2016 Early Polling Continues to pit Clinton only against GOP potential candidates, Paul on Iraq – Yes his opinion can be stunning!

It appears that all pollsters continue to compare Hillary Clinton, and no other Dem candidate against the pack of 2016 potential candidates. In a situation where not one has officially announced a candidacy - but may have hinted – the best of those past races are generally put to the poll test. The pollsters have decided that must be Hillary Clinton only for the Democrats, and Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee and the 2nd place 2012 GOP candidate – Rick Santorum. In the latest round of Clinton vs. the GOP – she has lost some ground according to Forbes analysis, Clinton is still ahead but has lost ground in key demographics against both Jeb Bush and Rand Paul equally.

Here’s the conundrum – Clinton is likely to either bow out entirely in November, or be ambushed at the Democrat Convention again, by Obama-light – or the new Senator from Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren. Warren, despite protesting too much, has opened the door in recent interviews and is playing the role of 2014 candidate support, a potential sign of things to come. There is also the Governor of Maryland, who has made no bones about a 2016 run. The latter two are most likely to enter the fray.

On the Republican side, there is no telling who may emerge yet as a frontrunner – as the fortunes and the establishment hijacks, no unlike the national Democrats, will muck things up (See John McCain, Mitt Romney). Although Paul is the most likely to capture both the GOP nomination as well as the national title, it remains to be seen what machinations, if any, the GOP will mount against the son of former Congressman Ron Paul. The establishment GOP candidate is someone who is slightly less Democrat than a Progressive.

It is one thing to hold your ground and compromise while maintaining core principles (Clinton, William Jefferson, and Reagan, Ronald), and another thing when the debates are peppered with “I agree”’s from both candidates!

However, Rand Paul (KY) would most likely have the tables turned in such a debate given his issues are conservative, and at the same time, Libertarian, which allows him some leverage and more reasoned though processes. in an op-ed in the Salem, Oregon, Statemen’s Journal, there is absolutely hope in this letter that as a “Republican” (Paul) telling it like it is re: Iraq, blaming both Bush and Obama, if he will be able to take the “heat” from other Republican’s. It is likely as, in any contest that yes, there will be those incredulous naysayers who will insist that the Iraq war was a brilliant move, yet there are those who are more pragmatic and can honestly say – bad idea. Good for Paul, and doubtful that he will back down from that stance – even hotly contested. He will be battling (a la Ronald Reagan – who was almost kicked from the party), the left and the right of the political spectrum. Although so far, the left has flung only bad photographs and some trumped up plagiarism charge. Paul appears, so far, and this early, to be the best bet of those “who might run”.

On a side note: there has been so much to discuss recently that it is difficult to pick one topic at any given time – from the disaster on the US border where daily cries for help are heard from the local media, to the VA scandal to the IRS scandal to the horrific destruction of the middle east by ISIS, to so much more than one can comprehend in an hour – one debacle after another, makes one incapable of feeling nothing but sadness for the state this nation has been brought to under this administration. One does not necessarily blame the President, simply because he is pretty much a figurehead, and is surrounded by those who are acting on their own accord – yet, surely not this much junk could get by one CEO, or one governor, or one small businessman (say an eye doctor) – which begs the question, should we, as a nation, hire another academic for the highest office in the land?

Springfield MA Mayor Pleads for Help in Relocating Refugees Away from Springfield - Good for Him. < br> The Mayor of Springfield, Dominic Sarno, has come under fire for trying to stop the importation of thousands of refugees from Iraq and Somalia into a City, already struggling with housing, and financial woes due to a tornado that had ripped the City of Homes in two 3 years ago. He is, of course, being criticized for most likely being anti-refugee International Business Times. Sarno who has to contend with massive gang wars, a completely Democrat and dysfunctional City Government, and the left of Center State and Federal Governments, is now expected to take on more individuals who, 100 years ago, would have been expected to fend for themselves. Case in point, every Italian, French, German, Spanish, Austrian, (name a country), immigrant from the age of infancy on, that managed to work in the mills, finds housing, or not, but survive and bring prosperity to their families. There was plenty of room and social services were non-existent. This is what built our nation. It is not that this blogger is not empathetic to a refugee, but, being a first generation American whose father came from Spain at the age of 7 and worked in the fields, learned English in a year, and went onto live a prosperous life, it is difficult to imagine that today, the refugee is housed, fed, and basically hand-held by tax-payer funded idiots, who then disappear and leave the much dependent individuals without the capacity to fend for themselves. Sarno has got this one right – Should the Powers that Be wish to locate hundreds of thousands of individuals across the nation – perhaps they should look towards roomy Governors mansions, or the homes and properties of those making the laws, in order for them to fully understand the consequences of their actions. What should be done, in this opinion, is allow for one year of orientation and assistance, in finding a job, housing, etc., and then letting the individual rise of fall based on their own volition. If it worked 100 years ago, it should work just fine today. Understanding this sounds a bit cruel, what of those who are left to rely on a system that is constantly falling short? Once that system is no longer in place, what then? What does a totally dependent, frightened individual do? Sounds much crueler. What is suspect with all this lovely good intent is that they are sending refugees to cities that can barely support their own, Springfield, Lewiston Maine, et al. where the local homeless are abundant, and the working poor visible. Sarno is correct is his please to send them elsewhere, as it is not fair to the City, the citizens of the City of Springfield, and especially to those whom the Federal agencies purport to wish to “help”. Read more at Boston Herald.com

< br>
The Mayor of Springfield, Dominic Sarno, has come under fire for trying to stop the importation of thousands of refugees from Iraq and Somalia into a City, already struggling with housing, and financial woes due to a tornado that had ripped the City of Homes in two 3 years ago. He is, of course, being criticized for most likely being anti-refugee International Business Times.

Sarno who has to contend with massive gang wars, a completely Democrat and dysfunctional City Government, and the left of Center State and Federal Governments, is now expected to take on more individuals who, 100 years ago, would have been expected to fend for themselves. Case in point, every Italian, French, German, Spanish, Austrian, (name a country), immigrant from the age of infancy on, that managed to work in the mills, finds housing, or not, but survive and bring prosperity to their families. There was plenty of room and social services were non-existent. This is what built our nation. It is not that this blogger is not empathetic to a refugee, but, being a first generation American whose father came from Spain at the age of 7 and worked in the fields, learned English in a year, and went onto live a prosperous life, it is difficult to imagine that today, the refugee is housed, fed, and basically hand-held by tax-payer funded idiots, who then disappear and leave the much dependent individuals without the capacity to fend for themselves.

Sarno has got this one right – Should the Powers that Be wish to locate hundreds of thousands of individuals across the nation – perhaps they should look towards roomy Governors mansions, or the homes and properties of those making the laws, in order for them to fully understand the consequences of their actions. What should be done, in this opinion, is allow for one year of orientation and assistance, in finding a job, housing, etc., and then letting the individual rise of fall based on their own volition. If it worked 100 years ago, it should work just fine today.

Understanding this sounds a bit cruel, what of those who are left to rely on a system that is constantly falling short? Once that system is no longer in place, what then? What does a totally dependent, frightened individual do?

Sounds much crueler. What is suspect with all this lovely good intent is that they are sending refugees to cities that can barely support their own, Springfield, Lewiston Maine, et al. where the local homeless are abundant, and the working poor visible. Sarno is correct is his please to send them elsewhere, as it is not fair to the City, the citizens of the City of Springfield, and especially to those whom the Federal agencies purport to wish to “help”.

Read more at Boston Herald.com

Three for 2016 - Rand Paul – Pragmatic Approach to the Middle East, the Borders and Voting Rights, Chris Matthews on Elizabeth Warren, and the Left on Rick Perry

Senator Rand Paul (K), on Meet the Press with David Gregory (link here to full video interview at NBC), (synopsis) was asked and answered a few topical questions regarding his stance on the issues of the day. He suggested that we stay out of the Middle East, (but also not for total isolationism), laid the crisis in the region on the laps of both parties in suggesting the Congress of 2002 should have given more thought to the process. He spoke to the need of securing the borders first, and that immigration as de facto amnesty would not pass. In addition he suggesting allowing non-criminal felons, who had paid their dues, be reinstated with the right to vote and spoke to Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Scandal. It is well worth watching as he comes across as measured and looking out for both the right left and center, while maintaining his core conservative values.

Elizabeth Warren (MA) was “grilled” by Chris Matthews, in a rather unusual testy interview for the Progressive Matthews, who, one would have thought, would treat Warren as the feminine version of President Obama (Video here – Breitbart-TV) - Warren, when interrupted suggested that he “stop” his line of questioning, while she continued to harangue the Republicans, Matthews asked what would you do about it?

Apparently she preferred to answer a serious question from Matthews with rhetoric.

Finally Rick Perry, who in his sometimes gruff Texas non-politically corrects way of explaining anything, ruffled feathers of gay activists by suggesting they were comparable to alcoholics (which, could be taken in so many ways, its mind boggling). The thought police have apparently pulled an equivalent of the Texan’s “I misspoke”

"I got asked about issues, and instead of saying, 'You know what, we need to be a really respectful and tolerant country to everybody,' and get back to talking about, whether you're gay or straight, you need to be having a job," he said. "I readily admit I stepped right in it."

(AZ Central- read full article here)

Summarizing, two men potentially running in 2016, one is pragmatic, the other apologetic, but at the same time, a straight shooter, versus a woman, who is also a potential 2016 (more of a bet on her than on Hillary Clinton) promising 4 more years of Obamanesque rhetoric (and a do nothing attitude to boot), should she be elected.