Rick Perry Tells Obama to Come to the Border

perry
(Fox News video via Politico)

There is clearly an immigration crisis going on right now in the United States.

This is just another issue that has caused a number of people, including Rick Perry, to lose trust in President Obama or others in Washington when it comes to implementing policy that would actually deal with immigration.

Politico reports:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Wednesday that President Barack Obama must visit the Texas southern border to see the immigration crisis for himself.

“If he doesn’t come to the border, I think it’s a real reflection of his lack of concern of what’s really going on there,” Perry said on FOX News’ “FOX and Friends,” noting that Obama is planning to be in Texas next week for fundraisers.

“If the President of the United States is really serious about securing that border, we can show him how to do that,” Perry added. “But I haven’t even had a phone call from this president.”

Read more here.

Obama Owns Chaos in Iraq

ObamaIraq
(tcsnews.com)

George Bush’s Iraq war is now President Obama’s Iraq war.

And this time around, the president will be fighting on two fronts: against ISIS rebels that have reportedly seized much of the country over the last week, as well as progressives who represent Obama’s political base.

BuzzFeed reports “thousands have added their names to two progressive petitions warning the president against military action in Iraq, one from San Francisco-based progressive group CREDO and the other hosted by MoveOn.org.”

“If the president takes ownership of George W. Bush’s disastrous decision to invade Iraq by launching a new round of bombing strikes, Iraq will become Barack Obama’s war,” according to the CREDO petition cited by BuzzFeed.

Some believe it already is.

The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake put the problems in Iraq into proper perspective for MSNBC host Joy Reid earlier this week. Despite Reid’s attempt to goad Lake into blaming the current situation on “neoconservatives” who served under George Bush, Lake put the blame exactly where it belongs.

From the Daily Caller:

“’You should look at all of the history,’ Lake replied, ‘including the history before 2003. … I think the way Paul Bremer made a huge mistake disbanding the Iraqi military in the way that he did.

‘But I also think it was a huge mistake that the Obama administration never used any of his leverage with (Iraqi Prime Minister) Nouri al-Maliki to try to save Maliki from his own worst tendencies,’ Lake asserted, saying Obama’s decision to reward Maliki with F-16s and other ineffective support clearly backfired.

‘It’s a very easy thing to sort of say, ‘Oh, Iraq is a mess, remember the neocons,’ he accused. ‘So in that respect, I think that – you know, yeah, they’re in the commentary now. How really relevant is it? No one is proposing ANY kind of invasion. I think the whole country is against it.’”

Regardless, “to progressives, even a limited intervention in Iraq by Obama would be a betrayal of the base that helped get him to the White House six years ago,” BuzzFeed reports.
[Read more…]

Progressive Writer: Dems May Be Able to Salvage November Election by Promising Free College for All

free college
(forbes.com)

Progressive writer Randy Shaw understands Democrats may have trouble getting young voters to the polls in November, which is why he’s urging party members to campaign on four years of free college for all.

In an opinion piece for LAProgressive.com,  Shaw describes President Obama’s plan for reducing student loan debt as “modest” and urges Democrats to think bigger:

Instead of focusing on small scale changes that will not lift most students from crushing debt, progressives should be promoting the public funding of four years of college as we now fund high school.

What better way to engage young people in national politics than to promote a plan that puts them in the same position of young people prior to the post- 1990’s tuition explosion. And to critics claiming the U.S. cannot afford it, progressives will point to the Iraq War and other costly military endeavors to say “Yes We Can” to free tuition for all.

Democrats looking for a strategy to get young voters to the polls in November have the perfect issue. And with Republicans flooding talk shows urging new and costly military intervention, free college tuition offers Democrats a powerful counter-narrative for how the nation’s resources are best used.

From “universal preschool” to “free college for all,” it’s clear progressives won’t rest until they bankrupt this country and are able to rebuild it in the image of European-style socialism.

MSNBC Host Fails to Get Reporter to Blame Bush for the Current Situation in Iraq

Obama_Iraq
(collapse.com)

MSNBC and other liberal mainstream media stations have worked to minimize President Obama’s role in the current crisis in Iraq, but honest reporters like the Daily Beast’s Eli Lake aren’t playing along.

That was evident on a recent episode of “The Reid Report” in which host Joy Reid attempted to place the blame for the Iraq crisis on neoconservatives who served under President Bush, only to have Lake set the record straight about Obama’s massive failures.

“Reid … began the segment trying to dismiss warnings from ‘neoconservatives’ that Iraq may soon become a breeding ground for future attacks on the continental United States,” the Daily Caller reports.

“’This time around, is this back to the future?’ Reid asked. ‘Or is there some realistic link between what’s happening in Iraq right now and possibility of terrorism on domestic soil, here in the U.S.?’”

Lake threw Reid’s obvious set-up question out the window, and instead rightly called out progressives for their attempt to shift the blame for the problems in Iraq.

“Well, I mean, the director of the FBI has been warning about attacks on the U.S.,” he said, “and so … have many leaders of the intelligence community. I think you’d be hard pressed to call them neoconservatives.

“Neoconservatives have been out of power in terms of the U.S. government really since Bush’s first term ended and then he cleaned house. In my view, I think that sort of focusing on what (former Defense official) Paul Wolfowitz may say on some of the Sunday shows is a way for progressives to avoid some of the hard questions about the policy of a Democratic president right now on Iraq. This is obviously very different than it was in 2003.”

Reid tried a second time to steer the conversation to 2003, and the disbanding of the Iraqi army, but Lake took the opportunity to provide a mini history lesson on exactly why Obama’s very much to blame for allowing ISIS terrorists to unravel the progress in Iraq.
[Read more…]

Buchanan Says U.S. Should Ignore the Situation In Iraq, Regardless of the Outcome

Buchanan
(huffingtonpost.com)

A lot of Americans are shaking their heads sadly at the mere thought of American forces having to go back to Iraq and restore the peace once again, due to President Obama’s foolish decision to remove our military presence too soon.

But how can anyone argue that the U.S. should stay out of the current mess and allow the insurrection to run its course, come what may?

Former presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan, interviewed on Newsmax TV, said that’s his philosophy.

From Newsmax:

A former adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, Buchanan reminded viewers that he opposed American intervention in Iraq in 2003 and opposes it now. If Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his 900,000-man army can’t defend their capital from ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) insurgents, according to Buchanan, then the United States “ought not to go in and do it for them.”

Nobody is claiming that the Iraqi prime minister or his government are worth one more drop of American blood.

But the U.S. has an investment in the continued stability in Iraq, paid for with the blood and lives of American soldiers. To let that nation fall apart over one stupid move by Obama would be an insult to the men and women who served there.

And on a practical note, can we really afford to have another middle eastern nation run by radical jihadists who would only make peace in the region, and security for Israel, even more difficult to attain?

This is indeed the continuing war on terror that President George W. Bush warned us about. As much as we hate to admit it, this is a war we may be dealing with for a generation or more.

It’s just too bad that we may have to fight this particular battle twice, due to gross incompetence in the White House.

Republicans Warned Obama That U.S. Was Leaving Iraq Too Soon in 2011

President Obama
(kencrow.us)

President Obama reportedly said Thursday that the U.S. would need to help the Iraqi government counter the threat of Islamic militants who are overrunning the nation.

He didn’t say what specific role the U.S. might be forced play

We suppose it’s a good thing that Obama realizes that we can’t afford to have an Islamic Republic of Iraq.

What’s sickening is that this never had to happen. The fact is that Obama removed the American military presence from Iraq in 2011, which was far too soon and too risky.

Simply put, the U.S. was keeping the peace. And Obama was repeatedly warned by congressional Republicans that an early withdrawal would invite chaos and increase the potential for another war, which we would probably be forced to participate in.

Unfortunately the president buckled to his friends on the extreme left who wanted us out of Iraq ASAP. This is what happens when the White House listens to the peaceniks instead of the experts.

What’s ironic is that the anti-war crowd was tired of U.S. casualties in Iraq. Before we left, American military deaths and injuries were at a minimum, because the situation was largely under control.

How many Americans will we lose when we’re forced to return to reinstate the peace?

From Newsmax:

“It was something that was avoidable,” said Sen. Jim Inhofe. “It was something that we warned the president about over a three-year period. Now it’s worse than it was before. It’s very depressing.”

“It’s not like we haven’t seen this problem coming for over a year,” said House Speaker John Boehner. “And it’s not like we haven’t seen, over the last five or six months, these terrorists coming in and taking control of western Iraq. Now they’ve taken control of Masul. They’re 100 miles from Baghdad. And what’s the president doing? Taking a nap.”

Perhaps Obama is napping because he can’t stand to stay awake and watch the disaster his stupid decision is causing.

He ought to be covering his head with his pillow out of pure shame.

 

Latest California Obamacare Wrinkle: Your Health Care or Your House

Obama
(libertynews.com)

President Obama says he’s committed to helping the poor, but his policies seem to be doing just the opposite.

The latest example of this comes from California where the new federal health law – Obamacare – is forcing some of the state’s poorest citizens to choose between signing up for health insurance coverage and leaving their children an inheritance when they die.

The problem stems from Obamacare’s goal of ensuring all Americans have health insurance.

A main way the feds are attempting to meet this goal is through the expansion of Medicaid – the government’s health care program for low-income citizens. Under Obamacare, millions of additional Americans now qualify for Medicaid.

Overlooking the fact that Medicaid provides the needy with really crappy health coverage, progressive Democrats and dim-witted Republicans have cheered the Medicaid expansion as a victory for the poor.

A number of California residents are learning it’s really just a Pyrrhic victory.
[Read more…]

Where’s the Logic? White House Didn’t Tell Congress about Bergdahl Trade Because it Wanted to Avoid Leaks … But 90 White House Staffers Were Informed in Advance

Obama_Bergdahls
(thedailybanter.com)

White House officials contend President Obama did not inform Congress about his deal to trade five known terrorists for deserter U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl due to security concerns.

If a member of Congress leaked something before the trade was done, Obama was reportedly afraid that Bergdahl might be killed

But at a classified briefing to House members Monday, White House staffers revealed that up to 90 people in the Obama administration knew of the pending deal, negating any true concern about secrecy, Newsmax reports.

The news comes as the Armed Services Committee continues to look into the trade, with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel set to testify tomorrow, and additional hearings on the way.

Committee Chairman Buck McKeon said the revelation about those who knew of the Bergdahl deal was “disturbing,” and he’s demanding a list of names of those who were in-the-know.

“My question to them was, if you don’t know who knew, then how could you – if a leak had happened and the sergeant had been killed – how could you go back and find out who leaked?” McKeon said, according to the news site.

It’s a good question. Here’s another: Did President Obama break the law by not informing Congress of the trade?
[Read more…]

Conservative State Lawmakers Working to Turn Proposed EPA Rules into another Obamacare-like Debacle

GW_WTF
(gopthedailydose.com)

The newly proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules endorsed by President Obama to cut greenhouse gas emissions may be setting the stage for another Obamacare-like showdown with the states.

POLITICO reports that a handful of Republican-controlled state legislatures are considering laws that would prevent their states from coming up with a plan to comply with the potential EPA requirements, thus forcing bureaucrats in faraway Washington D.C. to impose job-killing environmental regulations on the state.

Lawmakers in 36 states used the same basic idea when they voted against setting up an Obamacare-required health insurance “exchange,” a move that forced the federal government to implement its own hated health care law.

The thinking now is that voters will be so angry over another instance of federal overreach that it’ll bolster Republicans’ political strength to roll back the onerous EPA regulations.

It’s a clever chess-like move to counter the EPA’s equally clever move of setting clean air goals – which have yet to be finalized – allowing each state the flexibility of deciding how to meet the federal rules. The EPA wants to give state leaders just enough control to trick them into believing they “own” the process.
[Read more…]