Paul Rand (KY) – No to Troops in Iraq – the Right Direction

Taking the higher road, Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky and potential 2016 Presidential Candidate, suggested it would be a mistake for the US to send troops, once again, into Iraq. US News carried the report this morning (available here) on Paul’s statement.

Paul is correct in this opinion as timing is everything and the reduction in forces to a bare minimum in Iraq with instability a key in the region, was, to say the least, naive. The problem began with the initial incursion that may have set the stage for a later coup in Iran, but failed with time and changes in U.S. administrations. With the lack of foresight on the part of the Bush administration, or contingent plans in the event of a drawn out process both politically and in theater – the most beneficial move would have been to strike and leave once proof or no of WMD’s was ascertained.

The problems of the Middle East, oil notwithstanding, would have made George Washington suggest a 300 year moratorium on any type of intervention on the part of the U.S. With an abundance of well-intentioned mistakes of eons, including members of both of today’s political parties, it would behoove the next administration to take a more Washingtonian stance.

In summary – George W. Bush started the problem, Barack Obama has compounded the problem, and Paul’s stance regarding deployment or no is given not without some thought, be it “popular” or not –a refreshing change of pace.

New York Times Blog: Rick Perry Would Be Tied to Bush and Hampered in 2012 Election Because He’s From Texas – No Kidding!

Rick Perry, Dog Lover, Authentic Texan - shoots coyotes that threatens 4 legged friends, any questions? Photo: Dallas Morning News


In the most ridiculous assertion against any Republican, Potential or Announced, GOP 2012 Candidate to date, the New York Times’ blogger, Matt Bai, gives Times Readers this gem: “Rick Perry’s Bush Problem” . The article asserts that although there are zero similarities between Governor Perry and the Bush Family, despite the fact that the Bush Family endorsed another candidate for Governor of Texas over Perry, that’s Perry’s very ties to the State of Texas; tie him to the dreaded Bush "moniker". Although this blog has written infrequently about the Governor of Texas (that would be Rick Perry), with the exception to praise his sheer chutzpah in standing up and “calling them like he sees them”, his growing push towards a run coupled with this New York Times lunacy deserved a mention.

To the Times: Rick Perry is, as noted, is the longest serving Governor of the State of Texas, no mean feat, considering Texas is Texas. Texas has produced the following presidents (after joining the Union) with Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon B. Johnson, George H. and George W. Bush (although born in Connecticut), (source: White House .gov). Prior to that, the Republic of Texas a sovereign nation, featured President’s Sam Houston, M.B. Lamar and Dr. Anson Jones, with notable hero’s such as Davy Crockett.

It makes about as much sense to tie Rick Perry to say, LBJ, as it does to Bush, but more likely an apt comparison would be Sam Houston. (Although it is doubtful anyone education past 1970, outside the state of Texas, would actually know who Sam Houston might be, besides possibly having something to do with a city in Texas by that name.
Rick Perry, as Governor, has led many a conservative and liberal to move to Texas, given the fact that he’s managed to create jobs, manage both the State of Texas and open its borders and cities to its neighbor Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina, and has mentioned seceding from the Union, a suggestion that many Texans might favor (and would have the consequence of increasing the population).

The premise of the Times Blog’s author is that it is a bad thing to be tied to George Bush, even though, admittedly Rick Perry is as far from Bush as Earth is to Saturn, it doesn’t matter to the Times Blogger because: It’s what people think about Texas: seriously. Another aspect, is the evil Karl Rove Factor – somehow, in some universe, Karl Rove would be seen to be involved with Governor Perry, regardless of the truth of it, this would all add up to Perry running an imperiled 2012 campaign.

Talk about reaching. Even in New York City one can find George W Bush “Miss Me Yet?” tee-shirts, along with new ones that include “Bill Clinton” and Ronald Reagan (Google – one would be overwhelmed – not included: James Carter), Bush’s book “”Decision Point’s” and subsequent book tour resulted in many a left leaning and diehard left of center Democrat and or Independent shockingly reporting that “In retrospect, Bush was not that bad, in fact, he’s likable!”. As far as Karl Rove’s Evil Genius, should the Times be paying attention, Rove is now found with a chalk board on Fox News, making political predictions now and again. He suggested that Scott Brown, now the historical Republican Senator from Massachusetts, would have lost to Martha Coakley (the opposition Democrat Candidate) by a few points, but would get close to the Senate Seat. Being from Massachusetts, and during those three weeks, the only people that had any clue of what was going on, were those on the ground in Massachusetts, the media was clueless – sitting in Washington or New York and making predictions based on polls that were…less than credulous (see Boston Globe, University of New Hampshire’s laughable poll giving Coakley a 15 point lead).

Point, calling Rove an “evil genius” (who doesn’t always get it right some of the time) because he was Bush’s “Architect”, and is now affiliated with Fox News (which is evil in the eyes of the Times blog, and say those who watch MSNBC), and then trying to tie him, somehow to Perry is very: “Chicken Little”: the Sky Is Falling!!
Therefore, the Times blogger is suggesting this winning strategy should Perry be so inclined to run for the GOP nomination: tie him to Bush! With Gallup suggesting that any candidate that is a Republican, would, at this point, best Barrack Obama, tying a candidate to a more popular President, (to reasonably minded people) would be helping Perry, not hurting him.

Although Perry does not need any help, given the fact that he is admired for being as straightforward, and brave as two Republican Women, one announced, Michelle Bachmann, and one unannounced, Sarah Palin – Anyone of those aforementioned, in reality, stick to principals, take no b.s. from (what has now become an accepted term for the likes of the Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. ) the “Mainstream Media”, and has gone after anyone or any legislation that might hurt their constituents, regardless of party of author, showing the aforementioned to be somewhat bi-partisan when it affects those for whom they work (and they know it), rather than, say, changing their positions daily and backing away from nifty zingers so as “not to offend”. It is those that stand up and stand for the United States Constitution, and the people for whom they are responsible, that have a sudden strong appeal, with the noted exceptions of the Obama Campaign, the “Mainstream Media” and the those who consider themselves “very liberal” (which includes: college professors, some students (who may or may not vote) and diehard progressives (i.e. socialists). Note to Rick Perry – should you decide to run for the office of the Presidency, don’t forget to send that blogger over at the Times a thank you note.

Change You Can Believe In - Obama Debt Panel - Cut Medicare, Social Security

Democrats have consistently been the party most often known for their dedication to social entitlement programs, however, times appear to to have changed. Bloomberg is reporting that Obama's Debt Panel has called for cuts to Social Security and Medicare - to the tune of $3.8 Trillian.

The co-chairmen of the panel appointed by President Barack Obama suggested reducing Social Security spending by raising the retirement age to 68 in about 2050 and 69 in about 2075. The plan also would slow the rate at which benefits grow. The savings would come between 2012 and 2020.

“This country’s out of money and we better start thinking,” said co-chairman Erskine Bowles. Without “tough choices,” he said, “we’re on the most predictable path toward an economic crisis that I can imagine.”

There are other solutions that have been offered by previous administrations, most recently, George We. Bush suggested that Social Security be privatized, allowing those who would receive benefits the option of participating in a retirement savings plan similar the the one used by employees of the Federal Government. His suggestion was met by near hysetria from the Democrat Party at the time (2004 his second term).

Obama Speech Interrupted by Protestors! – E Tu Manhattan? Gets Facts Wrong on AIDS Funding. Analysis.

George W. Bush, Miss me Yet Image: Centrist Blog

FromPolitico: Obama has been heckled in Manhattan by protesters angry over AIDS Funding and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. His response to criticism has become rather pat: The Republican’s, if elected, will go back to Bush policy. If that were true, than those protesting might be better off. George W. Bush, the president the left loves to hate, along with a Republican Congress did more for AIDS relief than Mr. Obama.

From the Clarion Ledger:

"Begun in 2003 by former Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or PEPFAR was hailed as the largest effort by any nation to combat a single disease.

As a candidate in 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama pledged to add $1 billion annually to the PEPFAR fund that Bush and Congress created to fight AIDS in Africa and other developing nations.
But as president, world health advocates point out that Obama proposed only a $366 million increase for the coming fiscal year - which comes on top of another broken promise from last year. In 2009, Obama proposed spending only $165 million for PEPFAR."

What Obama fails to realize, for whatever reason, is that people’s memories are not that short. The left may have demonized George W. Bush, who many on the right had described as more than moderate, and the Congress in concert with Mr. Bush in his first term, lost the base due to an increase in entitlement programs and “pork”.
When George W. Bush wanted to work on Social Security – he was met with a hailstorm of criticism for suggesting that he had a way to strengthen the program – basically giving those participating in the program (anyone who works) the option, and merely an option, of using the same retirement program that the Congress and federal employees enjoy. That notion sent the press and the Democrats who were in Congress round the proverbial bend – yet, today the Republican’s are dubbed the “party of no”, where the Democrats, only a few short years ago, were, in effect, guilty of hampering improvements to social security. The premise of the “just say no” by Democrats to privatizing social security benefits was simple: The masses could not handle it, and would bankrupt themselves. Seriously, the largest employer today (the Federal Government), uses that program, which has safeguards in place for retirees – meanwhile, Social Security is going broke as it is being used for entitlement programs left and right that have zip to do with retirement.

How bad is it, when the man the press and the left loved to hate, and insisted would go down as the “worst President in History”, is the beneficiary of being “missed” by the populace. From Billboards, to tee-shirts to polls, Bush and his band of maligned Republicans did more for the economy (recovery after September 11th attacks on New York and Washington DC), in actual jobs created, did more in necessary entitlement programs for U.S. And global citizens (Prescription drug benefits for senior citizens and AIDS funding), and incidentally, kept the nation safe from terrorist attacks.

When did Bush become stalled, so to speak, and unable to move any improvements forward? When, in 2006, the Congress changed political party hands and ended up being controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It is not that Bush’s policy decisions were a hit with Conservatives (recall the Mexican Dollar with George Bush’s photo neatly photo shopped onto the currency); on the contrary, many viewed the former President as too liberal. Which is somewhat true, Bush was a moderate, who put country and humanity first.
Whereas, Obama appears to put Party and Ideology before the needs of the American’ people and is unable and unwilling to compromise, and most importantly, he is unable to take direct criticism without going into campaign mode and pointing the finger elsewhere – of course, at the Republicans. So much for bringing unity to the Government – one has to own one’s mistakes, at least once in a blue moon.

Obama Job’s Bill Includes Huge Cuts to Medicare and Increase to Oil Fees in Attempt to Extend Unemployment Benefits through November.

Greek Riots in Greece - With continued spending this could be Washington. photo zimbio

Apparently, in a measure to reduce the jobs bill by $50 Billionwhich includes cuts to Medicare reimbursement to physicians, and increase in oil fees, and a reduction of one month in unemployment benefit extensions. The bill, with an original price tag of $190 billion, cut one vital program and increased a tax that will impact the price of oil, in order to attract enough votes from so called “moderates” in order to push another huge spending bill through Congress before the June recess.

The cut in Medicare payments to physicians is most worrisome to seniors, and the physicians who are at the receiving end of yet another stimulus. Although Congresshad promised there would be no cuts to Medicare, and the President, according to the AP, sent out “a glossy brochure to reassure seniors the health care program is on solid ground”, the jobs bill, with heavy pressure from unions, contains a reduction of $21.8 billion in Medicare reimbursements, from the $65 billion commitment made to physicians and seniors. In addition the funds are only guaranteed for a portion of the original time dictated by the administration (Politico).

Democrats are now referring to this cut as a “freeze”.

Most worrisome is the input from Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, who apparently feels that the growing deficit is of less import than extending unemployment benefits. (Politico) McEntee, a regular contributor to the Huffington Post, opined in a recent piece that there is an assault on Public Employees. The clueless Union Talking head has apparently missed the New York Times article, which discussed the gap in pensions for public employees versus those in the private sector (and lack of transparency): “about 3,700 retired public workers in New York are now getting pensions of more than $100,000 per year, exempt from state and local taxes”.

Meanwhile, Europe scrambles to avoid financial collapse (see Greece) in France, the government is raising the retirement age to 60 in order to stave off huge deficits. It may be recalled that Greece, with outrageous entitlement programs that it could no longer sustain, was recently bailed out by the U.S. government.

One should ask those Union leaders and the clueless horde that currently runs our government, who might bail out the U.S. should our entitlement programs (already unsustainable in most states) are summarily cut? New Jersey Governor, Chris Christy is battling to cut the state deficit, and warns that New Jersey is one step away from being “Greece”. He is currently ignoring the state union employees who had rallied on the Statehouse steps against the budget cuts. Chris Christie “gets it”.

While the Administration and the Democrat Controlled Congress are about to cut essential services to the nations senior, place a tax on oil that will impact both seniors and those on fixed incomes nationwide, in order to pacify the unions, one has to ask when the proverbial “light bulb” will finally appear over the heads of the committed Progressives who are so pro-union, they cannot see the forest through the trees. There will be no bailout of the U.S. period. We can, as a nation, only sustain so much debt before serious cuts must be made, and taxes reduced on those very same businesses so vilified by the union talking heads, that create jobs. John F. Kennedy got it, Ronald Reagan got it, even George W. Bush got it – for some reason, Progressives never get it, instead, they cry foul of the corporations whose very existence created jobs for the likes of union bosses.

The big what if? Certain economists believe that the Chinese Economy is not on solid ground, and the real estate market there is experiencing some difficulty, in addition they face rising unemployment. Given the fact that the China holds the biggest percentage of U.S. Debt (allowing the Democrats to continue to spend like no tomorrow), should that country’s economic system experience a hiccup – they would no longer be in a position to bail us out. Europe is in a shambles – there is literally no place to turn.

What needs to be done now is not minor surgery to yet another tax and spend bill, rather serious cuts to every segment of the Federal government and a reduction in entitlement programs, coupled with across the board tax cuts. This is not an overnight fix, it takes time to bring back those businesses Mr. McEntee accuses of leaving the U.S. jobless in pursuit of non-union employees in other nations that offer real tax breaks. One other remedy that should be on the table – disband the unions that protect individuals in jobs where there is absolutely no risk to life and limb. Any left standing should be federally mandated to ensure that dues are used only for retirement programs and plans for its members. (Not hefty salaries and donations to political parties, as is now the case, on the back s of those same union members McEntee is allegedly tyring to protect) Salaries to so-called union officials and union management should be capped, period. Someone has to have the courage to make major change to the current program, which is highly unlikely given the current administration and like-minded Congress. The only remedy at this point is the ballot box. November cannot come soon enough.

CBS and the New York Times offer Early Criticism of Obama Administration – Analysis

The Sunday edition of the New York Times featured Paul Krugman despairing over Obama’s economic policies, a piece by Tobin Harshaw, entitled: “Weekend Opinionator: Obama’s Communication Breakdown” and finally a piece by none-other than Maureen Dowd , “Toxic R US”, telling her readers she is “wondering if the wrong Obama is in the Oval”. The President has faced growing media criticism in the past two months, however, not from his stalwart defenders, the New York Times and CBS News – this is something new. It is not like the Times has, in the past, “followed the crowd”, and rather appeared to be invested in an old title: “The Paper of Record” – what gives?

Over at CBS, the weekly “magazine” “60 Minutes, featured an interview with Obama and anchor, Steve Kroft – in the interview (Transcript her via Politico) an incredulous Kroft asks Obama if he is “Punch Drunk” after the President chuckled during questions raised on the economy.
It is almost as if these two media giants have finally caught on that the general public has severe reservations about their commander in chief. An interesting piece over at the blog Hillbuzz, asks “Whatever Happened To that New Kind of Politics” , referring to Obama’s campaign promise of playing well with others once elected. The comments thus far are revealing, as this particular blog garners visitors from right, left and center, and with very few exceptions, there is a lot of angst about the new Commander in Chief’s abilities to govern effectively. This could be any right-wing Republican blog, but it’s not – it is a blog written by Hillary Clinton supporters in, of all places, Chicago, Democrats who sound – conservative. Or, more to the point, well written and impeccably researched, the blog is penned by normal people who have had their doubts since day one. (Suggested daily reading).

One has to question when the final nail will be hammered into the Obama Media Popularity Coffin – the answer: When MSNBC’s crew begins to get testy. Seriously, it should be obvious to the press and to the rest of the world that a greater division now exists between the people and the government – and by and between political parties in the United States than at any other time in history – and this includes the era of the Bush Administration. Who would have ever, in their wildest dreams, beloved that a progressive Democrat President would make George W. Bush look like one of the best and brightest to sit in the oval office in decades? That may be one of Obama’s greatest achievements, elevating the legacy of George W. Bush.