We must put our national interest first, we must put America first.

But we cannot rebuild the American Dream here at home by catering to the voices of the privileged and the powerful.

Let's be honest. They were the ones who turned our economy upside-down in the first place. And they are the only ones who are benefiting from it.

We need to prosecute cheats, we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and if a bank is too big to fail without wrecking our nation's economy, then it needs to be broken up before it breaks us again.

Goldman Sachs is one of the biggest repeat-offending investment banks in America. Recently, the CEO of Goldman Sachs let his employees know that he'd be just fine with either Bush or Clinton.

I bet he would.

Well, I've got news for the bullies of Wall Street.

The presidency is not a crown to be passed back and forth by you between two royal families.

It is a sacred trust to be earned from the people of the United States, and exercised on behalf of the people of the United States.

The only way we are going to rebuild the American Dream is if we re-take control of our own American government!

Fifty years ago, the nation's largest employer was (General Motors). An average GM employee could pay for a year's tuition at a state university with two weeks' wages.

Today in America, with dreams of college, a decent paying job, and a secure retirement slipping beyond the reach of so very many, the American Dream seems to be hanging by a thread.

Dear Cecil:

I am the parent of two young children. I was recently reminiscing with fellow parents about our youth and the freedom we enjoyed to play around the neighborhood without parental supervision. We all agreed we wouldn't allow our children to do the same given today's more dangerous world. That made me wonder: Is today's world really more dangerous for kids than it was 30 years ago? Have incidents of abduction and other assaults on children increased, or has the information age's constant news barrage given us the impression that predators lurk around every corner?


Cecil: No, today’s world isn't more dangerous. You grew up during the most crime-ridden period in modern American history. By objective measures the country is far safer now. But you and countless other parents think the reverse is true. What accounts for this delusion?

Dear Cecil:

I am the parent of two young children. I was recently reminiscing with fellow parents about our youth and the freedom we enjoyed to play around the neighborhood without parental supervision. We all agreed we wouldn't allow our children to do the same given today's more dangerous world. That made me wonder: Is today's world really more dangerous for kids than it was 30 years ago? Have incidents of abduction and other assaults on children increased, or has the information age's constant news barrage given us the impression that predators lurk around every corner?


Cecil: No, today’s world isn't more dangerous. You grew up during the most crime-ridden period in modern American history. By objective measures the country is far safer now. But you and countless other parents think the reverse is true. What accounts for this delusion?

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and Columbia University Professor Dorian Warren both say the best way to solve the nation’s economic crisis is to grow the middle class rather than allowing wealth to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands. Unions, they say, will play a vital role politically and economically in building a strong middle class.

O'Malley and Warren spoke on a conference call with reporters Friday to counter recent attacks by Republican lawmakers on workers and their unions.

O’Malley pointed to Maryland’s top 10 ranking in job creation, its AAA bond rating and the fact it has the highest median income in the nation to show that economic prosperity is "achieved by a partnership with unions, not by scapegoating labor.”

Rand Paul took a left turn on his journey to the Republican nomination, and now his hopes seem to be headed south.

The most recent national poll, by Fox News, has Paul in sixth place, with 7 percent, trailing Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio. Paul averages only about half the support he had late in 2013. Paul doesn’t appear to be winning over young voters — perhaps the most important justification for his candidacy — and does not do better than other Republicans, according to a survey released last month by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics. Even in his home state, a media consortium poll this month found that Paul had lost his lead in a theoretical matchup with Clinton.

Paul’s declining standing can be felt in Washington. Last week, he attempted to reprise his wildly successful 2013 filibuster, which caught fire on social media and forced party leaders to take notice. But this time Paul found indifference as he fought to limit government surveillance. As The Post’s Philip Bump reported, it got only about one-tenth of the Twitter attention that his first effort did. Television footage from the chamber caught Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) rolling his eyes as Paul spoke last week, and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), who joined Paul’s previous filibuster, openly opposed him this time.

On CBS’s morning show Tuesday, Paul was asked to answer his Republican colleagues’ complaint that his 11-hour speech was really a performance aimed at selling his new book; “Fox & Friends” minutes later asked him to respond to the charge that he is a “misguided ideologue.”