly hope not!

Everyone from Survivalists to Mormons have been secretly hoarding food over past years. Under alleged N.S.A. rules, no American is allowed to keep more than a month's supply of food and would be breaking the law, if they did. This can't be!

Fear paralyzes. I am finding that many sane, rational, non paranoid people, including my brother, urge caution when communicating on the phone or via email or Facebook.

Senator Rand Paul pointed much of this out in the Republican Leadership Conference, held this past weekend in New Hampshire. It's time that somebody had both the insight and intestinal fortitude to do this. Hopefully, it's not too late!

There is a growing divide in America. For illustrative purposes, I will call the opposing parties the "Centralists" and the "Federalists." The Centralists want an America that is more uniform, preferably run from Washington, D.C. The Federalists believe in the 10th amendment. They see the states as individual laboratories of innovation.

Both Centralists and Federalist strive for the same objective. It's a matter of how to accomplish it. Or, that's how Rick Perry sees it! Hopefully, he's right! At the very least, the former Texas Governor gets an "A" for diplomacy!

Paul supporters aren't so sure. Neither are Ted Cruz followers. From both camps we're hearing about a "plot to bring America into a New World Order, a one world government." Those who resist will be dealt with accordingly.

Are these Americans merely paranoid reactionaries? Or, are they simply a step ahead of the rest of the country? For those who have taken the time to read, G. Edward Griffin's, "the Creature from Jekyll Island," you will have Paul's perspective. Cruz is a brilliant legal authority on the constitution. Both are "Federalists."

Most of the Republican Party leadership are "Centralists." I watched Mitt Romney discuss the GOP contenders last night on Hannity. He mentioned five would be Republicans who figured into the race. Neither Cruz or Paul was mentioned. Neither was Perry. Jeb Bush was mentioned! So were Chris Christie and Lindsey Graham. I guess "Centralists" like "Centralists."

In two previous posts, we discussed "New Conservatives," AKA "Neo-Cons." They are the "Centralists." But, all Centralists are not conservatives! Barack Obama is surely a Centralist. In fact, most all of the Democrat Party is comprised of Centralists.

Thus, Centralists, Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham have more in common with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton than Rand Paul, Ted Cruz or Rick Perry. No wonder much of the party refers to both men as "R.I.N.O.s!"

Two-Hundred-Twenty years ago, Bush, Christie and Graham, not to mention Romney, would have been referred to as "Hamiltonians!" Like Alexander Hamilton, they believed that power should be more concentrated in Washington, implemented by the better educated, more affluent. Today they are, as Carly Fiorina described them, "the political class."

Does this mean that they would support measures such as N.S.A. spying? Evidently so!

Wait a minute! Wasn't this "Centralist versus Federalist" argument settled at Appomattox in 1865? Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia thinks so!

States rights was then and remains a thorny issue. Southerners and to a large degree, Westerners take the 10th amendment more literally than those from the Northeast. Most believe that the issue remains unresolved. The Midwest continues to be divided on the issue. Indiana and to a lesser degree, Ohio and Iowa hold Federalist leanings.

Over the past two decades, the electoral map has reflected these paradigms. Thus, it's understandable that Centralists would be more open to Obamacare and Common Core, while Federalists would oppose both programs.

Nominating a Centralist has been a GOP trend since 1988. Ronald Reagan was the last Federalist President. Most agree that the GOP base is firmly in favor of choosing a Federalist in 2016. But, who does that eliminate? It was disquieting that Romney also mentioned Marco Rubio and Scott Walker.

Rubio is talking like a Federalist. Yet, there are slips, such as his positions on Marijuana legalization and gay rights. Both indicate that he might be a closet Centralist. Scott Walker hasn't been too vocal either way. And that could translate to his being courted by Centralists, in the event that Bush or Rubio fizzle!

Nobody is talking about Mike Huckabee. But if he declares his candidacy on May 5th, you will hear his name frequently. Maybe as a possible running mate for Bush! After all, there are Evangelicals who consider Federalists, "Relativists." They might ultimately prove pivotal in Centralists maintaining party control...

Why the significance?

In a previous post we traced the Neo-Con origin back to Leon Trotsky and the fight between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in Russia. It is easy to trace Hillary Clinton's origins back to the Frankfurt School. These mostly Jewish Europeans were Stalinists. In essence, when discussing Centralists in America, we are essentially resuming the Stalin versus Trotsky debate that took place in 1913...

Most conservatives deem a Hillary Clinton presidency a ticket to the ruination of America. Yet, are they completely powerless to prevent it? What if there is a closely contested election that ends in the manner that 2000 ended?

It's probable that the Obama administration and most Centralists fear a citizens uprising. Especially in light of the growing trend for increased second amendment protections. The million dollar question amounts to, "what would be the disposition of the military and other law enforcement officials in America."

A Nevada Tea Party activist refers to the five star generals as "perfumed princes." That's a fitting description for CFR members, David Petraeus and Wesley Clark. No doubt that they would stay with the crown!

But what about the one stars? Not to mention those officers cashiered by the Obama Administration! It's fairly obvious that most fraternal order of police members are sympathetic to the conservative cause! Homeland Security? Who knows! And we still haven't gotten to that "Geneva something or another.!"

By weighing this additional consideration, the choice of a Republican nominee takes on a second dimension. In the event that we encountered an impasse, would law enforcement officials and the majority of the military follow them? And, would they be capable of assuming the immediate role of commander-in-chief?

Fear is a great motivator. It can paralyze. Or, it can bring about action! Anger can start as rage and ultimately end in joy. It is never a good idea to push people too far. True, 98% of the country will remain apathetic. But the rest won't! Those who studied the Bolshevik revolution will remind that only 60,000 or so brought about the change.

Thomas Jefferson concluded that "when people fear government you have tyranny and when government fears the people, you have liberty." Perhaps those truly loving America should look to Jefferson for insight.

Not to mention the almighty.

GOP Nominee Should Have a History With Hispanics

Former Clinton consultant, Doug Shoen recently referred to Hillary's campaign as "like a giant balloon, looking for a pin."

Will she implode? Don't count on it! Mrs. Clinton has the media firmly in her tank! True there are many in her party who might like to see someone else. Most in her party who would welcome some primary competition. But, it's all a charade. When the smoke clears, it will be Hillary Clinton as the Dem's nominee. It about inertia. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat's Bob Dole.

Clinton is not taking anything for granted. She is engaged in conversation with San Antonio Major, Julian Castro. The topic: His joining her on the ticket! For those not familiar with the 40-year-old Castro, take a closer look. Mayor Castro sees "Chicanos" as victims of prejudice, bigotry and exploitation. His selection would indicate that Hillary isn't thinking about bi-partisanship and a working relationship with Congress. Why should she? Class warfare worked splendidly for Barack Obama.

There are some old hands, such as James Carville, not to mention her husband, advising her. They are warning, "don't take any previous voter for granted." Especially Hispanics.

Jeb Bush is seen as a "difficult" match-up. Not that the Clinton's think that he couldn't be beaten! Of the three or four possibles, he might be the easiest. But, he was a successful governor in a key swing state, is husband to a Mexican wife, speaks the language better than 90% of American Latinos and has drawn the wrath of many fellow Republicans for what is described as a "soft" position on immigration.

Rick Perry hasn't caught fire. Yet. But, his tenure as Governor of Texas included some noteworthy achievements and advancements for Hispanics. One of the most surprising is the high school graduation rates in Texas. Perry tallied 44% of the Hispanic vote in Texas' 2010 Gubernatorial, general election.

Marco Rubio has one of the most impressive stories in recent years. His youth could work to his advantage. The Clinton camp evidently sees the potential of a 2008 in reverse. Party history, however is not on his side as far as being the nominee. Yet he tops nearly every list as a V.P. select!

Mike Huckabee received 46% of the Hispanic vote in his last re-election campaign in Arkansas. The former Governor will readily remind that he also received 48% of the African American vote.

While Ted Cruz has the right surname, it will be easy enough for Hillary Clinton to bury him with her war chest. Ditto for Rand Paul, although both, especially Paul are gaining some traction with Hispanic voters.

The Republican stable is full of race horses to be sure! And, a few nags, such as South Carolina, "R.I.N.O.," Lindsey Graham.

To be sure, both Scott Walker and John Kasich would be qualified nominees. But should the lack of appeal to Hispanics preclude them?

Clinton's camp hopes that Republicans will again ignore this crucial block of voters, as they did in 2012. Don't look for them to take any chances with a moderate like Jim Webb. Webb's military report card would bring some credibility to the ticket. But, Julian Castro will enable them to play the class warfare card with zeal, and a "truckload" of cash!

Sadly her party may be willing to do this. Any Democrat strategist will tell you that to "split" the Hispanic vote with Republicans would be a disaster, a recipe for losing the general election. They know that a Bush-Huckabee or a Perry-Rubio or a Huckabee-Rubio ticket would pit the former first lady/Secretary of State against a veteran Governor who had the ability to mobilize Evangelicals and/or Youthful voters.

Worst still, all three did exceptionally well with Hispanic voters in previous elections.

Kentucky's Hal Heiner Remiscent of Texas' James Street

Recently, Kentucky Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Hal Heiner, visited my office. It came on the heels of a luncheon appearance at the Lexington Rotary club. I had earlier given him from a lift from the Rotary luncheon.

This was my first one-on-one with Heiner. I found him remarkably reminiscent of the late James Street, quarterback for University of Texas' 1969 national champion football team. Heiner is a youthful 62 and not only looks a lot like Street, but has that same effervescence. Those who remember will tell you that "James stayed lit up like a pin ball machine." Street's childhood friend who now serves as Clemson University Athletic Director, Terry Don Phillips, described James as "a winner."

Heiner's "can do" attitude further reminds you of Street. He described Kentucky as a state that "was blessed" with everything from natural resources to a central location. His outlook pretty much amounted to one factor: "We need to produce revenue by not increasing taxes, but increasing jobs."

Kentucky is a unique state. I recall former WTVQ General Manager, Diane Sutter, describing it as "Southerners with a Midwestern mentality." In essence "charming and genteel, while being more practical and less temperamental." Heiner certainly fits the bill! But, as one elderly Rotarian questioned, "speaking as an engineer, Hal, how would you address the gridlock in Frankfort?"

Kentucky has a Senate that has Republican majority. The House of Representatives has been in Democrat control since Reconstruction. Speaker, Greg Stumbo runs the House with an iron hand. Current Governor, Steve Beshear went as far to say that the Houses return to Republican control would "turn the clock back 100 years!"

Heiner's plan is typical of an Engineer. It is thorough. It contains numerous movable parts, starting with "right-to-work" and ending with "charter schools." Both are predicted to attract industry, which would equate to jobs. His rationale behind Obamacare and Kentucky's establishment of exchanges is backed by pure economic logic. It stands as polar opposite to that of likely Democrat nominee, Jack Conway.

Obviously it will take a "winner with a can do attitude" to accomplish what Heiner seeks to do! Which inspired me to ask a somewhat novel question: "Do you think we could get ten or twelve Democrats to switch parties?"

Hal's response was, "interesting idea. I dunno."

Throughout the South there are conservatives who vote with Republicans in nearly all, if not all national elections. I refer to them as "D.I.N.O.s- Democrats in name only." I recall my insurance agent trashing President Obama,telling me how much he liked Rand Paul and exclaiming that there was "no way I will vote for Ben Chandler in the U.S. Congressional election." He then said that he was a registered Democrat. When I ask him "why," his response was "well, my father was a Democrat and his father was a Democrat and I guess it's just tradition."

Tradition or not, it may be the key to unlocking Kentucky's potential as Heiner seeks to do!

It can happen! In fact it did happen throughout the South on a national level. Perhaps the most prominent example is Rick Perry. Perry was a Democrat through 1988. But he made the switch on grounds that he didn't leave the party, it left him. As some remember, Ronald Reagan used those same words.

Many have read former Georgia Democrat, Zell Millers book, "A national Party no More." The Democrats are increasingly seen as the party of "big government, increased entitlements and questionable foreign policy."

In short,the party has drifted left to the point where John F. Kennedy would have a difficult time recognizing it. It's safe to say that "the party of John F. Kennedy and Harry S. Truman" no longer exist!

Could a "can do optimist such as Hal Heiner pull it off?" If he's anything like Street, the answer is "yes." Longhorn historians will describe Street's impossible dilemma of playing second string behind All American, (later all pro) Bill Bradley. Yet by the third game of his junior year, he had won the starting job!

It might require some help from the outside! Obviously a "D.I.N.O." Congresswoman such as Richmond's Rita Smart would be impressed, if not overwhelmed if Rick Perry asked her to both lunch and to switch parties!

Kentucky and certainly America needs smart, enthusiastic business people like Hal Heiner "quarterbacking" their transformation from a "ward of Washington" to a "laboratory" of ingenuity and progress. This is what Mike Huckabee did in Arkansas. That's why Arkansans who lived in the state during both Clinton's and Huckabee's governorships will tell you how much more effective Huck was than Bill.

In Hal Heiner, we see James Street, less the Longview, Texas drawl. In effect a "winner." The question will be, "how big?"

It may come down to how many D.I.N.O.s come home.

Dodd-Frank Quietly Killing American Dream; Small Business

Implementation of Dodd-Frank quietly continues. The newest change will take place this summer when the TILA and GFE forms are modified. Most Americans will barely notice it. Should we be concerned?

The pros and cons of Dodd-Frank spawn endless debate, with no outright winner. Depending on one's perspective, it's difficult to find a consistent right or wrong answer.

The left proffers a need for increased regulation with a closer eye on Wall Street, banks and the finance industry in general. Their "gift," the "Consumer Finance Protection Bureau" is funded by the fines of offenders. In the eyes of Elizabeth Warren and other "reformers," it is the medicine necessitated by greedy, opportunistic villians who have made their fortunes preying on vulnerable Americans.

The right counters, accurately contending that the casualities of Dodd-Frank are not so much the big banks, but the community banks. The is due to the costs of accountants and attorneys. Both are needed to "interpret" Dodd-Frank and defend against unknowing infractions. Legal and accounting fees are more easily assorbed by the larger institutions.

There is no easy asnwer to this "clash of perceptions!" It will come down to the 2016 election. If Americans believe that the regulations are worth the extra time, money and paper, they will elect Hillary Clinton President. It depends on how the merits and downsides of the law are positioned. Thus far, Republicans have done a poor job showing how Dodd-Frank impacts the average American.

To see Dodd Frank is to see it as an industry person. Few Congressmen or Senators have ever originated a mortgage loan! Even fewer have counciled average borrowers on "types" of loan. There are members of the far right who contend that people shouldn't be borrowing money to begin with!

In a perfect world, we would pay cash for everything. Nobody would have a mortgage on their home. Everyone would have a job. Everyone would pay a simple flat tax with no deductions. Certified Public Accountants would become non-essential. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in!

To listen to the President, those "dirty mortgage brokers" caused the banking meltdown! Let's eliminate them and the problem will be solved!

This type response demonstrates Barack Obama's depth on the issue. Those "dirty mortgage brokers" were the end result of a Wall Street gone insane with greed. "Greed" resulted in the large banks creating sub-prime loans that carried high(7-8%) margins on adjustable rate mortgage loans. These loans were then sold to borrowers who ordinarilty did not qualify for a loan.

Specifically, a borrower with a 560 credit score, unable to verify income, with no money for a down payment was given a mortgage loan. A loan may have started at 5.5%. But, it could potentially rise to 13.5%. If you are borrowering $200,000, you are talking about your mortgage payment more than doubling.

The margin was based on the L.I.B.O.R.(London Inner Bank Offered Rate), a measure between the dollars relationwhip with the Euro. With a margin that often exceeded 7%, a sudden rise in the L.I.B.O.R. could spell disaster for borrowers who had taken out a "2/28 or 3/27 ARM" loan!

Why did rates rise? Then head of the Federal Reserve, Henry Paulson contended that rates needed to increase in "bite sized" increments to prevent possible inflation. Then Kentucky Senator, Jim Bunning blasted Paulson's approach, stating it was "like giving medicine to someone who wasn't sick!"

Industry textbooks today suggest that the entire meltdown was premeditated. The goal was to create permanent renters within the population. When noting that Paulson himself is a C.F.R. member, the argument gains credence! After all, a tiny segment of the population benefited enormously from the meltdown. The investment class has since rebounded. Only what remains of the middle class remains stuck, still trying to understand what went wrong!

Wall Street and the big banks' animosity toward independent financial consultants
(AKA mortgage brokers) is easier to fathom. By 2005, better than 70% of mortgage loans were done by these parties. Many specialized in gaining financing for customers initially turned down by their primary bank or credit union.

To be sure, a huge number of those working as independent financial consultants were not suited for the position. Most of the industry resisted mandatory licensing. As late as 2008, only members of Mortgage Broker business' were required to hold licenses.

The S.A.F.E. Act emerged. Unfortutely, it introduced distinctions known as "Licensed Mortgage Loan Originator" and "Registered Mortgage Loan Originator." The latter are not required to take the rigorous S.A.F.E. exam. Guess who employs "Registered Mortgage Loan Originators?" If you guessed "Charter Banks and Credit Unions," you are correct!

The newest element of Dodd-Frank that came into law earlier this year prohibited Brokers from making more than 2.5% on a loan. Sounds good, except for one detail: "Title fees must be paid from the 2.5%," making the maximum earnings on a $100,000 loan $2500. Title costs run roughly $1000 on a $100,000 loan. Thus, the broker must pay his expenses of doing the loan from $1500. The number simply doesn't work!

Should we be concerned with the loss of these Independent Mortgage Brokers? If you seek a small loan, you might be? A perfect example lies with the Kentucky Housing Corporation. These are low interest loans requiring little or no down payment. They are designed for low income borrowers.

Unfortunately, Dodd Frank stipulates that Originators may be paid on overall "volume," not fees per loan. Charter Banks pay on volume. An Originator may have an annual volume objective of Ten Million. Small loans take as much time as large loans. By 2011, most of the large banks had ceased to do Kentucky Housing Loans.

Up until recently, Brokers filled the need. Under the new law, to do a $75,000 loan amounts to the Broker having to personally bring money to the table. This they won't do. The end result: those seeking small loans lose their primary facilitators!

The good news for Dodd-Frank Advocates is they can say that they "protected" the innocent from potential predatory lenders. True, they are unknowingly excluding these "innocents" from homeownership; while killing off thousands of small business' in the process.

To be sure, there are no more 2/28 or 3/27 ARM loans with 7 or 8 % margins. Creating such products and targeting the kind of borrowers who endured them should never have happened. But, to blame Mortgage Brokers for them is shortsighted. A Mortgage Broker is a salesman, a "straight commissioned, on collection salesman," working for large banks, such as J.P. Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and Countrywide. We should never forget that ALL THREE banks authored such loan products.

Dodd-Frank was written under the pretense that some banks are too big to fail. While, there are inconveniences such as losing their cheap labor force and contending with C.F.P.B., they continue to enjoy clear favoritism.

Meanwhile, the biggest losers are those attempting to become homeowners. Getting that first home is always the trick. Even more difficult is getting it with minimum income. Yet amazingly, the mortgage payment on a $75,000 loan is far less than the rent that the person is likely paying.

Confronting Americas' "Dark Corner," Scary for Most

Americas' "dark corner" can be summed up like this:

"It really won't matter; for most of us!

Cynical? Perhaps. But as 2015 kicks in, some brief enthusiasm resulting from decisive midterms appears to be fading rapidly. Are we truly surprised?

The American middle class has been the subject of numerous contemporary writings. It seems that both Republicans and Democrats have figured out "how" to bring relief to their woes. Different proposals chase the same highly sought after solution. Most mainstreamers take them with a grain of salt. It's like the possibility of Hillary Clinton facing Jeb Bush in the 2016 Presidential election.

"Red team versus Blue Team, playing for the same university."

The cynicism is real. It's accompanied by a mood of anger and apathy. No matter what any entrenched Washingtonians may profess, it's "them versus us." Maybe that's why Ted Cruz' has gained notable traction with mainstream America.

Meaningful words are great. Giving the impression that you, at least, understand Joe Six-Pack, is smart politics. But where do the tangibles come into play? We are hearing some excellent rhetoric from Senator Cruz. Put some "meat on the bones," if you please!

Rand Paul's "meat" is relatively easy to research. Take the time to read G. Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyl Island." The book was considered the "bible" by "Ron Paulies'."It hints at an option more viable than Americas' ruling class dares to imagine!

America likes an underdog and nobody is more aware of this factor than Senator Marco Rubio. Knowing "how" to win an election begins with packaging. Rubio described Barack Obama as a "gifted orator, producing a message that sounded both in tone and in substance like that of a moderate."

Rubio has picked up on what has been Rick Perry's signature achievement in Texas: "An affordable college education." Texas now has thirteen colleges and unversities offering a four-year degree for $10,000. That's $1250 per full-time semester. Rubio is proposing it for America.

Affordable college tuition is certainly on the Middle Class wish list. Yet, it pales in comparison to what Americans' truly want to see implemented: "Identity theft prevention."

Identify theft is the world's fastest growing crime. Yet the necessary measures go straight at America's dark corner. To fully go after it would require a close inspection of how we do business in the country. Placed it that light, we realize how money driven our large corporations are. It is truly all about a "buck!"

We begin with debt recovery and the industry itself. Most all employed for Trans Union, Equifax and Esperian work offshore. Have you attempted to contact them lately? If so, you may have learned that their people are somewhat inaccessible. This creates a challenge when attempting to correct a mistake!

Derogatory marks on one's credit report can literally make the difference in how people live, where they work and even if they eat. Yet, it takes a back seat to the Middle East, Crimea and North Korea in Governmental priority.

Why is this? Could be because our "leadership" doesn't want to rock any boats, make any waves! To start a stink about the credit bureaus would ultimately result in a bigger stink over "why" Fortune 500 companies such as A.T.&T. and J.P. Morgan Chase, not to mention smaller companies like D.I.S.H. network are utilizing cheap, unvetted, off-shore help."

One A.T.&T. worker surmised, "the union would never allow call center employees to work for minimum wage!" When asked if those positions might be placed in right-to-work states he added, "might be the best solution in the end. Because, in places like Mississippi and Alabama, $16,000 per year and benefits ain't that bad!"

Never mind that such a decision would open a monsterous "barrel of eels."

Cleaning up the credit bureaus would be a major undertaking in itself. There is no motivation for bureaus to remove derogatory marks once satisfied. While we do have the Fair Credit Reporting Act, it often takes the assistance of a FCRA Attorney
to expedite updates and removals.

A Presidential candidate who honestly placed the average American first, would introduce two measures. Both would impact the country in a manner unmatched in the history of the U.S..

They would start by requiring that all derogatory remarks not related to bankrupcy, be deleted at the end of 60 months. No claim of less than $500 would be allowed on any bureau for any reason. All employees working in a debt recovery capacity would be required to hold (a)either a series six or seven securties license or (b) a juris doctorite.

They would also make unlawful the practice of offshore outsoucing for any job that required the use of all or part of an Americans social security number. In short, if even an incrypted social was required, the call centers serving those customers would be required to opperate from U.S. shores. There would be no exceptions.

Too rigorous? Definitely not! We are dealing with the privacy of Americans. Too many companies are willing to compromise Americans' privacy for "a buck."

No doubt the big boys would "howl," over such developments. Politicians taking the side of mainstream America would be threatened, bribed, and encouraged to "work within the system." Never mind that the system itself was rotten!

Are there any potential candidates, Republican or Democrat, who might take this issue and run with it? I wouldn't hold my breath!

Hillary Clinton symbolizes the system itself. Don't expect relief from this source!

Elizabeth Warren is too deeply rooted into the "need for a higher minumum wage in America" to ever be counted upon to support such a measure.

Bernie Sanders would determine the proposed legislation, "not without merit, but impractical."

Rand Paul is at least talking about the Federal Reserve and why it's abolition is in our best interst.

Ted Cruz' "it's us versus them," makes us feel good! But, does it go further than eloquent dialog?

In Jeb Bush, as with Hillary, we see "more of the same."

Rick Perry is talking "10th amendment." This is about philosophy. Expanding state's rights would have winners and losers.

Scott Walker is hinting at a national right to work law. This, in itself, would be revolutionary. The question becomes, "would he expand his position to push for a total ban on all public sector unions?"

Marco Rubio has seen the system up close, from the prospective of someone trying to get ahead. But, now that he's made it, would he forget how he personally got there?

Chris Christie talks tough and might actually follow-through with the corrective measures referenced in this post. Yet, I can't see him "kicking" Fortune 500 companies "in the teeth," and subsequently asking them to fund his presidential campaign.

CPAC Results Skewed Libertarian; Money Remains Key Factor

Another year. Another CPAC.

Nothing has really changed. The conference is dominated by "twenty-somethings," bright eyed, bushy tailed and utterly clueless on what it takes to win an election.

Let's begin with their hero, Rand Paul. Paul is "a collection of insights derived from father Ron and John Stossell." Ideas with no clear path on how to implement them.

Austerity measures are fine; as long as we are only talking about those not receiving any sort of entitlement from Uncle Sam. Discussion about abolishing the Federal Reserve has merit. But, with most mainstreamers, it's confusing if not baffling. Isolationism will always have proponents. Unfortunately for Paul, the opposition has deep pockets!

A Paul versus Clinton general election, would probably be a repeat of Goldwater-Johnson. Of course, these "twenty-somethings" were not around in '64. They didn't witness the scare tactics employed by LBJ's clever team. Hillary would take a page from the past, use her massive war chest and scare the socks off much of America. The sad aspect is Rand could be a great future Presidential candidate! It's a timing thing.

Paul's dilemma equates with choosing between running for President or running for Senate re-election. The latter would be a slam dunk victory. The former would most likely cost Republicans a Senate seat that they could not afford to lose. True, Rand is challenging this Kentucky law. He even has solicited the help of Hal Heiner and other hopefuls who aspire to be the next Kentucky governor. Standing in his way however, is Kentucky Secretary of State, Alison Lundergan Grimes who deeply covets that Senate seat for herself.

Ted Cruz made as good of a speech as can be made. He unquestionably has the pulse of the Tea Party. His words ring true: It has become the "people versus Washington." Yet, outside of shutting the government down, I haven't heard of a long lasting strategy to bring about necessary reform. Maybe it's because there isn't a long lasting strategy on the table.

Ironically, Paul could lay the groundwork for such a plan. But it would require patience on his part. Run for President in '16 and hope for the best. Or, return for a second senate term and sponsor a term limits amendment to the constitution. True, it would royally "piss off" the old guard! Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Thad Cochran and others would call Rand "everything but a white man!" Yet, this action must be done. We have seen how quick the old guard was to compromise conservatives with the DHS issue!

It's probable that Congressional and Senate leadership would not allow a floor vote on a term limits measure. But, Paul would have proven his point: Only through a constitutional convention or a Convention of States can corrective measures be adopted. At that point, Kentucky's now Junior Senator would be ready to run for President. Preferably after winning the Kentucky Governors mansion in '23.

Meanwhile, we must deal with 2016 and winning the general election. I think it's safe to say that ANY Republican would be preferable to Hillary Clinton. Yet, it appears that many staunch conservatives would opt to stay home if Jeb Bush were the choice. Amid some "boos" the former Florida Governor's responses to Sean Hannity's questions bordered on impressive. Yet, Jeb is clearly enamored with immigrants. He has expressed truisms that many long time Americans consider antagonistic. His support for "top down" education, albeit from the state and not federal level, is a deal breaker for many. His immigration position isn't too far from his brothers.

Marco Rubio would be an intriguing option and he truly had his game face on this past Friday. But can he (a) secure the necessary financial support if Jeb Bush chooses to run and (b) can he overcome the same liability haunting both Cruz and Paul: "Junior Senator with no Executive experience."

Scott Walker encountered a bump but was impressive overall at CPAC. He is seen as "the answer" in a lot of GOP circles. He is a Governor who has stood up to major Democrat constituencies. He is plain spoken, appealing to Nascar Dads. He has Executive experience and has a solid record of accomplishment in a "deep blue state." His anti-union stance is polarizing, but refreshing.

Rick Perry gave another fiery speech, reminding CPAC members both of the landscape of a troubled world and his own accomplishments while serving as governor of Texas. In truth nobody would have expected a question about the environment at a CPAC convention. But it served Perry well as he recounted surprisingly solid improvements in CO2 levels, ozone levels and more.

A conservative political action committee conference is probably not the place to discuss "building new constituencies or broadening the tent." But it should be! A successful convention amounts to leaving with a true plan of securing general election victory. Those backers of Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have neither.

Scott Walker supporters see him as the anti-Washington, anti-establishment voice of forgotten America. But, can Walker secure 40% of America's Hispanic vote? Furthermore, can he win his home state? Wisconsin has not gone "red" since 1984. No president has ever been elected when not carrying his home state.

Marco Rubio would obviously attract Hispanics. His ideas are fresh and pertinent. His views on foreign affairs "click" with defense contractors. Friday he let it be known that he did not want to spend a lifetime in politics.

Rick Perry is expected to run. He will be accompanied by a record that surpasses all suitors. But, can he get the necessary attention. Will his failed 2012 campaign haunt him? Money won't be a problem for the former Texas Governor. Outside of Jeb Bush, no other candidate will be better financed. For Perry, it's a simple matter of convincing Republican voters that he is electable. His stalwarts will argue that he is the only candidate who can appeal to Establishment, attract Tea Partiers, and mobilize Evangelicals.

While emotion may have ruled at CPAC, Republican strategists are quietly determining what it will take to secure the necessary 270 electoral votes. This translates into "how to win Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada." In most cases the "bottom of the ticket" may be the difference.