Perry looking very presidential on immigration issue

A while back I wrote a post about how political analyst Dick Morris predicted that Rick Perry would be the next GOP nominee. Today, that prediction is looking great as Rick Perry is by far presenting himself as the most presidential.

Today Morris's prediction is looking good, as Rick Perry has sent the National Guard to protect the Texas border to prevent any more immigrants from trying to illegally cross in the hopes that they can get amnesty.

A while back Barack Obama made an executive order that families with children in America may come to the United States to be with their familes.  He is likewise trying encourage Congress to pass laws giving illegal immigrants amnesty.  This has basically encouraged unhappy Mexicans to illegally cross into America, or at least send their children this way in the hopes they'll be able to join them later.

It's been estimated that over 250 children are crossing the border every day. Many states are very concerned, petitioning the president to put a stop to this, as they cannot afford to house, school and provide healthcare for all these illegal children.

The influx become so pandemic it's scary right now to be an American.  Yet Obama does not see it as a crisis.  His response is to say "I'll look into it" or "it's the republicans fault because they voted against my immigration reform."

Of course former President George Bush is not off the hook either, as he was encouraged to put troops on the border to prevent such a crisis from occurring, and he didn't so either.

I think both Bush, and now Obama, do not put troops on the border because both of them fear that doing such a thing would cause Spanish Americans to prefer the other party.  Of course, by looking at trends, most of the people crossing the border are uneducated, and most likely to vote democrat regardless.

Both also did so under the guise that American has always been a state of open borders, something that is not true.

In fact, most people do not know this, but between 1924 to 1965 we shut down immigration. We closed the borders so that those who had arrived could assimilate and become American, which they wanted to do, by the way. They learned English. They became accustomed to American holidays. They wanted to become Americans.

Today we don't even ask that those who cross our borders assimilate. This was good, because America is better when we are one united nation (a melting pot) as opposed to a divided nation (a salad bowl).  United we can conquer any problem, although divided we fall.

Rick Perry looks good by sending troops to the border.  His move looks even better when you consider that a recent poll shows that greater than 70 percent of Americans believe we should secure our border and send illegal immigrants back home.

Further reading:

1. Perry: What you are doing is a crime
2. 77% want illegal immigrants sent home, 81% say it's a serious issue

Morris predicts who will win 2016 GOP nomination

Will Rick Perry win the GOP nod for 2016.
Dick Morris says he's set up just right for it.

As a former pollster and political campaign consultant for Bill Clinton, Dick Morris is an expert on how to win elections. In a recent column, "To Get GOP Nod, First Lose," he explains how the GOP is a a "monarchic and legitimist institution," with the current leader handing off the reigns to the next leader.

In other words, in order to win the nomination a candidate must first have lost a bid to gain the nomination.

He said:

The Republican Party is, at heart, a monarchic and legitimist institution. Party leadership is handed down in orderly succession. Rebels and insurgents are typically given short shrift.

He explained this further:

In the beginning, Thomas Dewey begat Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower begat Nixon. Nixon begat Ford. Reagan lost to Ford and then, it was his turn. Then Reagan begat Bush-41. Dole had lost to Bush-41 and then, it was his turn to try. Bush-41, literally, begat Bush-43. McCain lost to Bush-43 and then, it was his turn. Romney lost to McCain, and then, his turn came.

The democratic party is the opposite, he said, with only Al Gore previously losing a bid for the Presidency before he eventually won the nomination.

So, he said:

What does this predict for 2016? Of the defeated candidates left over from 2012, Rick Santorum is probably too focused on social issues to win. Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann can be dismissed as flashes in the pan and the problems that knocked them out of contention have not gone away. Romney probably won’t get a third chance — even Nixon only got two. Newt Gingrich inflicted too many wounds on others and on himself.

That leaves Rick Perry. He’s acceptable to Latinos, based on his Texas record. He draws strong Tea Party support without being defined by it. A Southerner, he is clearly ready to play on the national stage. A big state governor, his record on jobs has only gotten better. Perry can’t be dismissed.

Of course, as Morris readily admits, Perry is not the perfect candidate. He said:

Will his debate brainlock disqualify him? Not if he doesn’t repeat it. Bill Clinton recovered from a disastrous 1988 convention speech. He’s probably had enough time to recover from his dismissal of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” in his book.

But Perry has to develop a truly national perspective to win. He can’t forever be repeating “in the state of Texas” before each line.

He needs to know more about issues other than energy. In 2012, he showed the same lack of depth and laziness in issue preparation as Sarah Palin did in 2008, but he wasn’t caught as easily because he’s a man.

So, we'll lock this in as Morris's prediction.  Let it be known, for the record, that he predicted, in a book nonetheless, "Condi vs. Hilary,"  that Condoleezza Rice would be pit against Hilary Clinton in 2008, and, while he was close about Hilary, he was not even in the ballpark with Rice.

Morris, however, has been very right about many of his predictions regarding presidential elections, and, so right in fact at times, that he may have been the sole reason Bill Clinton won twice. So his predictions should be duly noted. 

U.S. should put troops in Ukraine

I discussed on April 16, "Putin and Obama prepare their war strategies," that the west made a pledge to protect Ukraine when Clinton was President, and the U.S. should now honor that pledge.

Twelve days after I wrote my post, Dick Morris discussed this same topic in his April 29, 2014, column, "Send U.S. Troops to Ukraine, he said:

In 1994, President Clinton, British Prime Minister Major, Russian President Yeltsin, and Ukranian President Kuchma signed The Budapest Memorandum pledging themselves and their nations to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

The Treaty was signed as part of a successful effort to persuade Ukraine to relinquish its nuclear stockpile, armaments stationed there when the Soviet Union broke up. In return for the joint guarantee, Ukraine promised to give up its nuclear weapons.

Its there in black and white: An American commitment we must honor.

Morris added:

When I asked President Clinton why he was so anxious to bring Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, he spoke of the importance of maintaining freedom in those countries, but also said that we needed “a land bridge” to Ukraine. “Ukraine,” he said, “is key. We have to make sure they can stay independent.”

If the U.S. led it, NATO would surely be willing to follow and deploy at least a token force from every European nation.

There is no way Russia would attack Ukraine if it meant war with the United States. Just as the tripwire defense we maintained in Germany throughout the Cold War did not cost us a single US life and not one shot was fired in anger, so a robust show of support for Ukraine would not lead to war. It would avert one.

If we do not stop Russia in Ukraine, Putin will attack Azerbaijan, Moldova, and the Baltic States. If we do not stop him there, Poland and Eastern Europe could well be next.

We all know the story of how Allied refusal to intervene catalyzed Hitler’s push for European domination. We all realize now that a show of force when Hitler marched into the Rhineland or into Austria would have averted World War II.

Our successful deployment in Germany throughout the Cold War gives us ample evidence that you can face down the Russians without loss of life. Putin will take what we give him as long as its free, but not at the price of war.
My work in Russian politics (for Yeltsin in the 90s) left me with a strong impression that the fear of war with the U.S. is uppermost in Russian minds and the memories of World War II have not receded.

And, we gave our word to Ukraine. What is that worth?  

I think Morris is exactly right.  Once again we must honor our pledge, our promise. Not doing so risks further damaging respect for America, further hampering U.S. influence.
----------
Update 5/11/14
The problem here is not just democrats fault, as not one republican or democrat has called for sending troops to Ukraine.  However, as Charles Krauthhammer notes in his May 1, 2014, column "Obama's foreign policy of denial:"

The critique by John McCain and others is that when the Ukrainians last month came asking for weapons to defend themselves, Obama turned them down. The Pentagon offered instead MREs, ready-to-eat burgers to defend against 40,000 well-armed Russians. Obama even denied Ukraine such defensive gear as night-vision goggles and body armor.

Obama did, however, issue these words:

...in Ukraine, what we’ve done is mobilize the international community. . . . Russia is having to engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly around the world.”

So, as Krauthammer said, "That’s a deterrent? Fear of criticism? Empty words?"

Bottom line: It's not just Obama and democrats who are choosing to ignore Ukraine's cries for help, even after the West promised to defend them if they put down their weapons at the end of the Cold War.  Republicans are equally guilty.

Putin and Obama prepare their war strategies

Putin's strategy involves gazing at a map of the world,
trying to decide where in the West he wants to attack first.
Obama tries to stop him with doctors, nurses, negotiations
global warming threats, and sanctions.   

Do you remember when Clinton was president the West promised to defend Ukraine?  Well, the West did.  On that promise Ukraine demilitarized and disarmed itself.  This contract was renewed by Obama.

So when Putin aimed tanks at them, Ukraine was a sitting duck. But all the United States did was promise sanctions.

Now there are warnings that Putin might be trying to rebuild the Soviet Union, and most people are ignoring these warnings.  The realists who say it are called idiots and conspiracy theorists by the idealists.  No one wants to hear the warnings.

And I'm not saying the warnings are true, either.  I mean, who knows what Russian has planned.  But, I think, it's better to be prepared and proactive than to respond. Or, worded another way, there's nothing to fear except not being prepared.

Yet people like me are called conspiracy theorists.