BloggeRhythms

An editorial today in the Washington Post by Rick Perry, spurred thoughts about why the incumbent has done such a horrible job protecting the nation, both here and certainly abroad.

 

Governor Perry wrote “As a veteran, and as a governor who has supported Texas National Guard deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I can understand the emotions behind isolationism. Many people are tired of war, and the urge to pull back is a natural, human reaction. Unfortunately, we live in a world where isolationist policies would only endanger our national security even further. 

 

That’s why it’s disheartening to hear fellow Republicans, such as Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), suggest that our nation should ignore what’s happening in Iraq. The main problem with this argument is that it means ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world." 

 

Since Governor Perry's words included, “as a veteran,” I looked his military history up to find that after graduating Texas A & M where he was a member of the Corps of Cadets, he was commissioned in the United States Air Force, completing pilot training in February 1974. 

 

Assigned as a C-130 pilot to the 772nd Tactical Airlift Squadron at Dyess Air Force Base, his duties included two-month overseas rotations at RAF Mildenhall in England and Rhein-Main Air Base in Germany. His missions including a 1974 U.S. State Department drought relief effort in Mali, Mauritania and Chad, and two years later, earthquake relief in Guatemala, he left the U.S. Air Force in 1977 with the rank of captain. 

 

That information was remindful of Republican icon, Ronald Reagan, whose own military career was recapped in Defense Media Network on February 5, 2011, excerpted as follows.

 

“Reagan’s time in uniform was not as dramatic as some of his film appearances or his tenure as president, but as one U.S. airman described it, ‘They gave him duties that fit with his experience and he performed them well.’”

 

He became a private in a cavalry unit of the Army Reserve in 1937, but due to nearsightedness, was classified for limited service, which meant he couldn’t go overseas. He served at the San Francisco port of embarkation at Fort Mason, Calif., as a liaison officer until transferring from the cavalry to the AAF on May 15, 1942.

 

He tried to get a waiver permitting him to serve in a war zone, but the Army refused. And moreover, “the nation needed Reagan’s peacetime skills to help with the war effort. He made his first government film, Air Force, after being assigned to the AAF’s film unit. His film unit eventually helped to make 300 training and propaganda films and was responsible for 3,000,000 feet of combat footage. Reagan called the film office “an important contribution to the war effort.”

 

And most importantly, “As president, he won the approval of many in the military for building up the armed forces. Many believe his defense policy hastened the downfall of the Soviet Union.”

 

Which brings us back to the incumbent and presidential hopeful, Rand Paul, neither of whom have any military experience at all. Yet both hold steadfastly cling to isolationist positions, exposing the nation to foreign enemy encroachment stimulated by their naïve and ignorant stubbornness.

 

Although the next subject isn’t exactly foreign policy, it certainly concerns aliens invading the country.

 

Karen Tumulty and David Nakamura write in the Washington Post that, “Until now, the politics of immigration have been seen as a no-lose proposition for President Obama and the Democrats. If they could get a comprehensive overhaul passed, they would win. And if Republicans blocked it, the GOP would further alienate crucial Hispanic and moderate voters.”

But with the current crisis on the Southwest border the “calculus may be shifting.”

 

At present, while Republicans and even some Democrats have accused Obama of being insufficiently engaged in a calamity that many say he should have seen coming, the president’s own party is deeply divided over what must be done now.

 

Simon Rosenberg, founder of the New Democrat Network, a think tank focused on the growing importance of Hispanic voters, said “The most important thing is, the president has to bring this crisis to a humane and resolute end — quickly. If you want immigration reform to pass soon — whatever ‘soon’ is — it is crucial that the government’s response to this crisis goes well, and the president has to do everything he can.”

 

However, what Mr. Rosenberg fails to grasp is the fact that the incumbent has little time to devote to the “crisis” whereas it interferes with photo ops in fast food joints, all important fund-raising, and especially shooting pool and playing golf.

 

Which brings us to today’s update on the Clinton’s, this one a perfect analysis of their current scam and their now using Chelsea as a bag-lady too.

 

In todays New York Times Op-Ed, Maureen Dowd writes that “She is commanding, as The Times' Amy Chozick reported, up to $75,000 per appearance.

 

Ms. Dowd then asks, “Why on earth is [Chelsea] worth that much money? Why, given her dabbling in management consulting, hedge-funding and coattail-riding, is an hour of her time valued at an amount that most Americans her age don’t make in a year? (Median household income in the United States is $53,046.) 

 

Then, Ms. Dowd provides the answer to her own question. “Rick Cohen writes in The National Philanthropy Quarterly, 'Donors and institutions that are paying them and their daughter huge sums for their speeches may very well be buying recognition and face time with powerful political leaders who they hope will be able to deliver political favors in the future.

 

It is troubling when corporate donors give to political charities with a more or less obvious expectation that softer and gentler treatment will ensue in the future. It is also troubling when some of the payers are public or nonprofit entities themselves such as colleges and universities, converting taxpayer funds and tax-exempt donations into signals that could end up in positive treatment when these institutions are themselves seeking access and favors, even if it is only a good word put in by one of the Clintons to a federal agency providing funding or to a regulator who might be taking a critical look at university tuitions and endowment payouts.'”

 

And there we have it succinctly and precisely. Because while Bill was president, and might actually have some valuable insight worth listening to on its own merit, the other two empty dresses are virtually valueless without him. Nonetheless, considering that Democrat voters are generally dumber than bricks, it’s a smart move to pay off his wife and daughter now, whereas they might even wind up in the White House again.  

 

That’s it for today folks.

 

Adios