Tag Archives: Rick Perry

Cannibalism: Why I WON’T Be Watching the Debate Tonight

Commandment 11: Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republicans, for in the day that thou do, thou shalt surely die…

Somebody call a coroner. If Reagan’s 11th commandment is indeed true, then we are just going to see seven corpses on stage tonight.

It strikes me odd that all of these candidates hearken back to Reagan as the great conservative leader of modern times, yet they refuse to listen to his wisdom. It also occurs to me – and maybe, just maybe these two items are related – that Reagan was also the last true conservative that ran for President, win or lose. Hmmm…. Quite the coincidence.

While the Democrats have gotten away this trashing each other in the primaries, only to hug and wave with each other come the convention, Republicans cannot. Now that we are in the YouTube era, where every small, yet stupid move a candidate makes goes viral, all one really has to do to run against you in to ‘save videos to desktop’ and wait.

Every last of the so-called front runners so far has been ravaged, but not by the usual suspects. Sure, it is expected that your political opposition and the supposed ‘mainstream media’ are going to fire with both barrels, just because you have an “R” next to your party affiliate, but the majority of shrapnel has come from friendly fire. The only exception is that it is intentional. Thou shalt surely die!!

For those who parrot, “well, this is how politics works”, I have to ask, is it working? Is it? Really? Let’s see, it got us John McCain, with whom loyal Republicans seemed to do the “hold your nose and vote” thing back in 2008; a “compassionate” conservative – which is redundant to those who truly embrace the concept; Bob Dole and Bush 41. It also got us a field of watered down “conservatives” that are so afraid of their own political shows that they are afraid to espouse the most basic of conservative concepts that they pretend to believe. I have yet to hear any of them preserve, protect and defend things like supply-side economics or seriously, and I mean seriously, make REAL budget cut proposals.

Romney shoots at Gingrich; Gingrich fires shoulder-launched grenade back, injuring himself in the process; Perry forgets to take the safety off; Bachmann firing straight up with her brights on (I’m talking about her eyes, you perv); Santorum unloads the clip of his water pistol; Paul detonates a suicide vest, while still wearing it; and Huntsman….. well…..

Not a Reagan in the bunch. Not because they aren’t conservative enough (remember Reagan wasn’t even a Reagan conservative back in the day), but because they don’t keep his commandments. One doesn’t ask a cannibal to be a human relations ambassador without hypocrisy alarms going off and the “hypocrisy card” has done in many a fine candidate.

I fear the same will be true when the smoke has cleared from our circular firing squad.

Rick Perry: A Man Of Great Soul

Until yesterday, I wasn’t completely sure why I liked Rick Perry so much. I have a list of reasons, but none of them really got to the root of why I like him.

Yesterday the reason finally dawned on me. I watched this wonderful 11-minute video from Ben Howe entitled “The Rick Perry I Know”…

… and I had a revelation: Rick Perry is just like my Dad.

If you were to put a camera in front of my father, and ask him the same questions, you’d get the same mannerisms, the same pauses. Both men are clearly more comfortable doing than talking; both men also clearly possess a great depth of soul which is difficult to translate into words. This sort of authenticity can’t be faked.

You’d get a similar story, too: Just as Perry emulated his father’s service in the Air Force, Dad joined the Navy during Vietnam and became a hospital corpsman, which is what my grandfather did during World War II.

Recall Perry’s response to Mitt Romney’s $10,000 bet: “I’m not in the gambling business, but I’ll show you the book”. That’s a Bill Kauffman quote if ever there was one. You can bet he’s got the book at home, too: If Perry’s anything like my father, he’s always working on one book or another.

Like my Dad, Rick sees the population of the world in three categories: Innocent people, and the good guys, who protect them from the bad guys. This sort of man has a profound and selfless love for the first group; a great admiration and willingness to work with the second; and if you’re the third group… God help you. A few people fall into the category of “I haven’t figured you out yet“, and are treated skeptically but fairly. This might be a simplistic worldview, but it’s an admirable and pragmatic one which has served our species well for a very long time.

“Protection”, in this case, has a much different meaning than it does to liberals: To liberals, it means protecting you from yourself, or from the imaginary monsters known as “the rich”. This gives us a view of Rick Perry’s small-government “street cred”: People who grew up in a rural setting post-World War II genuinely believed most people could succeed through hard work. They’ve also experienced government getting in their way, which breeds an attitude we could call The Golden Rule of limited government: I wouldn’t want to inflict any more government on you than I would want you to inflict on me.

On the subject of Governor Perry’s “gay ad”: My Dad didn’t like gay people much, either, until he really got to know a few; as cliche as it sounds, one of them is a long-time business associate and friend. This shows us the distinction between “old-fashioned” and “bigoted”- a bigot demonstrates hatred, where someone old-fashioned may change their mind with time. I ask you this: If Rick Perry “hated” gays, would he have hired Tony Fabrizio? While I agree it was just plain stupid to run the ad, let’s also bear in mind the blind hatred and intolerance the left has for us: I can’t imagine anyone in today’s left hiring someone of Perry’s background as their high-level campaign operative.

This brings us to Perry’s allegedly “soft” immigration policy: As he’s often stated, he’s lived around and gotten to know some illegal immigrants. He has come to know the particular problems faced by that community. And he’s right- a person would have to “have no heart” to penalize children for their parents’ decisions.

I think all of us know someone like Rick Perry. I’m lucky enough to have gotten my name from one. To men like them, “love of family” and “love of country” aren’t catchphrases, they’re absolute mandates, and having such a man in the White House would be a great benefit to our country.

7 Reasons Why Mitt’s A Misfit

The Republican Establishment is fit to be tied.  Mitt Romney is their guy.  He’s the heir apparent to the Republican presidential nomination.  Next in line.  Experienced.  Well-funded.  Former governor.  Businessman.  Presidential looking.  He is well organized in key primary states.  But, it seems that the Republican electorate is not persuaded.  Mitt can’t seem to convince more than about 25% of Republican primary voters that he’s the right choice.  So what’s the deal?

By all accounts, Mitt Romney has all the traits that the typical Republican presidential candidate typically has.  But, 2012 is not a typical election year.  The American people are fearful and are sounding the alarm.  The Obama nightmare is the beginning of the end.  America is under attack and the enemy is the American President.  Another 4 years of Barack Obama will seal the deal.  Obama’s fundamental remaking of America will have succeeded.  And America as we know it will have ceased to exist.

Republican primary voters are looking for a candidate who will take it to Obama head on.  They’re looking for someone who will articulate a true, conservative vision for America.  With boldness.  Hard truths must be spoken and eagerly defended.  Fresh, creative and big ideas are required.  Americans are ready for tough solutions.  And they are ready to fight for the country that they love.  The fight must be extended beyond the presidency to Congress, state legislatures and local municipalities.  This is an all out culture war for the future of America.  Is Mitt ready for that?

Polls say no.  Here’s why.

#1:  He does not appear trustworthy 

Is Mitt a flip flopper?  Yes, but people are allowed to grow and learn and change their minds.  Although, he has done it an awful lot and on fundamental core issues. Most people’s core beliefs don’t change.  Apparently, Mitt’s can and have.  Often.

 

#2:  He’s got RINO (Republican In Name Only) written all over him 

As the former Republican Governor of one of the most liberal states in the country, Mitt is highly suspect.  Conservative voters, the backbone of the Republican party, are on the lookout for counterfeit conservatives.  To conservatives, RINO’s are no better than liberal Democrats.  They govern the same way.  Because they talk like conservatives and walk like liberals, RINO’s are loathsome to the bulk of Republican primary voters.

#3:  Romneycare 

It’s Obamacare Lite and he simply cannot escape it.  When asked about Romneycare in debates or interviews, Mitt’s answers raise red flags as he sounds more and more like a D.C. politician engaging in D.C. doublespeak.  Americans are in no mood for fast talkers and slick salesmen.  The future of the nation is at stake.  This is serious business.  The electorate is looking for straight talk.

Candidates must jettison their well-honed, practiced answers and talk to the American people from the heart.  Be genuine and authentic.  If you messed up, say so.  But, don’t make excuses and don’t hide behind the 10th Amendment or the voters of Massachusetts.  Romneycare is a failure.  It’s bankrupting Massachusetts.  Man up and own up to it.

#4:  Mitt is a skilled and practiced debater 

In fact, he’s too practiced.  His answers are canned and repetitive.  Robotic.  In fact, Romney is reminiscent of Hymie the robot on the 1960’s “Get Smart” television show.  Stiff.  Unreal.  Looks human, but not the real McCoy.  Having a good answer is important, but communicating and connecting with people is equally important.  Study Reagan.  When he spoke, America listened.  Americans felt like they knew who Reagan really was.  He was genuine and authentic.

#5:  Mormonism 

It’s unpopular to say so, but the fact is that Mormonism remains an issue for Mitt.  75% of protestant pastors view Mormonism as a cult.  It’s a mainstream view within protestant Christian churches.  The unique theology of the Mormon Church and their proclamation that “we are Christians” is a problem for many protestant Christians and makes this an issue that will not go away.

#6:  Mitt can get a little weird 

When pressed and challenged on issues, Mitt Romney can lose his composure and act in strange ways.  His recent interview with Fox News’ Brett Baier is one example.  Baier is one of the most level-headed and fair interviewers in the business.  Yet, Romney became offended when Baier touched on the issue of Romneycare.  Later he told Baier that the tone of the interview was “uncalled for.”  It was just plain silly.  When Mitt got irritated in a debate exchange with Rick Perry, Mitt grabbed his shoulder, a clearly provocative move.  Romney was lucky that  Perry’s Southwest roots didn’t kick in and Perry didn’t grab Mitt’s shoulder, Texas style.  Last Saturday, again irritated with Perry during a debate, Multi-Millionaire Mitt challenged Perry to a $10,000 bet.  Like Rick Perry has $10,000 to burn?  Like any Americans do?  Dumb.

#7:  Mitt’s repeated claim that he’s not a career politician 

Mitt Romney ran for the Senate in 1994, Governor in 2002, President in 2007 and now again in 2011/2012.  He is clearly a politician with high political ambitions.  Claiming that he’s spent his life “in the private sector” ignores the fact that he’s been in the political realm since at least 1994 and, some argue, planning for a presidential run since 2005 during his first and only term as Governor of Massachusetts.

The 2012 election is widely believed to be the most important presidential election in our lifetime.  It’s hard to disagree.  Americans are closely watching the Republican debates.  Social networking sites have changed the political landscape allowing instantaneous sharing of information and fact checking.  The American Electorate is more informed today than at probably any time in history.  If Mitt Romney wants to be the Republican nominee for president, he’s going to have to get very real, very fast.

For the moment, he’s behaving like a typical politician.

And that’s exactly what Americans do not want.

Diane Sawyer Impressed by Iowa Hicks and Their Book-learnin' : Debate Recap

ABC held yet another Republican debate at Drake University in Iowa Saturday.  Diane Sawyer moderated along with George Steph….. oh you know who he is, don’t make me spell the whole thing.  The GOP field is becoming smaller and it seems to make for a much more interesting debate process.  There was arguing, bickering and even a few jokes.  All the candidates seemed to appreciate the extra time less contenders in the field produced and they all took full advantage.

Cranky Uncle Newt showed up straight from the family Thanksgiving gathering where he spent the whole weekend cranking at cousin Jimmy for being a lazy, slacker, mama’s boy and fussing at Aunt Linda for being 40 years old and still single.  Newt has that air – he’s one of the most intelligent political candidates in modern history but he always sounds like he’s in a bad mood.  Personally I find it charming; some of my favorite relatives are cranky old people.  I don’t know how it washes with the rest of the electorate, however.  Also, there was the issue of Newt’s hair.  His typically well-groomed, silky white mane was looking extra helmet-y on Saturday.  It was strange and distracting for this blogger who is weirdly obsessed with presidential/political manes.  Is Newt auditioning for Galaxy Quest 2?

Newt’s hair aside, the Speaker’s Saurday debate performance was that of a man who know he is surging in the polls and understands the importance of winning in Iowa.  No doubt, Newt would kill Obama (metaphorically, liberals. Don’t get your chemical-free, dye-free panties in a bunch) in a debate, but do Americans want a Debater-in-Chief or something more? Time will tell.

I get tired of saying this about Romney, but he was quite polished, as usual.  Mitt Romney worked very hard to reassure voters that he is not the establishment candidate many conservatives are worried about.  He has a private sector record, didn’t you know?  Oh, yes…Romney worked in the private sector for 25 years.  Also, Romney was a private sector businessman for 25 years.  And don’t forget, for 25 years Mitt Romney worked in the private sector, that’s run privately, and not by government.  As always, Romney was clear and succinct and even got a few good-natured barbs in there.  He continues to lay out a platform for the general elections, should he receive the nomination.

Rick Perry seems much more relaxed in a debate setting where he is afforded more time to answer questions.  Perry is as solid on his positions as the day he announced, but the real question is this: Will Americans be more interested in his actual policy and political platform than his debate performances?

Ron Paul was there and so were many, many, many of his supporters – as usual.  Ron Paul wants to end the Fed.  He wants to end the Fed and American involvement in foreign issues of any kind, forever.  Of all the candidates I think Paul is the most consistent. He never backtracks and never changes his tune.  I may tire of hearing him talk about the Fed, but at least I know Ron Paul hates the Fed.  No one can lie or say otherwise.

Rick Santorum had a good night, but he continues to see less screen time than his opponents and have fewer questions directed toward him.  At this point Santorum is known as the ‘social conservative’ candidate and he seems comfortable with that.  Santorum had many good moments on Saturday night. One came when Diane Sawyer was becoming perturbed that none of the candidates would give a firm number on the amount of jobs they would create in their first term as President.  Santorum basically said its not the President’s job to make promises like that because the President can’t create jobs; private sector citizens create jobs and all the government can do is get out of their way.  I like that answer.  Government doesn’t create anything, Diane! Except red tape; they are good at that.

Michele Bachmann gave a very good performance Saturday as well.  Iowa is her home state and she certainly looks at home when she is campaigning there.  As a former tax lawyer and IRS employee, Bachmann has a very unique position.  She’s been on the inside of our tax code and she knows how devastating it is for working families.  She knows the dangers of Obamacare and Obama’s tax policies in general.  Bachmann is extremely intelligent.  Those Americans that live on the coasts may feel she is dumb because her A’s are flat and she talks like she’s from Iowa. I think those people should stop being such snobs.  Quit listening to her (very American) accent and listen to the content of her words.  Bachmann may have a very slim chance of winning this primary, but she seems more than qualified to be in this race.  Her experience as a midwestern girl on the inside of Washington makes her one of the more genuine candidates, in my opinion.  The Iowa primary will be very telling for Bachmann.  If she does not do well there, its likely her campaign ends.  Bachmann did manage to salute her tea party compatriot, Herman Cain.  As she said, its just not a debate anymore unless someone mentions 9-9-9.  I agree! I missed the Herminator.  I did not miss Jon Huntsman.

Sawyer and George (sorry, I just can’t type that whole name) did a satisfactory job moderating, although Sawyer was very condescending when she opened with a comment to Iowa voters telling them how IMPRESSED she was at how seriously they take their primary process.  Imagine that, Diane! A bunch of mid-west country hicks who don’t shop designer stores or have issues with trans-fats actually like to take part in the political process.  How cute!  Yes, Diane – Iowans vote.  They love to vote. They love America and they care about what happens here.  Shocking news to an East coast elitist, mainstream media diva, I know.

Iowa GOP Debate Recap… Kinda

It has been awhile since I recapped a debate. Mostly because of that pesky drinking rule that came with “9-9-9″, but since it was only invoked two or three times tonight, I am still sober enough to present to my twelve loyal readers a recap of the debate @GaltsGirl style! If you are interested in what people other than myself think about the debate, (unlikely, I know) you can search the twitter timeline for the finally settled on hashtag #IowaDebate or check out @VodkaPundit’s ever entertaining live drunk blog of the whole mess here.

Without further delay, some of my favs from the night:

No Johnson. No Huntsman. #GOP2012

Sawyer says “Jobs in America” like it’s a mythical unicorn… wait…

Paul on Jobs: Know why we have a recession, and yanno…correct and don’t repeat. Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble!

Santorum on jobs: I campaigned EVERYWHERE in Iowa. There are no jobs… I double checked

Romney: See Newt’s big gov’t record. Gingrich and I disagree: like Moon Rocks! Children as slaves! Eat the rich!

Newt Rebuttal to Romney: You lost to Kennedy in ’94. So you had to get a real job. #FACT.

Paul on Newt: Single Payer, TARP support. Freddie Mac (hiiiissssssss) , and how’s that taxpayer dividend working for ya?

Newt to Paul: Heck yeah, I wanna audit the Fed. And yeah… I advised Freddie. It was a J O B. .. now let’s break em up!

Bachmann: Im 55 and a Constitutional Conservative ( nevermind me getting into your bedroom and marriage! )

Bachmann: Newt wanted Obamacare before Obama did. Romney did Obamacare! Newt / Romney are our problem **Kudos here to Bachmann for creating the fastest meme in history

( there was some #debatepillowtalk in my timeline here… also, I think I poured drink #4 about then)

Romney: I’m not Newt! But I play him on the campaign trail!

Romney to Perry: You’re kinda right, except where you aren’t. Obamacare is FAR worse than Romneycare! So there!

Santorum: I’m a leader… just dont check the polls!

Ron Paul: I take my oath(s) very seriously. Seriously enough that I sometimes end up voting by myself. Jerks

Gingrich: Yep, Ive made mistakes, and I go to God for forgiveness. So there. **This was on the fidelity question. Smart play by Newt, because … who is gonna argue with God?

Dear Ron Paul: Mitt Romney just expressed your FP in 30 seconds… please, tell me you took notes! ** To recap here.. I agree’d with Mitt!!! The stance on standing by our allies but not speaking for them was pretty gutsy by Mitt.. even if Paul has been saying it since the wheel was invented.

Romney: I didnt grow up poor, but my Daddy was. So, I am not a witch, I am you!

Romney: “States can do whatever the heck that they want to do.” *** Yes, that is an actual quote. Which rocked.. then he started talking about RomneyCare and I kinda zoned out a little.

And then, somehow, ABC decided that a debate should be a love-fest and tried to make each of the candidates say something nice about the other candidates. Ron Paul got lots of love.. and then Bachmann trotted out the 9-9-9 one final time. It was all really kinda of gross and not informative. I also may have gotten my last drink at some point here.

ABC commentators called Newt as the winner almost immediately. I’m not 100% sure I agree. Santorum did pretty well here ( it is, after all, time for his 15 minutes and I am doing my part) and Romney scored some points with me on his foreign policy statements. Ron Paul got the most applause, as usual. His people where there. Of course!

So that’s it, folks. Only 343,994 more debates to go… or something.

A Rick Perry Comeback?

Anyone who follows GOP politics on Twitter can see that there’s a resurgence of support behind Rick Perry. The #RevisitPerry and #PerryReboot hashtags are abuzz with activity, and the other options- Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney- have unpalatable big-government records.

Glen Asbury posed this question to me and others a few days ago:

I was still thinking through what a Perry comeback scenario might look like and wanted some general thoughts.

Well… I think it’s already happening naturally. The fervor I mentioned above isn’t the result of unexplainable phenomenon, it’s a natural post-2010 reaction to the top two candidates being long-time big-government supporters.

The question, then, is how to capitalize on this surge. My answer is simple: Message!

The message needs to be simple but ideally suited for the current environment: Texas’ economic performance. The economic success in Texas needs to pushed constantly. This is Perry’s strongest point, it’s something Gingrich and Romney can’t match, and it’s Obama’s weakest point (to make an understatement!).

Stay off of every other subject, and stick to that winning message.

Every advertisement, every public appearance, every TV commentator proxy, every contact about Perry between fans and undecideds needs to reflect that message. Social issues are a divisive distraction. What needs to be pushed over and over is his knowledge of what is needed- and not needed- to promote economic growth.

Bachmann and Perry Join Group of "No" for Trump Debate

Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann have decided that two days after Christmas they have better things to do than show up for a debate moderated by Donald Trump and produced by disgraced CNN chief Eason Jordan.

Bachmann and Perry join a growing list of candidates that don’t see Trump as a serious political figure and have doubts over his ability to deliver a presidential debate.

Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul had previously declined the invitation to the December 27th event and only Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have accepted.

Remaining to respond to the request is Gary Johnson. So the tens of Americans that will try to find the debate on the fledgling ION network will either be treated to a 90 minute 3-way between Newt, Huntsman and Trump or Gary Johnson will jump into the fray to make it.. a four way?

 

Another Nail In Perry's Coffin…


I came across a Rick Perry ad today that stopped me in my tracks, and not for any of the good reasons.  At first glance, it seems like it might be another good TV spot for the candidate from Texas.  It starts off with optimistic music and Perry looking like a seasoned man from America’s heartland.  He’s standing by a quiet river, and he begins with a proclamation that he’s “not ashamed to admit that he’s a Christian”.  So far so good… Then his next statement kind of derails things.  Take a look…

Look…  I know that this statement will speak to the hearts of many Americans, but Perry really shouldn’t have added the line about “gays serving openly in the military”.  I think he had a good ad on his hands without the addition of that statement.  And to be honest with you, I’m not at all sorry for him for any heat this might bring upon his campaign.

This is a year where Republicans have an honest chance to unseat the current president, and that’s saying a lot, considering how dire the GOP’s hand was in 2008.  Commercials like this do nothing to bolster those chances, however, and I’m ashamed of Perry for putting this line in there.

Now, I know that Perry has been gaining support on this website, and that I’ll draw the ire of many of our readers for pointing this out, but if you WANT Perry to be the next president of the United States, ads like this do not help.  Whether it is fair or not, Republicans are known for being “against the gays”.  How does this ad help to change that perception?  It doesn’t.  It only “reaffirms” what many have suspected about Republicans all along.

Also… it was a good ad without that line.  Perry looked good, he sounded good, the production values were solid, and his message was fine.  Adding the line about gays serving openly in the military did nothing to improve or embellish it.  It was foolish, and it was the opposite of helpful.

This isn’t the first time that Perry has disappointed me, nor is it the first time that he’s “stepped in it”, but after enough occurrences, these things start to look like nails in his coffin.

Media Bias and Cover-up

Why are the main stream media, and even “conservative” media, ignoring the story about John Dummett and the Liberty Legal Foundation in their suit against the Democrat Party over the certification of Barack Obama as an eligible presidential candidate? Why are we, instead, talking about the latest “bimbo eruption” that seems to have no real basis in fact?

John Dummett is a registered, eligible candidate for the Republican presidential nomination for the 2012 elections. He is recognized in all 50 states and by the Federal Election Commission. He and Van Irions of the Liberty Legal Foundation are trying to save a nation from a despot who should never have been on the ballot in the first place. The media that are supposed to be on our side, the side of We the People, ignore the most important development in the “nullification” movement. This case has moved far beyond any other attempt. The reason is the context of the lawsuit. I am not going to go into all of the details here but you can go to this link and find all the details you want to read.

The question being raised by this lawsuit is not the “birth certificate issue” but instead targets the citizenship of Obama’s father. I understand why the main stream media doesn’t cover it, they are the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, of that there is no doubt. What I don’t understand is the “conservative” media remaining silent on this matter. It is a legitimate story with serious consequences to the future of our nation. Yet, even they focus on whether Herman Cain is handling his “bimbo circus” properly.

The point of this article isn’t the legal ramifications and “legalese” of the eligibility issue. My focus is on the lack of reporting on a serious issue in favor of a negative fluff thing with no solid basis. As I stated, I understand the main stream media not covering this because it will effectively remove their “messiah” from the scene and undo everything he has done.

The “conservative” media and the other Republican candidates say nothing, and when asked anything about Obama’s eligibility status shrug it off as nothing but a bunch of “nuts” or “birthers”. It would seem they are afraid of the race card, or just don’t care about the Constitution. I wonder if the 9th Circuit Court, the most liberal in the nation, are “racists, nuts, and birthers” also. They are the ones who said John could pursue this after courts have turned down a dozen or more attempts by others.

Why do the media and talking heads on the “right” spend all of their time trashing any but the most liberal in the Republican Party? They talk about how bad we need a candidate who can beat Obama and then push the most liberal Republican they can find. That tactic worked out well in 2008 didn’t it? The media, those who are supposed to be on our side, completely ignore the issue, and the man, who just might take Obama down; and has certainly gone farther than anyone else ever has. Is that not newsworthy?
Whether or not the media personnel agree with John Dummett is immaterial, they should report the story. What WE the People have available to us in the way of truthful reporting is the internet and blog radio. We must spread the message of this matter and force the media to cover it. The Constitution is in danger of being rendered irrelevant, and those who talk of how they are the “watchdogs” of government are asleep on guard duty. That is a court-martial offense in the military, but standard operating procedures in the press.

The future of America is at stake and those who pledge to inform us objectively and fairly only cover what is “politically correct”. Covering the Cain non-story deflects attention from matters much more serious. Are the “conservative” talking heads really interested in We the People or are they more concerned with their face time on network television? Who is setting the agenda for the “conservative” media? The fate of our nation doesn’t seem to too high on their list of important matters.

It seems to me as if the television network talking heads on the” right” are more interested in keeping the status quo than they are in finding the truth about the eligibility question. Are they doing the job of the “Third Rail”, or are they merely securing their face time by insuring that people like John Dummett, a down home conservative-to-the-bone patriot, are never heard in public?

I would think that these media people would be happy to see true conservatives step up to save our nation, someone putting their life on hold to make a difference. What we see in actuality is media support for professional politicians and the super wealthy who can afford to spend months travelling around the country campaigning, without acknowledging what could be the most important issue we face today.

It seems to me that those media people, the ones “on our side” who have national exposure, are so concerned with their future income that the truth can go by the wayside so they don’t really have to stick their necks out. As soon as any “conservative” commentator with national exposure stands up for the truth in this matter they will be pilloried and they aren’t willing to take that kind of heat. The race card, as lame as it is, will come out against them from the left and their cohorts on the “right”. Since none of them want to be the object of this derision from their peers they remain silent.

Our nation faces a danger more perilous than even World War II. We find our own government trying to subjugate us and those media people who are supposed to be protecting us with the truth wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped them in the face. The “right wing” media is nothing but the propaganda arm of the Ivy League Republican Party establishment. And I don’t mean the party of Reagan, as such is no longer the case. The Republican Party has been inundated with Democrats, politicians and media personnel.

These Democrats, like Rick Perry of Texas, ran from their party when the Marxists began taking over instead of staying and fighting for their party. Others changed over when they saw the pendulum swinging back towards the Republican Party, and rather than be on the outside they decided to “change” parties for the “hope” of acceptance and a lofty position due to their “change of heart”. They didn’t have a change of heart, they had a case of political opportunism and it worked perfectly. We now see the party of Reagan turned into the party of Democrat cowards who ran from one fight and are now running from another one but taking conservatives with them down the road to tyranny and despotism.

Where is the courage in the “conservative” media? Where are the Republican “strategists” and “analysts” who will stand up for We the People, the 67% who call ourselves TEA Party conservatives? Where are the strategists and analysts who have the courage to stand up for the truth? Where are the conservative media people with the courage to take the story of a common man sticking his neck out to save a nation?

It is up to WE the People to spread the word of freedom and truth throughout the land. We cannot count on any media people to help, it is up to us alone. If we will have the courage shown by John Dummett and Van Irions, we can overcome a media biased against us.
The internet and blog-o-sphere are large enough and popular enough that we can spread this message to all corners of our nation. If you will take the time to look at the case being presented, you will see the possibilities. Don’t buy into the hype that it isn’t possible, that is the defeatist attitude the party machines want you to have. Some people in George Washington’s day thought what they were doing was impossible too, but these people forged the freest and most prosperous nation ever seen on this earth.

It is up to us, We the People of These United States, to insure the future freedom of America. It is up to us to stand up and support those like John Dummett and Van Irions, men who will stick their necks out and speak truth when it would be easier to be silent.

Where is the courage in the media to tell the truth about this issue, or any other issue for that matter? Political expediency and political correctness are combining to destroy our nation. The internet and the blog-o-sphere are our source of the truth, not television talk shows. Until the media gets over their egos and begins to put the truth and the best interests of our nation first we will find ourselves going down the path to the total extinction of our freedoms.

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
December 6, 2011

Rick Perry's Immigration Plan Is Tough But Realistic

One constant criticism I see of Rick Perry’s policy positions is his stance on immigration. I’ve seen commentary on Twitter, Facebook, and elsewhere on the ‘net that he’s “soft” on the subject; that he favors ‘amnesty’ or something like it; these criticisms are absurd.

Let’s detail Perry’s position on illegal immigration:

He favors deporting illegal aliens who are arrested while committing crimes:

“The Obama administration has a ‘catch-and-release’ policy where nonviolent illegal aliens are released into the general public today,” Perry told patrons at a New Hampshire diner Tuesday morning. “My policy will be to detain and to deport every illegal alien that we apprehend. That is how we stop that issue.”

He proposed a law to prohibit ‘sanctuary cities’ in Texas, and allow law enforcement officers to ask questions about immigration status, while avoiding the problems of an Arizona-style immigration law:

“Texas owes it to the brave law enforcement officials, who put their lives on the line every day to protect our families and communities, to give them the discretion they need to adequately do their jobs”

He promises to secure the border within 12 months of becoming President:

“So putting that secure border in place with strategic fencing, with the boots on the ground, with the aviation assets, and then working with Mexico in particular, whether it’s putting sanctions against the banks, whether it’s working with them on security with Mexico, all of those together can make that country substantially more secure and our borders secure.”

He also realizes a vast border fence would be ineffective and cost-prohibitive, and recommends using “strategic fencing” (closing off certain areas to reduce the length of border to be patrolled), aerial surveillance using drone aircraft, and “boots on the ground”- National Guard troops and/or law enforcement officers to patrol the border.

Perry also came up with another idea- and a pretty creative one at that: Positioning webcams on the border, and live-feeding the video to the internet. People could watch, anytime, 24/7, and if the viewer spotted an illegal border crossing, they could phone in the sighting. I like this free-market approach as a supplement to border security, although (as the author points out at the link) it could be much better if a reward were offered for sightings.

Now, once greater security is in place on the border, sanctuary cities are eliminated, and deportation of illegals caught committing crimes is a fact, we still have a problem: What do we do about the millions of illegal immigrants already here? Pursuing as many as 15 million people, arresting, and deporting all of them is clearly impossible, from both a logistical and a budgetary standpoint.

This is where the “soft on illegal immigration” criticisms come into play:

Perry signed the Texas DREAM Act to allow the children of illegal immigrants to pay the in-state tuition rate at state colleges. Let’s be clear about this: It’s not “free education”, it’s not “education for illegals”, it’s a program for children who had no say in the decision to enter the country. As a condition of the program, the student must have attended high school in Texas for three years, and must apply for United States citizenship.

This represents a rational solution to a real problem: Illegal immigration is a drain on, among other things, our public welfare system. This program encourages the children of illegal immigrants to get an education (or a trade certificate, which is even more valuable these days), become citizens, and pay taxes, which is vastly superior to being a life-long drain on the welfare system.

Part of the border security issue is stemming the flow of people across the border. Perry’s answer to this is to distinguish between people who want to enter the country to work, and those who don’t, by issuing work visas. Perry is adamant that this is not a ‘path to citizenship’, which George W. Bush supported.

It’s amazing to me that some conservatives can ignore the opinions of a long-time border state governor. If a paramedic tells you to go to the hospital, you’d be wise to do so; if the ten-year governor of Texas has a solution to the problem of illegal immigration, we’d be wise to listen.

It should also be noted that the other long-time border state governor in the race, Governor Gary Johnson, has a similar plan with regard to illegal immigration- although Johnson’s plan doesn’t involve as much weaponry on the border (I’m a big fan of weapons).

And incidentally: Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose stance on illegal immigration borders the extreme, endorses Rick Perry. For the ultra-hardcore among us, this should be all the endorsement Perry’s plan requires.

I think we can safely dispense with the hype about Perry’s plan being “soft on illegal immigration”. It’s a reasonable, workable plan, based on his extensive experience with border issues.

Ten Reasons To Love Rick Perry

Rich Mitchell made this comment yesterday in this post:

Can’t we ask “What reasons does this candidate give me to vote for him or her” instead of stating the reasons we hate the others?

I’m certainly guilty of both. I’ve spent some time detailing reasons to mistrust Newt Gingrich, based on his record and his stated plans, as well as Mitt Romney and Herman Cain (though Cain is now out of the race). I’ve also penned a brief synopsis of reasons to get behind Rick Perry (my candidate).

Rich also had this to say:

(…) it’s obvious – we don’t know how to love our candidate.

While I’m usually the “don’t love a politician” sort, I get the message. So, here it is, ten reasons to love Rick Perry (in no particular order):

1) Using the Federal Reserve for political purposes is “treason“- I agree (as do all other sound-money folks). Devaluing our money for pretended short-term benefits undoubtedly harms our nation’s economic security.

2) He gets the concept of individual rights trumping state authority. Let me cite a few examples:

From pg. 51 of “Fed Up!”:

The Civil Rights Act, which, among many things, prohibited private discrimination in so-called public accommodations, such as hotels and restaurants, was the glorious fulfillment of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and, ultimately, the intent behind passage of the Reconstruction Era amendments. I believe there was ample basis for the establishment of that law in that following the Civil War the people ratified three amendments, the purpose of which was to give the federal government the power to fight racial discrimination.

On the subject of Reconstruction-era acts of the states, Rick Perry has direct experience. As I noted in this post, Perry has spent considerable time as governor working to repeal modern variants of Reconstruction-era Texas gun laws intended to disarm blacks, which are now imposed on all residents of his state.

Perry’s policies have borne out something else we know about individual rights: When individuals have the greatest personal autonomy to protect themselves and their property, the rule of law endures.

3) He’s humble. How can we tell? He’s made wonderful fun out of his “and uhh…” gaffe. Instead of being a constant source of bashing, it’s now a distant memory we get a little chuckle from. Other candidates’ egos wouldn’t allow them that kind of self-deprecating humor- I can imagine Herman Cain doing a terrible job of rationalizing such a gaffe, the way he botched his attempt to rationalize his bizarre abortion gaffe.

4) If there were “dirt” on Perry, it would’ve come out by now. He’s been the governor of his state for more than a decade, and he’s been a national icon of the right. As he joked on Jay Leno, he’s been investigated over and over again. We simply can’t afford the liability of a candidate with skeletons in his/her closet.

5) As I’ve said before, nobody questions Rick Perry’s sincerity when he speaks. One may not agree with him on a given topic- and I do disagree with him on some things- but when he states his position, there’s no doubt he’s calling it as he sees it. Considering the weasely-ness of Gingrich and Romney, this should be Perry’s greatest selling point.

6) On jobs: Under Perry’s governorship, more than one million jobs have been created in Texas while other states have been bleeding jobs. Note that he doesn’t claim “he created” them; his policies have gotten state government out of the way of job creation.

7) Under his governorship, Texas went from 6th lowest state debt-to-GDP ratio in the nation to 2nd lowest(Tennessee being 1st).

8 ) Perry has been fighting the good fight against federal intrusion: Battling the EPA and the TSA, among others.

9) Yes, Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Let’s fix it.

10) Perry has the most executive experience- and arguably, the most successful executive experience- of anyone in the race. He has more than 10 years at the helm of a state government, and his governance has been unquestionably exceptional.

So, there it is. I’m with Rick Perry. Who are you with?

« Older Entries Recent Entries »