Obamaville 10/8 - POW! WHAM! KA POW! SPLAT! Are you kidding Me? The People Seem to be Winning! Down with the Establishment!!!

.

POW!  WHAM!  KA POW!  SPLAT!

Oh man, this is far better than the old Batman TV shows I used to watch.  Here is how you can sum up the race to be the next president of the USA, LET THE INSTITUTIONS FALL!!! 

In about four months, the results of the Iowa Primary Caucasus are the first test of the People's Will in controlling their destiny.  Can the People Take Back America and restore the former Glory of the good old US of A?

Presidential Candidates

The Silent Majority of both political parties have stunned so-called political pundits by propelling the underdogs to the overdogs position as the first sign of the collapse of the Institution called politics.

The result is startling.

The Race for Nomination by the Democrats

The Queen of the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, who has been in politics since birth and is the epitome of "politics as usual" has watched in horror as her favorability rating literally shattered the glass floor as it dropped toward oblivion.

Poor Hillary is so bad off she had to unleash the Big Dog of presidential politics, hubby Bill, a sure sign of campaign desperation, far ahead of schedule since the election is still over a year away.

Is it just me, or do you also find it rather ironic she sent Bill Clinton to win back the female vote that is deserting her at an astonishing pace.  Hillary must know best after all her experience with Bill.

Thus, Hillary was anointed the ONE in the Democratic Party to shatter the glass ceiling of no woman ever being president.  Her campaign began in earnest a long time ago with her about a thousand points ahead of her nearest rival.

Ever since, due to being over-managed and isolated from the News Media, she watched her favorability rating flame out.  But lo and behold, and defying all odds of political reality, there is an old socialist who is not even a Democrat, he has so little regard for the Institutions, and he keeps getting bigger and bigger all the time in her rear view mirror.

Hillary slipped into the position of representing the dreaded Democrat Establishment, the Potomac Politicians who think everyone in America is stupid.  Only those on the Council of Foreign Relations, who embrace abortion, and are in bed with Wall Street and Big Pharma, deserve to be a Blue Hearted Democrat.

Of course that did not sit well with those of the far left, make that far, far left.  When Hillary tried to sell herself as a reincarnated far left liberal, the image smacked of deception.  Called out by genuine true left spokespeople like Elizabeth Warren, the rising star from Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders, the long-standing Vermont Voice in the Wilderness for the real Progressives, she had mishandled the challenge.

Now not only do people not trust her, she has slipped behind in the polls to the man who hopes to become the oldest person ever elected president.  Bernie could become the first president from the hippie era who actually represents hippies and advocates socialism.

What is stranger is that the youngest generation, the millennial 18-35 years old, also love Bernie.  It might have something to do with the popular movie Weekend at Bernies, featuring an old dead guy being pushed around in a wheelchair all weekend by his young guests.  Who knows what motivates the young.  Well, you get the picture.

Never mind that most socialists in America wound up in jail, not in the presidency.  True to form for progressive progressives, Bernie does not need to explain how to pay for the trillions of dollars in wonderful, popular, and budget busting promises he made, but then neither did Barack Obama.

The result of all this nonsense is clear, the Democrats are a single candidate force, either Hillary, the prohibitive favorite in spite of collapsing polls, or the oldest dude to covet the presidency who is neither a Democrat, nor a capitalist, Bernie Sanders.

The Race for Nomination by the Republicans

While Hillary has been the favorite for the Democrats since Obama was re-elected in 2012, the GOP is quite the opposite.  The closest the GOP had to a favorite was Jeb Bush, whose brother and father were presidents.

In fact, George Senior lost his second term to an unknown named Bill Clinton because of a rebellion against the Republican establishment by populist Ross Perot.  Sound familiar?  Unfortunately, for Jeb, he is the political Establishment.  As a result, instead of leading in the polls all year, Jeb started at his peak and has been slipping ever since.

Nowhere has the people's rebellion against the establishment and status quo been more obvious than in the GOP contest.  As many as seventeen candidates were running at the same time, and some of the best and brightest young Republicans were in the race.

Then along came Donald Trump who quickly trumped the news media, the political pundits, even the political establishment.  To a person they labeled Trump an "entertainer" with no chance to become a viable candidate.

Described by Iowa focus group participants as conceited, conniving, and competent, or words to that effect, Trump jumped into the race with both feet racing and his mouth at warp speed.  He quickly established himself as the Patrick Henry of the modern revolution against the politic establishment.

His campaign took off like a rocket bullying its way to the top of the polls.  Ever since he began his detractors, Democrat and Republican, along with the political pundits and news media, have been predicting a variety of reasons why he will not survive.  Among them his pending collapse, his loss of interest, his forthcoming drop in the polls, his inexperience in government, blah, blah, blah.  In every instant, they are dead wrong.

Trump has changed the rules of modern campaigning.  As the consummate outsider, a successful real estate and gambling tycoon, and free speaking conversational business man, he defines what is wrong with America to allow someone like Trump to belong to the elite 1% of the population that controls most of America's wealth.

When Trump is attacked by a cynical liberal reporter Trump counter-attacks normally leaving the journalist dazed.  The same is true when opponents attack Trump in the course of the campaign, you better be ready to hold on.  He has a great advantage and not just that he has no political baggage, he believes "political correctness" is senseless.

For a non-politician Trump sure can outflank the politicians and stand alone as the only true protector of the middle class.  He stole it from Hillary since no one believes she is sincere.  If you add the poll numbers for Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina, the three outsider GOP candidates, they represent over 50% of the electorate.

Most recently, Carly has been getting all the attention with her 14 point surge in the polls, the most in either party race.  She dominated the debates, has by far the best TV and viral commercials, is policy wise and politically savvy.  Carly is no longer a dark horse but a potential winner.

What an exciting political campaign it could be, if Hillary and Carly won their party nominations and squared off in the general election.  With women on both tickets, America would not only shatter the glass ceiling on women presidents, it would pulverize it.  They are clearly the most knowledgeable candidates in the fields.

Just behind the three outsiders Marco Rubio trails, with the preseason favorite Jeb Bush squandering in the middle of the pack.  Of course, it is early, and even the Donald seems to be stuck in the 25-33% range.

Speaker of the House

Just when we think the political situation is stabilizing and the world may survive, it reminds us of the seven years of foreign ineptness by the Obama Administration as the Middle East, specifically Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Yemen among others, are all disasters.

Our strategy failed, our plans and policy is non-existent, we failed to see the refugee crisis we would trigger, and our traditional allies are skeptical.  When it comes to our adversaries, like Obama archenemy Vladimir Putin among others, they are embarrassing us daily.

So the Pope comes to town, addresses a Joint Session of Congress, and the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, resigns as speaker and congressman stunning the world.  He says he decided after talking to the Pope.  The radical Republican right is joyful.

About a week later, the leading candidate to replace Boehner, Kevin McCarthy, also withdraws minutes before the first ballot to elect him.  Again, the media and politicians are stunned.  All is still well with the people who could care less about the persistent politics on capitol hill.

Stay tuned folks the chaos is bound to get even better in days and weeks to come.

Now if only the Chicago Cubs could win their first World Series in 107 years and break the longest championship drought in history.

.

AFTA NAFTA - The Bill Clinton Legacy - Hoodwinking the Public - Protecting the Rich

.

Today President Obama is putting intense pressure on Congress to pass a major new trade treaty and the news media has failed to give it even cursory attention.  It was twenty years ago, the last Democrat President jammed a trade agreement down the throats of American workers and politicians and the negative consequences are still felt today.

It has now been twenty years since Bill Clinton slammed the NAFTA trade bill through congress in 1993, then implemented it in 1994, and we are just beginning to see the House of Cards it was built on and understand the Shroud of Secrecy he constructed to protect the rich.

Do you remember when Bill Clinton and his Vice President Al Gore undertook one of the most savage attempts at character assassination ever staged from the White House during the furious debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)?

The target of this attack was the very person who helped Clinton become president in 1992, Ross Perot.  In that election, Clinton won with just 43% of the vote.  Bush got 37.4% and Perot got 18.9%.  Perot's vote total kept Bush from being re-elected.

Only twice in the entire history of American politics did a third party candidate get more votes than Perot in 1992.  In 1856, Millard Fillmore got 21.5% of the vote, and in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt got 27.3% of the vote, neither won.  In fact, only three times in our history did a president a lower percent of votes than Clinton received and they were John Quincy Adams, Woodrow Wilson, and Abraham Lincoln.

I worked as a media advisor to Ross Perot during the NAFTA debates and witnessed firsthand the incredible attempts to discredit Perot.  The Clinton administration used a national debate between Al Gore and Perot on the Larry King show as the showcase using lighting, the chair placement, the camera angles, and every other trick in the book to diminish Perot and undermine his concerns.

Eventually, everything Perot warned could happen did happen and the Clinton-Gore victory in time would be among the most devastating of the Clinton years.  Democrats, the unions, all the minorities, and American manufacturing got sold out by the Clinton promise and to this day have continued to ignore the consequences.

In the end only Clinton and Gore were laughing, all the way to the bank, as both became the richest ex-president and ex-vice president in history, each raking in well over $200 million in personal wealth after gutting the nation's long term economy.

You need not take it from me, look at the analysis by NPR, a Progressive stalwart of the Democratic party, and even the AFL-CIO, whose blind faith in the Democrats has nearly destroyed all the good unions have accomplished.  Listen to their words when it comes to the economic security of America thanks to the Clinton trade initiative.

Once upon a time during the debate over NAFTA Clinton and Gore made many promises, and Perot warned the opposite would happen.  Vilified by the news media and the Clinton administration, Perot told the truth, Clinton and Gore did not, and the American public, are still paying for it.

   

Here are what others had to say about NAFTA.

AFL-CIO America's Unions

What have workers learned from 20 years of NAFTA?

·         It’s a flawed model that promotes the economic interests of a very few and at the expense of workers, consumers, farmers, communities, the environment and even democracy itself.

• While the overall volume of trade within North America due to NAFTA has increased and corporate profits have skyrocketed, wages have remained stagnant in all three countries.
• Productivity has increased, but workers’ share of these gains has decreased steadily, along with unionization rates.
• NAFTA pushed small Mexican farmers off their lands, increasing the flow of desperate undocumented migrants.
• It exacerbated inequality in all three countries.
• And the NAFTA labor side agreement has failed to accomplish its most basic mandate: to ensure compliance with fundamental labor rights and enforcement of national labor laws.

How It Is Destroying The Economy

By Michael Snyder

Global Research, 17 August 2014

The Economic Collapse 14 August 2014

NAFTA Is 20 Years Old – Here Are 20 Facts That Show

Back in the early 1990s, the North American Free Trade Agreement was one of the hottest political issues in the country.  When he was running for president in 1992, Bill Clinton promised that NAFTA would result in an increase in the number of high quality jobs for Americans that it would reduce illegal immigration.  Ross Perot warned that just the opposite would happen.  He warned that if NAFTA was implemented there would be a “giant sucking sound” as thousands of businesses and millions of jobs left this country.  Most Americans chose to believe Bill Clinton.  Well, it is 20 years later and it turns out that Perot was right and Clinton was dead wrong.  But now history is repeating itself, and most Americans don’t even realize that it is happening.  As you will read about at the end of this article, Barack Obama has been negotiating a secret trade treaty that is being called “NAFTA on steroids”, and if Congress adopts it we could lose millions more good paying jobs.

It amazes me how the American people can fall for the same lies over and over again.  The lies that serial liar Barack Obama is telling about “free trade” and the globalization of the economy are the same lies that Bill Clinton was telling back in the early 1990s.  The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Paul Craig Roberts…

I remember in the 90′s when former Presidential candidate Ross Perot emphatically stated that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) would create a giant “sucking sound” of jobs being extracted away from the U.S.  He did not win the election, and NAFTA was instituted on Jan. 1, 1994. Now, 20 years later, we see the result of all the jobs that have been “sucked away” to other countries.

According to an article by the Economic Policy Institute on 1/3/14:

“Clinton and his collaborators promised that the deal would bring “good-paying American jobs,” a rising trade surplus with Mexico, and a dramatic reduction in illegal immigration. Considering that thousands of kids are pouring over the border as we speak, well, how’d that work out for us?

Many Americans like to remember Bill Clinton as a “great president” for some reason.  Well, it turns out that he was completely and totally wrong about NAFTA.  The following are 20 facts that show how NAFTA is destroying the economy…

#1 More than 845,000 American workers have been officially certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance because they lost their jobs due to imports from Mexico or Canada or because their factories were relocated to those nations.

#2 Overall, it is estimated that NAFTA has cost us well over a million jobs.

#3 U.S. manufacturers pay Mexican workers just a little over a dollar an hour to do jobs that American workers used to do.

#4 The number of illegal immigrants living in the United States has more than doubled since the implementation of NAFTA.

#5 In the year before NAFTA, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico and the trade deficit with Canada was only 29.6 billion dollars.  Last year, the U.S. had a combined trade deficit with Mexico and Canada of 177 billion dollars.

#6 It has been estimated that the U.S. economy loses approximately 9,000 jobs for every 1 billion dollars of goods that are imported from overseas.

#7 One professor has estimated that cutting the total U.S. trade deficit in half would create 5 million more jobs in the United States.

#8 Since the auto industry bailout, approximately 70 percent of all GM vehicles have been built outside the United States.  In fact, many of them are now being built in Mexico.

#9 NAFTA hasn’t worked out very well for Mexico either.  Since 1994, the average yearly rate of economic growth in Mexico has been less than one percent.

#10 The exporting of massive amounts of government-subsidized U.S. corn down into Mexico has destroyed more than a million Mexican jobs and has helped fuel the continual rise in the number of illegal immigrants coming north.

#11 Someone making minimum wage in Mexico today can buy 38 percent fewer consumer goods than the day before NAFTA went into effect.

#12 Overall, the United States has lost a total of more than 56,000 manufacturing facilities since 2001.

#13 Back in the 1980s, more than 20 percent of the jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs.  Today, only about 9 percent of the jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.

#14 We have fewer Americans working in manufacturing today than we did in 1950 even though our population has more than doubled since then.

#15 Back in 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs.  Today, only 65 percent of all men in the United States have jobs.

#16 As I wrote about recently, one out of every six men in their prime working years (25 to 54) do not have a job at this point.

#17 Because we have shipped millions of jobs overseas, the competition for the jobs that remain has become extremely intense and this has put downward pressure on wages.  Right now, half the country makes $27,520 a year or less from their jobs.

#18 When adults cannot get decent jobs, it is often children that suffer the most.  It is hard to believe, but more than one out of every five children in the United States is living in poverty in 2014.

#19 In 1994, only 27 million Americans were on food stamps.  Today, more than 46 million Americans are on food stamps.

#20 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades if current trends continue.

NPR Public Citizen February 10, 2014

NAFTA’s Broken Promises 1994-2013:

Outcomes of the North American Free Trade Agreement

Excerpts - see full post at http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf

In 1993, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold to the American public with grand promises. NAFTA would create tens of thousands of good jobs here. U.S. farmers would export their way to wealth. NAFTA would bring Mexico’s standard of living up, providing new economic opportunities there that would reduce immigration to the United States.

NAFTA was an experiment, establishing a radically new “trade” agreement model. It exploded the boundaries of past trade pacts, which had focused narrowly on cutting tariffs and quotas. In contrast, NAFTA contained chapters that created new privileges and protections for foreign investors; required the three countries to waive domestic procurement preferences, such as Buy American; limited regulation of services, such as trucking and banking; extended medicine patent monopolies and limited food and product safety standards and border inspection.

After nineteen years of NAFTA, we can measure its actual outcomes. The grand promises made by proponents remain unfulfilled. Many outcomes are exactly the opposite of what was promised. Many U.S. firms used the new investor protections to relocate production to Mexico to take advantage of its low wages and weak environmental standards and to attack NAFTA countries’ environmental and health laws in foreign tribunals. Over $340 million in compensation to investors has been extracted from NAFTA governments via these “investor-state” challenges.

The small U.S. trade surplus with Mexico pre-NAFTA turned into a massive new trade deficit. The pre-NAFTA U.S. trade deficit with Canada expanded greatly. Overall, the inflation-adjusted U.S. trade deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion and the $2.5 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion by 2012.1 The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimated that the NAFTA deficit had eliminated about one million net American jobs by 2004.2 Meanwhile, U.S. food processors moved to Mexico to take advantage of low wages and food imports soared. U.S beef imports from Mexico and Canada, for example, have risen 130 percent since NAFTA took effect, and today U.S. consumption of “NAFTA” beef tops $1.3 billion annually.3 The export of subsidized U.S. corn did increase, displacing over one million Mexican campesino farmers. Their desperate migration pushed down wages in Mexico’s border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States.

The U.S. public’s view of NAFTA has intensified from broad opposition to overwhelming opposition to NAFTA-style trade deals. According to a 2012 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, 53 percent of Americans believe the United States should “do whatever is necessary” to “renegotiate” or “leave” NAFTA, while only 15 percent believe the United States should “continue to be a member of NAFTA.” Rejection of the trade deal is the predominant stance of Democrats, Republicans and independents alike.4 NAFTA has drawn the ire of Americans across stunningly diverse demographics. A 2011 National Journal poll showed strong rejection of the status quo trade model from both lower-educated and higher-educated respondents,5 and a 2010 NBC News – Wall Street Journal survey revealed that a majority of upper-income respondents have now joined lower-income respondents in opposing NAFTA-style pacts.6 In addition, a 2008 Zogby poll found majority NAFTA opposition across nearly every surveyed demographic group, including independents, Hispanics, women, Catholics and Southerners.7

U.S. Job Loss, Not Gain

Projections on trade balance, jobs prove wrong. In 1993, Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) projected that NAFTA would lead to a rising U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which would create 170,000 net new jobs in the United States.8 This figure was trumpeted by the Clinton administration and other NAFTA proponents. Hufbauer and Schott based their projection on the observation that when export growth outpaces the growth of imports, more jobs are created by trade than are destroyed by trade.9 Instead of an improved trade balance with Canada and Mexico, however, NAFTA resulted in an explosion of imports from Mexico and Canada that led to huge U.S. trade deficits. According to Hufbauer and Schott’s own methodology, these deficits meant major job loss. Less than two years after NAFTA’s implementation, even before the depth of the NAFTA deficit became evident, Hufbauer recognized that his jobs prediction was incongruent with the facts, telling the Wall Street Journal, “The best figure for the jobs effect of NAFTA is approximately zero…the lesson for me is to stay away from job forecasting.”10

Huge new NAFTA trade deficit emerges. The U.S. trade deficit with Canada of $29.1 billion and the $2.5 billion surplus with Mexico in 1993 (the year before NAFTA took effect) turned into a combined NAFTA trade deficit of $181 billion by 2012.11 This represents an increase in the “NAFTA deficit” of 580 percent. These are inflation-adjusted numbers, meaning the difference is not due to inflation, but an increase in the deficit in real terms. The U.S. deficit with NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada has worsened considerably more than the U.S. deficit with countries with which we have not signed NAFTA-style deals. Since NAFTA, the average annual growth of the U.S. trade deficit has been 45 percent higher with Mexico and Canada than with countries that are not party to a NAFTA-style trade pact.12 Defenders of NAFTA argue that the NAFTA deficit is really only oil imports. Although oil accounts for a substantial portion of the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, the oil share of the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico actually declined from 77 percent in 1993 to 55 percent in 2012.13

Services and manufacturing export growth slows under NAFTA. A key claim of supporters of NAFTA-style trade pacts is that they create jobs by promoting faster U.S. export growth. By contrast, growth of U.S. exports to countries that are not Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners has exceeded U.S. export growth to countries that are FTA partners by 38 percent over the last decade.14 Manufacturing and services exports in particular grew slower after NAFTA took effect. Since NAFTA’s enactment, U.S. manufacturing exports to Canada and Mexico have grown at less than half the rate seen in the years before NAFTA.15 Even growth in services exports, which were supposed to do especially well under the trade pact given a presumed U.S. comparative advantage in services, dropped precipitously after NAFTA’s implementation. During NAFTA’s first decade, the average growth rate in U.S. services exports fell by 58 percent compared to the decade before NAFTA, and has remained well below the pre-NAFTA rate through the present.16

One million American jobs lost to NAFTA. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the rising trade deficit with Mexico and Canada since NAFTA went into effect eliminated about one million net jobs in the United States by 2004.17 EPI further calculates that the ballooning trade deficit with Mexico alone destroyed about seven hundred thousand net U.S. jobs between NAFTA’s implementation and 2010.18 Moreover, official government data reveals that nearly five million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost overall since NAFTA took effect.19 Obviously, not all of these lost U.S. manufacturing jobs – one out of every four of our manufacturing jobs – is due to NAFTA. The United States entered the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, China joined WTO in 2000 and the U.S. trade deficit with China soared thereafter. However, at the same time, given the methodology employed, it is also likely that the EPI estimates do not capture the full U.S. job loss associated with NAFTA. Service sector jobs have also been negatively impacted by NAFTA, as closed factories no longer demand services. EPI estimates that one third of the jobs lost due to the rising trade deficit under NAFTA were in non-manufacturing sectors of the economy.20 

. 

Ross Perot - Prairie Prophet & Presidential King Maker

Exactly 22 years ago George Bush, Sr.,  was running for re-election as president of the United States and being challenged by a young, upstart Democrat and Governor of Arkansas named Bill Clinton.  And then there was that shrill talking, billionaire from Texas named Ross Perot who was trying to launch the first successful third party campaign since Teddy Roosevelt just after the turn of the last century.

For historians let me set the record straight.  Yes Teddy was elected vice president in 1900 and became president when President William McKinley was shot September 6 and died September 14 of 1901, his first year in office.  Teddy was then elected by a landslide in 1904.

 

 

In 1908 he supported his secretary of war, William Howard Taft for president and Taft won.  By the end of Taft's first term Roosevelt felt Taft no longer served the people and when he failed to beat Taft at the GOP convention he started a third party, the Bull Moose (progressive) party to oppose the president.

 

 

This is where the parallels between Ross Perot and Teddy Roosevelt become intertwined as if history was simply repeating itself about 100 years later.

 

In the election of 1912 Republican President Taft got 23% of the vote, Independent Roosevelt got 27% of the vote, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson became president with just 42% of the vote.  Thus Roosevelt blocked Taft from being re-elected and made Wilson President.

 

 

After his first term in office in 1992 President Bush was running for re-election riding the popularity of Desert Storm when Ross Perot, a former Republican like Teddy Roosevelt, came out of nowhere with his Independent campaign.

 

 

In the election of 1992 Republican President Bush got 38% of the vote, Independent Ross Perot got 19% of the vote, and Democrat Bill Clinton became president with just 43% of the vote.  Thus Perot blocked Bush from being re-elected and made Clinton President.

 

During Clinton's first term Ross Perot sought to influence the national agenda focusing on three issues, the NAFTA economic treaty, Health Care Reform and rebuilding our educational system.

 

 

He opposed NAFTA, an issue Clinton co-opted from the GOP because he was in danger of losing his re-election campaign.  Perot warned passage of NAFTA would lead to the destruction of our manufacturing industries and we would lose millions of jobs to Mexico and other countries.  Clinton got it passed and the final nail was driven into the coffin of America's once dominate manufacturing base.

 

 

On health care Perot warned the lack of cost controls would bankrupt America, and any government entitlement programs regarding health care like Medicare and Medicaid would drive the American deficit beyond our capacity to pay.  In 1996 the US national debt was $107.4 billion under Clinton and by 1998 would become a surplus through Bush in 2001.

 

 

Today the National debt stands at a record $17 trillion, thanks in large part to runaway entitlement costs as predicted by Perot.  In fact America spends more per capita than any other nation on health care yet ranks just 37th in the world in terms of quality of health care.

 

Finally, Perot was so disgusted with the deficiencies in our education system that he started his own high school in Dallas and was to set records for educational achievement and college attendance by urban youth.  Today our educational system continues to spend more per pupil than any other nation and we still are failing in terms of the quality of educational care.

 

 

Sooo, Ross Perot, the caricature from Texas who dared challenge the American two-party system was a figment of historical déjà vu showing up 100 years after Teddy Roosevelt played the same role for America.

 

 

Both were prophets in terms of warning of the dangers faced by America and both greatly influenced the national agenda and debate.  A couple of obscure Democrats owe their fortune and fame (Wilson and Clinton) to these political rebels.  At the same time, the failure of our government to heed the warnings of these two left us floundering in the winds of indecision as our judicial system seemed to collapse, our health care costs spiraled out of control, our manufacturing base vanished away, our educational system continued to flounder and our national debt reached epic proportions.

More on the Prairie Prophet from Texas later as the story of Ross Perot and his unbending care for the nation, commitment to veterans, exceptional patriotism and whose incredible rescue of his employees from the prison of Iran after the failure of President Carter to protect our own embassy in the fall of Iran to the Ayatollah is one of the greatest stories of courage to ever take place in our nation.

US hostages in Iran 1979

.