Texas Governor Rick Perry earned the rank of Eagle Scout, as did his son Griffin. The Boy Scouts of America Organization honored Rick Perry with the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award.

With the announcement yesterday that the Boy Scouts of America Organization has voted to open their membership to openly gay boys for the first time in history, Gov. Perry issued a statement.

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement regarding the vote to admit openly gay Boy Scouts:

Eric Gay/The Associated Press

 The Boys Scouts of America has been built upon the values of faith and family for more than 100 years and today’s decision contradicts generations of tradition in the name of political correctness. While I will always cherish my time as a scout and the life lessons I learned, I am greatly disappointed with this decision.

Is Washington paying attention?

At the time of the posting of this article, there are now 83,548 signatures on the White House petition: WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO: Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.

Who knows what may come out of all of this?

Well, we lost.  Mitt Romney didn’t win comfortably.  BUT, Republicans maintained control of the House of Representatives.  In one of the most ignominious highlights of the night, the GOP lost two senate seats – increasing the Democratic majority by two.  The current makeup is 55 Democrats to 45 Republicans.  In a milestone for the ladies, 20% of the U.S. Senate will be represented by women.  However, the night ended a bit like 2004 in reverse.

While the notions of GOP turnout seemed assured, it was rarely monitored, and turnout for the youth (and voter turnout in general) was unexpectedly high.  To no one’s surprise, young voters broke for the president (60-36), but represented a larger share of the electorate than four years ago.  Romney’s lead amongst independents wasn’t enough to overcome the Latino vote, which he lost to Obama miserably 72%-23%.  Lastly, Romney wasn’t able to cut into the gender gap quite as effectively as he wanted to, with the president winning women, overall, by eleven points.  However, it’s with unmarried women that Romney had a fatal disadvantage with, as they broke for Obama 67% to 31%.

On states, betting on Pennsylvania proved to another catastrophic play.  We haven’t won the Keystone State in almost a quarter century, and it may be time to part company completely.  Concerning Wisconsin, the state may have swung right on recent elections, but perhaps the ‘fairness voters’ – voters who may not agree with Walker’s policies, but are appalled that unions would want to revoke an election result – turned out to vote for the president this time.  In Ohio and Virginia, Romney’s failure to execute the war on coal narrative sooner, and formulating a response to the Bain ads, contributed to his defeat.

Without a doubt, the Bain ads – the Obama campaign’s first official salvo in their ‘Kill Romney’ strategy –  released right after Mitt unofficially clinched the Republican nomination resonated with Buckeye residents, and shame on the Governor’s communications team, who were on the defensive for most of the election cycle.  In short, like with Goldwater in ’64, the Obama campaign was able to define Romney – before Romney could define himself.  It’s another costly misfire.

However, I truly feel that Mitt Romney ran a good campaign, and did the best he could’ve with what he had regarding resources.  It’s hard to be successful when you don’t have a Karl Rove, James Carville, or David Plouffe on your side.  It also hurt that he couldn’t run on health care, since Romneycare served as the blue print for one of the most egregious affronts to the constitution since the Alien and Sedition Acts of the Adams administration.

Yet, if you looked at the field from the beginning, It was either going to be Mitt Romney or Rick Perry fighting for the nomination.  Newt and Cain treated this serious event in American politics with the maturity of eight year olds at a lemonade stand – with the lemonade being books.  For many Americans, Michele Bachmann failed the threshold question of any presidential candidate, which is do I trust this person with nuclear weapons?  Disgraced former Pennsylvanian Senator Rick Santorum failed the conservative test, in my opinion, by voting for Medicare Part D, which added $ 7 trillion to the unfunded liability of the program. That’s 20% of the entire unfunded liability, which we now have to deal with before the fiscal cliff.  He voted for Sonia Sotomayor for circuit judge. Santo voted against National Right to Work, Food Stamp reform, a flat tax, and Medicaid reform.  He voted for internet taxes, the unionization of FedEx (twice), and No Child Left Behind.  He took that one for the team.

Rick Perry, my choice for president, flamed out in one of the most epic derailments we’ve probably seen in a long time.  Jon Huntsman was too moderate.  Ron Paul was well, Ron Paul. So, we were left with Mitt Romney.  Sometimes the pickings of the field aren’t too stellar, and we have to deal with that.

Again, I don’t blame Romney for the loss.  Yes, Obama’s record of economic pain, which he has inflicted without mercy on the American people, is long, but his political team, along with the media, were able to spin it just enough to trivialize the fallout.  As Ralph Reed, Founder and former Executive Director for the Faith and Freedom Coalition, said at CPAC 2012 last February – we’re about to face “the meanest, toughest, most vicious political team we’ve ever faced.”  He was right, and we paid dearly for it.

Given Obama’s record, and Republicans’ inability to defeat him, it begs the question if the GOP should have any business being in American politics.  Yes, they still do, but renovations need to be made.  We need to do better with women – cough nix the rape talk cough cough – hispanics, and younger voters.  The hispanic vote ruined the California GOP back in 1994 when Prop. 187 established a citizenship screening process and barred illegals from using state services was construed as ‘anti-immigrant.’  It was really protecting the territorial integrity of the United States, a core function of a nation in the international system, but that’s a different debate. Regardless, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and California Republicans have been in the bunker ever since.

We need to find ways to protect our sovereign soil, but in a way that doesn’t come off as nativist.  Hispanics are hard-workers, religious, and pro-traditional marriage.  Or, at least, that’s what was the conventional wisdom at the time.  Heather MacDonald posted on National Review yesterday that:

a March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

So, despite Mitt’s shaky conservative credentials, without a doubt, he’s the most hard-lined presidential candidate on immigration we’ve had in the past ten years – and that didn’t hurt him with these voters.  Bain, on the other hand, probably didn’t help.

Nevertheless, I’m not saying we should be for amnesty.  We shouldn’t be.  Amnesty is unfair and unethical – as is the president’s Dream Act light, which requires illegals to bribe the government $465 from doing it’s job enforcing federal law.  However, what 2012 should show all conservatives is that our coalition, which to Paul Krugman’s chagrin truly represents the ‘Real America,’ is static.  It’s more rural, blue collar, and white.  That’s not enough to win elections.  We need to improve outreach with minorities and venture back into the cities, or places where the people are, to make these contests competitive again.  George W. Bush won 44% of the Latino vote in 2004, with increased majorities in the House and Senate.  It’s not impossible. But it’ll be very difficult trying to chip away at the government’s “role in helping people,” which in Democrat speak for getting these people so dependent on us as possible, so they’re a lock when Election Day arrives.

Concerning the ladies, we need to exert a little more discretion when we talk about rape.  While the Democratic National Convention could’ve been Abortion Fest 2012,the senate races in this cycle should have been more appropriately called Rape Fest.  It’s odd that we even have to mention this, and some blame the Tea Party for these mishaps. I don’t.  The Tea Party is the heart and soul of the Republican Party.  As George Will once noted, they’re the best thing to happen in American politics since the Goldwater insurgency.  Republicans would not be where they are now without the Tea Party, but that does not mean we should accept every one of their primary victors as serious candidates.

As Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel wrote in The Daily Caller yesterday:

The tea party believes the GOP establishment is ideologically corrupt. They’re right. But replacing the current leadership with obviously unqualified buffoons is no remedy. Republicans have lost at least five winnable Senate races in the last two cycles because they fielded candidates whose only real qualification was being anti-establishment. Many will argue the GOP can only win going forward with more liberal candidates. That’s not true. But the genuine conservatives they find will have to come with political skills, policy smarts and impressive resumes in order to get elected.

The sad truth is that even if the Republican Party did all this — sent its current leaders home and stopped nominating losers — it still wouldn’t be enough. The country is changing too fast. Most people have the sense that America is different demographically from what it was 20 years ago. But unless they’ve been reading the latest census data, they have no real idea. The changes are that profound. They’re also permanent and likely to accelerate. In order to remain competitive outside Utah, the GOP will have to win new voters, and soon.

That’s the Republican reformation plan, Stage B. They may get there. First they’ll have to tackle the basics, like finding fresh leadership and candidates who aren’t embarrassing.

That will take some serious vetting.  Furthermore, we’re Republicans.  We’re pro-life, and the American people know that about our movement.  In elections centered on the economy, you can easily pivot away from such issues.  Sadly, some of our fellow party members couldn’t help themselves, they shot their mouths off, and got trounced.  There is much intra-party work to do – and it starts now.

Meanwhile, a divided America exists and the government we elected is representative of that partisanship.  Michael Barone wrote also wrote in National Review that Americans on the right, and the others of the left, are no longer becoming culturally cohesive.

Ronald Reagan, speaking the language of the old, universal popular culture, could appeal to both Americas. His successors, not so much. Barack Obama, after an auspicious start, has failed to do so.

As a result, there are going to be many Americans profoundly unhappy with the result of this election, whichever way it goes. Those on the losing side will be especially angry with those whose candidate won.

Americans have faced this before. This has been a culturally diverse land from its colonial beginnings. The mid-20th-century cultural cohesiveness was the exception, not the rule.

We used to get along by leaving each other alone. The Founders established a limited government, neutral on religion, allowing states, localities, and voluntary associations to do much of society’s work. Even that didn’t always work: We had a Civil War.

An enlarged federal government didn’t divide mid-20th-century Americans, except on civil-rights issues. Otherwise, there was general agreement about the values government should foster.

Now the two Americas disagree, sharply. Government decisions enthuse one and enrage the other. The election may be over, but the two Americas are still not on speaking terms.

It’s sort of like this exchange between President Bartlet and Governor Ritchie.

Right now, Obama is in a good position to increases taxes, which will happen when Obamacare’s fully implemented in 2014, nominate SCOTUS appointments, which threaten to curtail our constitutional rights, and to continue this destructive surge in government spending that only shackles people to the will of the state through dependency.  It’s up to House Republicans to obstruct Democratic plans, and put forward a deluge of alternatives of their own. Granted, we won’t be able to filibuster Supreme Court appointments, but this president’s agenda, and that of the Democrats, is inherently dangerous to the socioeconomic fabric of the country and we must fight them all the way.  Concerning the fiscal cliff, maybe compromise can be reached.  Yet, we should also remember that compromise is how we got Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and the first round of federal stimulus under the Bush administration.  Policies that attributed to the near collapse of the conservative movement in this country.

I’m pessimistic that a deal will be reached.  This president’s ego would bust the marble in the Capitol dome – and he exuded poor presidential leadership as described in Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics.  Yet, Mr. Will again reminds us that throughout the course of American history there is not a single thing that the American people wanted intensely and protractedly that they did not eventually get from the federal government.

Click here for video.

The agenda is so packed one must ruthlessly prune the less interesting sessions to concentrate on the more valuable, since every session has competition from other speakers and trainers.

Do I listen to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R–OH) bring the house down with a barn–burner of a speech? Or do I suffer crippling depression during a session about the massive debt that is the current and future legacy of the Obama administration?

Decisions, decisions.

Today’s speakers include Boehner, Sen. Jim DeMint (R–SC), Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL), Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R–MN).

DeMint began with a spirited defense of playing to win. Compromise, according to the senator, is fine when both parties have shared goals; as in a marriage. But compromise does not work when the two parties have opposing goals.

Democrats want to spend regardless of how much it adds to the debt. Conservatives want to cut spending. Any compromise you make with spenders always involves more spending. It’s like an alcoholic compromising with his wife by agreeing to drink Ancient Age instead of Maker’s Mark. He’s still passed out on the sofa at the end of the evening.

DeMint contends that with the current makeup of Congress, Republican conservatives have no shared goals with Democrats.
His solution is more conservatives in Congress, but particularly in the Senate, which is currently a mortuary for conservative legislation.

So far no sighting of the herd of Occupy parasites that boasted about occupying CPAC, just a number of DC police cars. But the day is young. Next up is Sen. Rubio, candidate of the future.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sen. Marco Rubio was introduced as a future resident at 1600 Pennsylvania and they may have a point. He gave a good speech that was summed up in his statement, “The greatest thing we can do for the world is be America.”

Evidently, Rubio wants to start this by producing a conservative government where people are comfortable cleaning out their garages and making enough room to start a new business, rather than using it to store a stockpile of bottled water and freeze–dried food for the apocalypse.

Rubio’s conservatism includes tax reform, sensible regulations and an emphasis on the Constitution of the US rather than that of South Africa. He stressed that the current controversy over Obama’s unprecedented order that forces Catholic institutions to provide birth control and abortions is not a social issue.

And I agree. Making it a social issue makes it “divisive” and part of the “abortion controversy,” that makes it intractable and beyond solving. Rubio points out the obvious and demonstrates the unprecedented order is a Constitutional issue and imminently solvable, if you follow the plain language of the Constitution.

Rubio also pointed out that any candidate who is in favor of leaving Medicare alone, is a candidate who is in favor of bankrupting Medicare.

Rubio’s introduction stressed his personal life and how he lives family values, so it is probably for the best that Newt Gingrich speaks on Friday.

+++++++++++++++++++

Gov. Rick Perry (R–TX) was scheduled for Thursday afternoon, but I was planning to miss his speech. What could he possibly say that was relevant?

I made a mistake with the Gingrich endorsement. I knew he had two wives but couldn’t remember the third? Oops.
But when I wandered into the media center there had been a schedule change and Perry was onstage. In retrospect it was instructive.

Rick Perry is actually a more dynamic speaker than Marco Rubio. He seems bigger on stage when he’s by himself and not surrounded by the competition. Instead of looking like the guest of honor for a firing squad, Perry is obviously large and in charge.

In a set–piece speech he is very good. The governor is relaxed, connects with his audience and doesn’t step on his applause lines. His speech was also more Evangelical than Rubio’s.

I don’t recall Perry setting any records for intentional humor on the campaign trail — although his accidental humor will live forever on YouTube —here Perry was funny.

One of his best referred to the Clint Eastwood “halftime in America” commercial. Perry felt that if it’s half time in America, he’s afraid of what’s going to happen if we don’t change coaches.

Too bad the sound track was the whistle of his Presidential train leaving the station….

The agenda is so packed one must ruthlessly prune the less interesting sessions to concentrate on the more valuable, since every session has competition from other speakers and trainers.

Do I listen to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R–OH) bring the house down with a barn–burner of a speech? Or do I suffer crippling depression during a session about the massive debt that is the current and future legacy of the Obama administration?

Decisions, decisions.

Today’s speakers include Boehner, Sen. Jim DeMint (R–SC), Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL), Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R–MN).

DeMint began with a spirited defense of playing to win. Compromise, according to the senator, is fine when both parties have shared goals; as in a marriage. But compromise does not work when the two parties have opposing goals.

Democrats want to spend regardless of how much it adds to the debt. Conservatives want to cut spending. Any compromise you make with spenders always involves more spending. It’s like an alcoholic compromising with his wife by agreeing to drink Ancient Age instead of Maker’s Mark. He’s still passed out on the sofa at the end of the evening.

DeMint contends that with the current makeup of Congress, Republican conservatives have no shared goals with Democrats.
His solution is more conservatives in Congress, but particularly in the Senate, which is currently a mortuary for conservative legislation.

So far no sighting of the herd of Occupy parasites that boasted about occupying CPAC, just a number of DC police cars. But the day is young. Next up is Sen. Rubio, candidate of the future.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sen. Marco Rubio was introduced as a future resident at 1600 Pennsylvania and they may have a point. He gave a good speech that was summed up in his statement, “The greatest thing we can do for the world is be America.”

Evidently, Rubio wants to start this by producing a conservative government where people are comfortable cleaning out their garages and making enough room to start a new business, rather than using it to store a stockpile of bottled water and freeze–dried food for the apocalypse.

Rubio’s conservatism includes tax reform, sensible regulations and an emphasis on the Constitution of the US rather than that of South Africa. He stressed that the current controversy over Obama’s unprecedented order that forces Catholic institutions to provide birth control and abortions is not a social issue.

And I agree. Making it a social issue makes it “divisive” and part of the “abortion controversy,” that makes it intractable and beyond solving. Rubio points out the obvious and demonstrates the unprecedented order is a Constitutional issue and imminently solvable, if you follow the plain language of the Constitution.

Rubio also pointed out that any candidate who is in favor of leaving Medicare alone, is a candidate who is in favor of bankrupting Medicare.

Rubio’s introduction stressed his personal life and how he lives family values, so it is probably for the best that Newt Gingrich speaks on Friday.

+++++++++++++++++++

Gov. Rick Perry (R–TX) was scheduled for Thursday afternoon, but I was planning to miss his speech. What could he possibly say that was relevant?

I made a mistake with the Gingrich endorsement. I knew he had two wives but couldn’t remember the third? Oops.
But when I wandered into the media center there had been a schedule change and Perry was onstage. In retrospect it was instructive.

Rick Perry is actually a more dynamic speaker than Marco Rubio. He seems bigger on stage when he’s by himself and not surrounded by the competition. Instead of looking like the guest of honor for a firing squad, Perry is obviously large and in charge.

In a set–piece speech he is very good. The governor is relaxed, connects with his audience and doesn’t step on his applause lines. His speech was also more Evangelical than Rubio’s.

I don’t recall Perry setting any records for intentional humor on the campaign trail — although his accidental humor will live forever on YouTube —here Perry was funny.

One of his best referred to the Clint Eastwood “halftime in America” commercial. Perry felt that if it’s half time in America, he’s afraid of what’s going to happen if we don’t change coaches.

Too bad the sound track was the whistle of his Presidential train leaving the station….

Rick Perry, the John Edwards plastic hair of the race, left the Democrat Party when he saw the winds of change bringing a Republican ascendency during the Reagan/Bush ’41 years. Perry isn’t now and never has been a conservative. In-state tuition and a “path to citizenship (amnesty)” for illegal aliens are not conservative positions, despite what Perry might think.

Once Cain had been eliminated Romney and Gingrich turned on each other in a manner befitting true liberals, or “Republican moderates” as the establishment likes to say. Gingrich berates Romney for making money using capitalism as his method. How can he say he is a conservative when he spends day upon day berating someone using the very system conservatives espouse?

Romney’s chief operative in Florida is busy working with Democrats to re-district Allen West out of the House of Representatives; Romney has destroyed the health care system and the economy of Massachusetts with Romneycare, and believes in the individual mandate. Of course, he mitigates the Romneycare issue by saying it is okay for the state but not the federal government to force citizens into purchasing something they don’t want. Gingrich also believes, or says he does, that the individual mandate is acceptable, even preferable. How is either one of them going to run a general election on abolishing Obamacare with these records? Not much of a difference from Obama to me.

Neither Romney nor Gingrich will bring up the issues that matter to We the People. I wonder why not. Gingrich rails at Romney for being a part of Bain Capitol but mentions not one word about Barack Obama having a former Bain executive in his inner circle. Why is this off the radar screen for Gingrich when he makes such a big deal about Romney’s Bain connection? Any mention of the nearly $500,000 in back taxes owed by current White House staff members while Obama rails at the “rich” who “don’t pay their fair share of taxes”? Or how about Timothy Geithner, the king of tax cheats? Not a word from Romney or Gingrich on Geithner either.

Just last week a lawsuit was heard in Georgia, Gingrich’s home state, dealing with the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as president due to his not being a “natural born citizen”, a strategy developed by Republican candidate John Albert Dummett Jr., of California. You haven’t heard of Dummett because the ruling elite, including their propaganda arm FOX News, won’t give him the time of day. Just another annoying conservative; keep moving folks, nothing to see here. A ruling is expected very soon and is expected to keep Obama off the Georgia ballot. I watched the hearing and it was an impressive array of evidence showing that Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject, making our current president ineligible to hold the seat. One of the most significant political stories since Richard Nixon resigned due to Watergate, yet not a word from the two Republican front runners about it. I wonder why.

I keep hearing that Republicans need someone who can oust Barack Obama in November. I don’t seem to ever hear them mention what We the people need, or want for that matter. I wrote a few months ago, when Romney and Perry were “our only hope”, that we need to be careful what we ask for. Replacing Barack Obama with a clone is not the answer to our nation’s problems but that is where we are headed with Romney and Gingrich.

It seems Republicans are running to lose once again. This happened in 2008 with John McCain at the helm. He had the best prospect for election in Sarah Palin as his Vice-Presidential candidate but his handlers told her to keep quiet about Obama’s connections to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Perceived weakness and a RINO candidate brought defeat and injected Barack Obama into office. I see today’s Republican Party playing the same losing game. They won’t touch Obama’s radical beginnings, the question of his eligibility, or his links to Wall Street money men.

Are the Republicans cowards or are they competing in this race to dissolve the United States of America into a Third World banana republic? I believe it is a combination of both. The party machine, elitist establishment is so afraid of being called “racist” or “extremist” that they refuse to take a stand on anything conservative. Even a dead fish can float downstream and today’s Republican Party is content to be a dead fish. Dead fish is what Romney and Gingrich offer us. Those of us who are willing to fight for freedom are a danger to their little dinghy capsizing in a tidal wave of conservatism and the establishment will do anything to prevent We the People from capsizing their boat. New World Order globalists own the Republican Party and conservatives are a danger to that ownership.

Right now the Republican Party sits back and criticizes Democrats but will not really jeopardize their seats in the back of the bus to stand with those of us who want true liberty to be restored in America. When the winds of change began to blow the way of conservatism during the Reagan years many Democrats wanted to jump on the bandwagon to continue their places of power in congress. Alan Specter is a classic example of this, as is Rick Perry.
Both, along with several others, changed over to the Republican Party and were welcomed with open arms by Gingrich and the Republican leaders in the Senate. I also remember them giving committee chairmanships to Democrats in the name of “civility” and “inclusiveness”. What happened? The Republican Party became almost as Marxist oriented as the Democrat Party. This compromising has led us to where we are now, a Republican Party dominated by “moderates” lacking either the courage or the desire to stand on conservative principles.

If voters compromise and “settle” for Romney or Gingrich our nation will lose our freedom, a freedom given by thousands who have died and suffered wounds in battle after battle against tyranny. If voters are willing to be dead fish and float downstream they will find a swamp of tyranny, despotism, and slavery at the end of that stream. It has happened many times in the past to other nations. France, Russia, Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, and many others have settled for the lesser of two evils only to find that evil is evil and the lesser of those evils sold them into slavery and despotism in the end.

As Neville Chamberlain found out in dealing with Adolph Hitler, appeasement and the compromise of values is always a losing proposition. People say that a third party candidate, or an out-of-the-establishment candidate like Dummett, cannot win so they won’t vote for one. The reason a third party or dark horse candidate can’t win is that too many people would rather take a chance on soft tyranny than stand up for total liberty; they would rather float downstream. We cannot preserve our freedom by floating downstream. Our founding fathers didn’t float downstream, the “Greatest Generation” didn’t float downstream and accept dictatorship from Hirohito and Hitler, and I won’t float downstream and accept dictatorship from Obama, Romney, or Gingrich. I will not accept tyranny from Democrats or Republicans.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 2, 2012

Texas Governor Rick Perry dropped out of the race this week and gave one of the most heart-wrenching, eye-opening, intense speeches to ever be given by a candidate that is dropping out of contention for the Presidential nomination. Perry is a man of conviction and a deep-seated love for American family values, exceptionalism and culture that was very evident throughout his speech. Also noted, is the fact that Governor Perry, unlike some 90% of the self-serving politicians today, came right out and endorsed Newt Gingrich for the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination. He took a stand for what he believes is the best candidate before the critical SC and Florida primaries.

In last night’s CNN GOP Presidential debate, Rick Santorum’s decent performance was overshadowed by Newt Gingrich, and his slaying of the CNN’s John King and the media corporations blatant protectionism of Barack Obama’s reelection bid. Yes, Newt once again showed the world that he is the only candidate to take on both Barack Obama and his media operatives in 2012. This is rapidly coming down to a battle between Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, who is apparently incapable of facing the reality that his stances on legalizing drugs and ignoring the dangers of a nuclear Iran truly do make him unelectable. In all actuality, the 2012 GOP nomination battle is now between the moderate Mitt Romney and the proven conservative Newt Gingrich. Rick Santorum is currently polling poorly in both South Carolina and Florida, the irrelevant and convoluted Iowa caucus results be damned. Rick Santorum needs to show conservatives across the country that he truly wants what is best for America and gracefully suspend his campaign, as the honorable Governor Rick Perry has done. Santorum;s big problem will be that after he drops out, he will be faced with the question of just who he will endorse. Heading into the critical primary states votes, anyone fence-sitting and refusing to take a stand, such as Michelle Bachmann has done, is doing a disservice to conservative America.

And then there were three actually two GOP candidates remaining for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. The lines are drawn in the sand quite clearly now for all concerned and informed Americans across the land. Moderate, fence-sitting Mitt Romney, or the true fireball of a proven conservative, Newt Gingrich. Ron Paul? He is just as unelectable today as he was proven to be in 1984, when he lost his election bid for the U.S. Senate, then again in 1988 when he lost in the presidential election while running as a Libertarian, and finally in the 2008 GOP primaries where he averaged under 10% of voter-support across the nation. Ron Paul has refused to face the reality of his numerous past failed campaigns, no matter how low he sinks in the polls/GOP primaries. When a country faces the danger of giving Barack Obama four more years of  tearing apart everything that America stands for while waging class warfare that is dividing this great nation, to not unite behind the strongest candidates remaining is just plain irresponsible. Those candidates are Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. 

When:

Where:Streaming Internet Radio

What: Join independent political commentators Michelle Ray and Rich Mitchell as they discuss the issues impacting Americans.

Tonight: Tonight: SOPA / PIPA blackouts, Perry drops out, and what happen to the Conservatives?

Guests: Tom Dougherty & Tj Thompson

Show Recording: [mp3player width=300 height=75 config=fmp_jw_widget_config.xml file=http://media2.conservativedailynews.com/shows/mitchell-and-ray/show_1-19-12.mp3]

and .. the non-flash, iGadget-friendly version:

Stupid News, Iowa, New Hampshire, Libertarian ideology & Ron Paul

As reported, Gov. Rick Perry has dropped out of the presidential race.

Which candidate will I support now?

Backstory: Originally, I favored Mitch Daniels- a solid fiscal conservative who pushed for, and got, a balanced budget multiple years in a row, an increase in Indiana’s credit rating to AAA for the first time ever; and substantial reform in Medicaid with the Healthy Indiana Plan. Mitch is also solidly pro-gun and pro-self-defense; indeed, after the devastating Indiana Supreme Court decision curtailing an individual’s right to defend his home, I wrote a letter to Governor Daniels expressing my outrage, and received a wonderful reply from his staff. His message of a social issues moratorium- criticized by some on the right as proof of Mitch’s “closet liberalism”- was sound advice, proven more sound every day this Presidential primary continues. This moratorium allowed him, among other things, to defund Planned Parenthood by approaching it as a budget issue rather than a social issue.

But “My Man Mitch”, one of our party’s few Democrat Whisperers, announced he wasn’t running. I was devastated. After a few months of searching for a similarly authentic personality, one with fiscal bona fides to match Mitch’s, I found one: Governor Rick Perry of Texas.

Perry’s authenticity resounded in me; his eleven-year record of economic performance in Texas couldn’t be seriously challenged; he wasn’t afraid to part ways with generic GOP thinking when he disagreed with it, particularly on immigration issues; and he attracted a loyal following. On that last point, I must say this: Some of the nicest people I’ve met recently on Twitter and Facebook are people I’ve encountered by advocating on behalf of Rick Perry. He didn’t just attract supporters, he attracted good and decent supporters. Unfortunately, he didn’t attract enough of them.

Rick couldn’t overcome his initial debate performances- likely a result of the pain medication he took following his back surgery. His later debate performances were extraordinary, but too late to save the campaign.

So now that he has dropped out, who should I support?

I suppose it’s fair to say I’m on the “Anybody But Obama” bandwagon. We’re not just choosing the next President. His success or failure will also decide our success or failure in retaking the Senate- which is crucial to our cause- as well as success or failure, to some degree, in state and local elections. Whomever occupies the White House for the next four years will also replace at least two, perhaps as many as four, Supreme Court justices- determining the composition of the Court for the next twenty years. We must, at any cost, win in November. To quote a great fictional leader, “all other concerns are secondary”.

We have four contenders for the nomination now. We can safely eliminate two right away: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Paul doesn’t have enough support among registered Republicans to win the nomination, and Santorum, despite the recent endorsement of the Family Research Council, doesn’t appeal enough to moderate elements of the party to win the nomination either.

So, I am left with two choices: Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.

I’m not going to get into either candidates’ record, since both are substantially lacking in genuine conservatism. My one and only concern is stated above: Which has a better chance of defeating Barack Obama.

And my choice- this is difficult to type- is Mitt Romney.

Romney has the better organization of the two, by far. Gingrich’s campaign staff have already walked out on him once, and his organization failed to get him on the ballot in Virginia. Romney’s organization, by comparison, has made no missteps.

Romney is inoffensive to the middle. Let’s remember that he won election in a heavily-left state. He has appeal to moderates and independents. Some people on the right discount the notion of “electability”- I don’t. We won’t win by “energizing the base”, which is merely political speak for “preaching to the choir”. We win by getting 270 electoral votes, and that means convincing the- gasp- moderates and independents to vote our way. By comparison, Gingrich has a history of turning people off. For example, he recently told gay people to vote for Obama. Let’s also remember that he once was so offensive, his own party turned on him and pushed him out of leadership in the House.

Central to our success in November is convincing the unconvinced middle that our view of deregulated, free market capitalism holds the key to our economic success. Romney, as is already known, spent a career as a venture capitalist. Dan Henninger at the Wall Street Journal makes a great argument that venture capitalists like Bain contributed heavily to salvaging the American economy in the early 1980s. By comparison, Gingrich has argued against venture capitalism, dipping into the bag of leftist talking points.

Let’s be honest: Mitt Romney is a salesman, and a damned good one at that.

I have reservations about Romney: He’s not entirely gun-friendly, he signed RomneyCare, and he’s spoken favorably of a national VAT tax. Gingrich has negative points against him, too: He’s not entirely gun-friendly either, he also has a long history of supporting government health care, his welfare reform plan is pretty shabby, and he believes FDR was “the greatest President of the 20th century“.

Let’s remember what I said earlier: This is not a choice of which candidate is ‘slightly more conservative’ than the other; it’s a choice of which has the best chance of winning the middle and becoming the next President of the United States.

I believe the man with the best chance is Mitt Romney.

Sources believe he will endorse Newt Gingrich.

CDN will report on developments.

UPDATE: Fox Business reports on-air that Perry will hold a press conference at 11am.

UPDATE: At press conference, 11:16 am, Perry officially suspended his campaign and endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Note that Perry states in his answer that Turkey is “being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.” He didn’t call them terrorists or identify any certain individuals as terrorists, but instead stated that many people would perceive the rulers of Turkey to be Islamic terrorists. So does Governor Perry’s statement carry any weight? Yes it does, and there are plenty of facts to back it up, which may be found by doing some very basic research on the subject of Turkey.

While the U.S. State dept, which is currently run by Hillary Clinton, has distanced itself from Perry’s statement, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs came out with a very U.S. DNC-type statement in which they attacked Perry’s credibility, as opposed to putting up any facts to denounce his statement. “Those individuals who are candidates for positions requiring responsibility such as the U.S. presidency are expected to be more knowledgeable on global affairs and more careful in their statements,” the ministry said in a statement. “Turkey became a member of NATO when the governor was just 2 years old. … The U.S. has no time to lose with such candidates who do not even know America’s allies.” So just because Governor Perry was two years old when Turkey joined NATO., we are led to believe that he could not possibly know anything about the country of Turkey, and their eligibility for NATO admittance. With the Muslim brotherhood surging into power within Egypt due to the recent uprisings across the region, we see the political climate changing at a rapid pace today. The anti-American, anti-Israeli sentiment is at a dangerous level throughout the Middle East and North Africa today. Governor Perry obviously wasn’t referring to the Turkey of 50 years ago when he made his statement.

For some factual history of the examples of historic Turkish genocide, mainly aimed at wiping out Christians in the region, see this article. Millions of people were murdered or fled religious persecution by the Young Turks of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey’s government has shown the propensity to deny those facts, even today. And recently, William Dalrymple penned “Christians Fleeing the Middle East’ in which he wrote, that Christianity is suffering “a devastating decline in the land of its birth.” While today’s Turkey proclaims itself to be a Republic, it appears to be anything but a free Republic when we read about the Turkish-Muslim Persecution of Christians.

Fast forward to today. In this Fox News article, we see that recently the Turkish government has expelled the Israeli Ambassador, that Turkey’s [lack of] freedom of the press currently resembles that of Russia, and that Turkish authorities have recently met with Hamas leaders. Add to that information the reports that violence against women are up some 1400%, (2002-2009) and that the director of the Turkish Research Program, Mr. Capaptay, wrote an essay that stated that the Turkish government has “neutered domestic checks and balances” since 2002, a “consolidation of power” that could have consequences for its relationship with the U.S. He noted that Turkish officials have demonized Western nations, and polls show the Turkish people mostly do not view the U.S. Favorably. To Governor Perry’s credit, he stands by his statements, as he recently stated, “When you see the number of actions against your citizens that we would consider to be terrorist acts, I stand by my statement,” Perry said. “You need to be putting protections in place for your citizens if you’re seeing those types of attacks against, particularly, well, particularly females. That is particularly heinous from my perspective.”

Finally, some pundits and assorted academics have falsely argued that Turkey does not currently receive and U.S. Foreign aid, in another attempt to discredit Perry’s statements. Apparently, the very same government-paid propagandist who wrote the essay mentioned above, Mr. Capaptay of the “Turkish Research Program” are incapable of telling the truth and doing proper research to back up statements, such as the following: “First, Turkey does not receive U.S. foreign aid. Some time in the 1980s it was phased out, so this is not your mother’s Turkey,” U.S. Aid to Turkey has been “phased out” since 1980? Not according to the U.S. Government it hasn’t, as seen here. That shows Turkey receiving $5.4 million from the U.S. In 2011 and another $5.6 million slated to be given to them in 2012. Keep in mind that those figures are only for “base appropriations.” For instance, in FY 2009, the U.S. Government gave Turkey $7 million tax dollars for.. “economic development.” Mr. Capaptay would be advised to be careful with his own “inaccurate statements” as per his condescending statement to governor Perry concerning U.S. cash being given to Turkey today.

In conclusion, Governor Perry is 100% correct in demanding that the U.S. reset all foreign aid back to zero, reevaluate each case, and then reestablish the programs based on protecting American interests and preventing U.S. tax dollars from funding anti-American regimes. And yes, that should include Islamic-terrorist supporting governments and anyone else caught promoting and/or aiding them. Why in the world does the United States government continue to dole out billions of taxpayer dollars to hostile countries out to destroy America?

Debate notes:  Token Fox News Liberal Juan Williams stooped to new lows with a semi-hidden racism claim posed as a question aimed at  Newt Gingrich about his remarks about having school kids work as janitors and other positions at their schools as a way to promote work ethics and self-pride, while also teaching them the value of money.  Newt was strong throughout the debate, which has been the case in all of the previous debates. He offers well-defined, concrete solutions for America. Williams was embarrassed as he should be, especially when he attempted to circle back and hit Newt with underlying, perception-nudging charges of racism a second, and even a third time. Typical Liberal class warfare tactics there Mr. Williams.  Shame on you.

Fox News put a twitter report on TV this morning with data compiled from twitter activity last night. To show how  determined Ron Paul’s supporters are today, they overwhelmed the twitter debate data in pushing Ron Paul to a supposed win by stating that Paul answered the questions the best. None of that kind of thinking was to be found anywhere in my debate notes. Paul stated that he would lower tax rates to zero last night. He fumbled the question about whether America has the right to kill her enemies, such as happened with Bin Laden. The Iowa Republican had an excellent summary that begs to ask the question, “Just what makes anyone actually believe that Ron Paul won this debate?”

Ron Paul: The Texas congressman told a flat out lie when he was asked about comments he made last year WHO Radio about giving the order to kill Bin Laden. Paul said on Simon Conway’s show, three times, that he would not have given that order. He said during the debate that he never said that. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, there is videotape evidence.

Paul then made it worse by saying we should have worked with Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Newt Gingrich took Paul apart for those comments, saying the Pakistanis were compliant in hiding Bin Laden. It was an awful moment for Paul and anyone except his diehard fans can see that. There were other problems, including an exchange with Santorum on gun rights that Paul lost. Overall, it was a terrible night for the libertarian icon.

 

Rick Santorum scored big points for hitting Romney on his nasty attack ads, and Ron Paul on gun rights issues. Santorum still appears to be fighting to be heard in these debates, which could be viewed as unfair in numerous ways. The only questions he seems to get are on religion, abortions, and assorted social issues which he tried to answer by pointing out his fiscal conservative credentials as a U.S. Senator. Without a fair shake,  Santorum could very well be the next candidate to join Jon Huntsman in dropping out,  possibly after the Florida primary.

Mitt Romney showed exactly who he is last night, in a heated debate about his non-committal  statement as to if he would release his tax returns for all to see. Gov. Rick Perry refused to let Romney off the hook,  and a moderator pointedly asked Romney if he would release his tax returns, to which he basically replied, “maybe.”  It was a simple yes or no question.  Mitt Romney stood tall with pat answers for most of the night, yet did little to install a much-needed conservative confidence with voters with many of his answers. Governor Perry reemphasized the need to get government out of people’s lives and return the numerous stolen powers of the federal government back to the states.  Had  Governor Perry made the commitment to run for the 2012 GOP nomination for President much earlier than he did, he would surely be polling much higher than he is currently.  It’s still a long ways  to go until Nov. 6, 2012, yet it is certainly looking very much like a race between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

The Wall Street Journal representatives added a level of credibility to this debate, for which they are to be highly commended for.

As the above picture shows us, the 2012 Presidential elections are a critical turning point in American history. We must limit the U.S. Government to spending less than what is taken in if we are ever to avoid a Greek-style collapse.  Federal revenues must be increased through free-market expansion, and debt spending must be eliminated, while keeping our nation secure under the umbrella of a strong military. Take another look at the debt chart above. That is what the 2012 elections are all about.

Tony Perkins

CDNews had the privilege of being invited to the Family Research Council’s conference call on Saturday, where Tony Perkins, President of the FRC, announced that a group of 150 conservative leaders had chosen Rick Santorum as their Presidential candidate.

Among the highlights of the conference:

Mr. Perkins gave a synopsis of the meeting at Judge Paul Pressler’s ranch outside Houston, Texas. Surrogates of every candidate except Jon Huntsman spoke before the group. Mr. Perkins said the group’s three primary issues were, foremostly, the repeal of Obamacare; the debt ceiling issue; and the pro-life movement. Mr. Perkins said the group focused on determining the candidate who best reflected the conservative mindset and was most likely to succeed in defeating Barack Obama. He said economic issues were extremely important to the group.

Mr. Perkins said the event was not an anti-Romney event, and very little time was spent discussing Romney’s record. He said there was no discussion of Romney’s religion, and that if it was discussed it was a sidenote.

Mr. Perkins said that the group of conservative leaders would manifest their support for Santorum through their PACs and other means. Mr. Perkins said the organization would not call on Rick Perry or any other candidate to drop out of the election. Mr. Perkins couldn’t name the leaders involved in the group’s ballot process, but he said some may soon emerge with endorsements for Santorum and he estimated that other activites supporting Santorum would emerge within about 24 hours.

Mr. Perkins said there was no discussion of eventually supporting Mitt Romney, and that the participants were not resigned to the belief that Romney would be the eventual nominee. He said there was some discussion about Romney’s abortion record, but that very little time was spent on the topic.

Mr. Perkins said Santorum’s record of stability and consistent articulation of economic and social issues appealed to the group, and that the group hoped to overcome Santorum’s fundraising deficit through public support.

Mr. Perkins said there had been some concerns about Rick Perry’s “stumbles” during the race. He said that he expected passionate support whether the nominee were Perry, Gingrich, or Santorum, but that the most passionate support was for defeating Obama.

He said there was not a fear that the group’s support for Santorum was coming “too late”, following Iowa and Hew Hampshire. He believed that the support was coming at a “good time” in the primary process.

Mr. Perkins said FRC would be releasing a wirtten statement soon regarding the event.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Gov. Huntsman had also joined on to Perry’s suit as they also had failed to gather enough signatures to make the ballot. Now it appears that only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul will be eligible for Virginia’s 49 delegate votes during that state’s open primary on “super Tuesday” March 6th.

Federal district judge John A. Gibney Jr. explained his ruling by saying that “In essence, they played the game, lost and then complained that the rules were unfair.”

The legal basis for the suit was not the reason Judge Gibney threw it out, instead the judge went on to say that “Had the plaintiffs filed a timely suit, the Court would likely have granted preliminary relief. They are likely to prevail on the constitutionality of the residency requirement, and, had they filed earlier, they would have been able to obtain the requisite 10,000 signatures”

The suit was originally filed as a challenge to Virginia’s strict registration requirements. Specifically, the legal action contends that the requirement that even those that gather the signatures be eligible voters in Virginia is overly restrictive and a violation of the first amendment protection of free speech.