Back to the good ol' days of President Jimmy Carter?

The minimum wage went up again today. Good news for low-income workers, right? Wrong. Bad news for employers who won't be able to hire as many low-wage workers (who are by definition low-income workers) and may in fact have to lay some off and push the jobless rate even higher. It's only good news for unions, who can compete better with non-union employers. And in case you haven't noticed, good news for Democrats, who the unions support financially.

At present, we're almost in double digits as the jobless rate nears 10 percent. "Happy Days are here again!" the libtards are signing as Obama-Pelosi-Reid lead us back into Jimmy Carter territory, those good ol' days of double-digit unemployment, interest rates and stagflation.

On the other hand, there are five fingers. And also the obvious solution for our jobless economy, how about a payroll tax cut for businesses? It worked for Reagan and even John Kennedy, both Presidents who cut taxes and saw the national economy improve dramatically.

In other news about prominent Democrats, have you read about the big scandal among New Jersey politicians which reaches all the way up to the governor's office? If so, you probably had to do what I did, read all the way to the end of the story in the New York Times (just across the river) to finally find out what party the political criminals belong to:

Among the public officials arrested were Mayor Peter J. Cammarano III of Hoboken, who was a City Council member before he took office as mayor on July 1, and Mayor Dennis Elwell of Secaucus, both Democrats; Assemblyman L. Harvey Smith of Jersey City, also a Democrat; and Assemblyman Daniel M. Van Pelt, a Republican from Ocean County.

Ahah, one Republican joins the long list of Democrat big-shot crooks. Gotcha. Sorta. The NY Times ain't about to name any parties unless they can find at least one Republican to add.

Have you heard New Jersey's state motto? "Some of our politicians haven't been indicted yet!"

The Second Coming of James Earl Carter Jr./III?

You gotta love somebody who agrees with you and Michael Medved read my mind this morning by comparing the early days of President Obama's administration to the disastrous presidency of James Earl Carter Jr, who Medved calls "the century's worst president."

Back during the campaign it occurred to me that Obama's promises to bring the wonders of socialism to our government sounded a lot like Jimmy Carter and I created the campaign poster at right for a blog post. BTW, that guy on the right looks like Carter with whiskers, but it's not, it's another famous socialist, Lenin. Same, same. I picked him because Obama's own campaign icon of himself bears a striking resemblance to Lenin's huge posters of himself hung all over mother Russia. And like Lenin demanded and got of the masses in Russia, the mainstream media and masses were then and now bowing down in worship of their new messiah, Socialist Barack Obama.

Here's a bit from Medved's reflections on the second coming of Jimmy Carter:

In the sweep of recent history, James Earl Carter, Jr., stands utterly alone in leading his party to capture the White House with overwhelming Congressional majorities (61 Senators, 292 members of the House – far bigger margins than Obama!) and then, after a brief four year demonstration of almost unimaginable ineptitude, handing the reins of government back to the opposition.

In looking ahead to the Obama administration, no one wants an economic or foreign policy repetition of the nightmarish Carter years – the Republic can hardly afford that sort of long-term damage.

But GOP loyalists should legitimately hope that the new president does manage to follow Little Jimmy’s political example – repeating the Carteresque feat of losing the presidency for his party after a single term of office.

In this regard, President Obama’s first week has already provided a promising start—displaying some of the nastiness, small-mindedness, insecurity, and self-righteousness that notably characterized the Georgia Peanut. The Inaugural Address included graceless digs at President Bush that undermined the promised theme of “unity,” while touchy, grumpy comments to the White House press corps stunned reporters who had previously displayed their infatuation with the new president. The odd remarks scolding Republicans with a reminder that “I won” and warning them not to listen to Rush Limbaugh, hardly characterize a self-confident, optimistic, coalition-building leader in the style of FDR, JFK or Ronald Reagan.

Maybe, like Carter, Obama will bury himself in his own hubris and we'll get rid of him in just four years. That's about as optimistic as I can get. But good Lord, he can do a lot of damage in four years. Will we still have a republic standing after four years of Obama-Carter socialism?

“Charlie’s War” replaying in Georgia?

Is there really nothing our military can do about the Russian invasion of the former Soviet republic of Georgia? That’s what all the “experts” are saying. But I don’t think so. That’s what experts said in 1979 when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan back during President Jimmy Carter’s watch.

Carter had gutted military funding after the Vietnam War and nobody wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union over Afghanistan. So Carter did nothing but boycott the Olympics as a lame protest. That’s all the “experts” are suggesting today, another Olympic boycott against the Russians. Nobody wants to go to war with the Russians over Georgia with our troops already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But history may well repeat.

As the nonfiction book and movie “Charlie’s War” chronicles, in the ‘80s President Reagan, the CIA and a few friends in Congress quietly financed an insurgency against the Soviet occupation, arming the Afghans with Stinger missiles and other equipment that eventually led to Soviet defeat.

And if I was a betting man, I’d bet a similar campaign is already under way by our Spec Ops troops with the blessing of President Bush. And Georgia may be a small country, but they do have a trained army, air force and navy which succeeded in some damage to the Russian invaders.

With that core group to work with, the Russian troops might just find out it’s a whole lot easier to invade than it is to occupy a country against insurgents who are armed and supported by powerful friends. Might be a replay of Iraq and I’d bet the Russians don’t have a Gen. Petraeus.

Deebow at Blackfive.net speculated that the U.S. Air Force C-17 that landed in Georgia with humanitarian supplies probably had a few “ringers” mixed in amongst the Air Force crew, Spec Ops experts to sneak and peek a sitrep on the Russian occupation.

How many of you believe that there were soldiers on those relief flights that belonged to the RRC, AFSOC, ODA (insert number here), SOF-D or some other Special Mission Unit? I think they are likely giving ground truth to Tampa right now.

It is an axiom of modern combat that when you deploy Special Forces, you are at war...

Here’s what Strategy Page says about our troops who are already in Georgia as trainers for the Georgians: American Troops Help Defend Georgia

As Russian troops invade, from bases in southern Russia, 127 American military trainers remain in Georgia (the one in the Caucasus). They weren't the only foreign troops around, as at the end of July, a thousand Ukrainian, Azeri, Armenian and U.S. troops departed after holding joint training exercises with their Georgian counterparts.

For the past three years, several hundred American military trainers have run the GSSOP (Georgia Sustainment and Stability Operations Program), which has trained over 5,000 Georgian troops, many for eventual service in Iraq. The trainers were American soldiers and marines, who imparted their combat experience to the Georgians.

…Georgia has a population of about 4.6 million, and an active duty military of about 28,000 troops. Russia has a population of 142 million, and an active duty military of about a million personnel. The U.S. has been helping Georgia train and equip an army reserve force of about 100,000. Only about a fifth of that force has been organized so far. Georgia was hoping to develop a sufficient qualitative advantage to discourage the Russians.

If a few thousand Afghans with bolt-action rifles and Stinger missiles could make the Russians turn tail and run, the Georgians can do it too.