Wow!! That Newt guy is a real sleaze bag!!!

Hmmmmmmm – let’s see what the real story was….

Newt Gingrich Cleared! – Now How About a Refund?

In brief, David Bonior (D) brought 75 ethics charges against Newt, 74 which were found to have no merit whatsoever (and people say that Ken Starr is on a “witch hunt?”).
The last charge, whether Newt funded his college class “Renewing American Civilization” properly, was too complicated a tax issue for the committee to investigate on its own, so they brought in an outside tax expert to investigate. Two charges arose out of this investigation.

The first ‘charge’ from the ethics committee is that he “may have” violated tax law by using tax-deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an allegedly partisan college course.

The second ‘charge’ from the committee is that, in the course of the investigation, Newt provided false information to the committee. And what was this “false information?” Newt testified that the above contributions were in fact made by those organizations to “Renewing American Civilization.” He filed papers that stated the very same thing. This is never a fact that anyone was trying to hide. But one paper filed with the committee stated that those groups did not make the contributions. For this, there was an uproar about Newt’s ethics, and he was fined.

Basically, Newt was fined $300,000 because he didn’t read his lawyers’ documents carefully. I could really get into the hypocrisy of this in light of the fact that people want to excuse Bill Clinton for lying under oath, (maybe if the course Newt had taught was about SEX the Democrats would feel differently) but that’s not the point of this article.

Well, after a 3.5 year probe, after Newt paid the $300,000 fine, the IRS announced on February 3, 1999, that it found NO IMPROPRIETIES IN THE TAX FILINGS of Gingrich and the sponsoring Progress and Freedom Foundation. The IRS said the principles taught in the course were not of use only in political campaigns. “The … course taught principles from American civilization that could be used by each American in everyday life whether the person is a welfare recipient, the head of a large corporation, or a politician.”

Well isn’t that nice – and isn’t that what Newt had been saying all along?

In other words, the ethics charges David Bonior filed against Newt were ALL bogus. Every single one of them. In the end, what was Newt’s “ethics problems”? One of the papers filed by his lawyers had an error and Newt didn’t catch it. That little oversight cost $300,000.

Some might say “vindication is vindication” and Newt should just be tickled about this. . . but would YOU feel better if you’ve already lost $300,000 and your job in the process?

And now Mittens is getting some more push back. And these articles were
posted BEFORE Romney’s twisted use of Tom Brokaw.

Romney’s claims about Newt’s ethics charge are false and misleading

What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?

Newt’s Ethics Records Publicly Available, IRS Ruled in His Favor

The ethics report on Newt Gingrich is publicly available, but has been construed as politically motivated. The alleged violations concerned a course that Gingrich taught at Kennesaw State College while serving in Congress. The course’s promoters received financial support from “individuals, corporations and foundations,” promising that the project qualified for tax-exempt status. The ethics committee ultimately concluded that the course was “actually a coordinated effort” to “help in achieving a partisan, political goal” — something that would run afoul of its tax-exempt status.
And yet, when the IRS looked into those accusations in a three-year investigation, it found that the donations to Gingrich’s charity were “consistent with its stated exempt purposes,” and Gingrich’s course and course book “were educational in content,” according to The Washington Post in 1999. By then, Gingrich had left office, preferring retirement to a fight over leadership.
Gingrich adamantly denied violating the law, but ultimately agreed to pay a $300,000 fine for making misleading statements to the ethics committee.
It appears that Gingrich was fined, mostly for political cover to the Republicans. The IRS declared that Gingrich’s course ”was educational and never favored or opposed a candidate for public office.”
Still it’s curious as to why Romney’s surrogates are making this an issue, and why Governor John Sununu, especially, is making a big deal of it.

Maybe Newt can use this as a rebuttal spot?

And the kicker??

NBC want’s Romney to stop running his spot – Romney’s camp said no.

Romney camp leaving NBC ad on air

Romney: [O]ver the last several years, 40 percent, almost half the jobs created in Texas were created for illegal aliens, illegal immigrants.

Perry: That is an absolute falsehood on its face, Mitt.

Romney: It’s actually…

Perry: That is — that is absolutely incorrect, sir.

Romney: Well, take a look at the study.

Perry: There’s a third — there’s been a third party take a look at that study, and it is absolutely incorrect.

So, who is correct? Where did Romney get his information for his TV spot?

Study pins much of Texas job growth on immigrants, but at least one expert sees flaws

Gov. Rick Perry has made Texas job growth a big part of his pitch to voters. Now an immigration research group says immigrants, legal and illegal, have been the main beneficiaries of the state’s employment gains since 2007.

More than half of Texas job growth between 2007 and 2011 went to immigrants, according to a study released Thursday by the Center for Immigration Studies, or CIS, a Washington, D.C., research group that supports lower immigration levels.

“Even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants,” said the report, written by Steven Camarota and Ashley Monique Webster.

(snip)

But what about the report’s substance?

The CIS report, which is based on Current Population Survey data from the U.S. Census Bureau, uses two distinct methodologies to measure how much of the state’s job growth went to immigrants between mid-2007 and mid-2011.

The first methodology compares the net employment increase with the number of newly arrived immigrants holding a job. By that yardstick, newly arrived immigrants accounted for 29 percent of the growth in Texas’ working age population (ages 16 to 65) between mid-2007 and mid-2011. But they accounted for about 81 percent of the overall increase in employment.

The second methodology compares the net increase in employment with the net increase in immigrant employment. According to that measure, the increase in the number of working-age immigrants accounted for 31 percent of the increase in the state’s overall working-age population between mid-2007 to mid-2011. But they accounted for about 54 percent of employment growth.

Pia Orrenius, an economist and immigration expert at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, called the first methodology “misleading.”

“You’re comparing gross inflows to net job creation,” she said. “You have to compare net to net.”

Orrenius said the second methodology was more reliable. As for finding that immigrants accounted for about half the employment increase, that’s “typical for the nation” she said.

The Texas Model: Who Really Gets Texas Jobs

A recent study claiming “immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of [Texas’ job] growth since 2007” was inaccurate because it relied on flawed methodology.

The main contention in the study by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) was, “Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).” It goes on to assert, backing up its numbers with data from government sources, that, “…between the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.”

CIS also claimed that half of the newly-arrived immigrants were illegally in America. While a case can be made that these numbers are off using Department of Homeland Security data showing that the amount of illegal immigrants getting new jobs in Texas (60,000) was less than half number claimed in the CIS report (153,880), the greater issue was the flawed methodology that led to the report’s most widely-reported claim.

(snip)

Looking at the total number of jobs created in our dynamic and complex economy shows the fault of this claim.

(snip)

Using CIS’ methodology for counting the impact of immigration on jobs it might be said that immigrants were responsible for 169 percent of net business creation in Texas in 2007 and 2008.

Lastly, the CIS study notes that Texas’ current unemployment rate isn’t much better than the national average. However, it is important to point out that Texas has received an inflow of 781,542 domestic job seekers and their families in the past 10 years, with that number accelerating more recently. This has acted to inflate the unemployment rate in Texas. On the other end of the ledger, Americans moving to Texas in search of a better life have acted to reduce the unemployment rate of states such as New York and Massachusetts where 1,570,310 and 328,695 people, respectively, have moved out. This latter point has been largely ignored in the national debate about the impact on jobs that policies on taxes, regulations and the legal climate have.

So, while Romney was touting 4.7% unemployment in Massachusetts, what he neglected to say was that people were leaving Massachusetts in droves for greener pastures.
How can you trust a man who puts up smear websites with false & mis-leading information. Romney cannot be trusted.

This release back in 2005 probably did not make much of an impact. One sentence did catch my eye:

In the development of greenhouse gas policy, Romney Administration officials have elicited input from environmental and economic policy experts. These include John Holden, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University and chair of the National Commission on Energy Policy and Billy Pizer, an economist at Resources for the Future, an environmental policy think-tank based in Washington D.C.

Notice anything? I think it was supposed to be John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University. I mean how many guys named John Holden and John Holdren are Professor’s of environmental policy at Harvard University?

Yes, that’s right the same John Holdren (John Holden) who works for Obama.

Yes, right again! The same John Holdren who says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet!

Wow, Romney really has some interesting people advising him!

A good Samaritan drove by and cried out, “Sir, sir, you’re bleeding! And my god, your left arm is gone!”

The lawyer, horrified, screamed “My Rolex! My Rolex!”

Trial lawyers prep for war on Perry

America’s trial lawyers are getting ready to make the case against one of their biggest targets in years: Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Among litigators, there is no presidential candidate who inspires the same level of hatred — and fear — as Perry, an avowed opponent of the plaintiffs’ bar who has presided over several rounds of tort reform as governor.

And if Perry ends up as the Republican nominee for president, deep-pocketed trial lawyers intend to play a central role in the campaign to defeat him.

That’s a potential financial boon to a president who has unsettled trial lawyers with his own rhetorical gestures in the direction of tort reform. A general election pitting Barack Obama and Perry could turn otherwise apathetic trial lawyers into a phalanx of pro-Obama bundlers and super PAC donors.

“If this guy emerges, if he’s a serious candidate, if he doesn’t blow up in the next couple weeks, it’s going to motivate many in the plaintiffs’ bar to dig deeper to support President Obama,” said Sean Coffey, a former securities litigator who ran for attorney general of New York last year. “That will end up driving a lot of money to the Democratic side.”

Some attorneys don’t intend to wait and see how Perry fares in the GOP primaries.

Democratic Houston trial lawyer Steve Mostyn — who, along with his wife, Amber, donated nearly $9 million to Texas candidates and party committees in the 2010 cycle — said he’s in the process of forming “some federal PACs” to take on Perry. That will likely include a federal super PAC that could take in the kind of massive donations that are permitted in Texas.

Mostyn said his political spending wouldn’t just center on the trial lawyers’ agenda.

Q: What do you call a lawyer who doesn’t chase ambulances?
A: Retired.

Q: Did you hear about the group of terrorists that hijacked a plane full of lawyers?
A: They called down to ground control with their list of demands, threatening that if their demands weren’t met, they would release one lawyer every hour.

WHO IS STEVE MOSTYN? WHY DID HE TRY TO KEEP THE $189 MILLION TWIA SETTLEMENT SECRET?

Steve Mostyn is personal injury trial lawyer who makes millions suing businesses and employers. Although he went to court to keep it secret, Mostyn and other personal injury lawyers made millions of dollars in legal fees from the recent Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA) settlements involving the Hurricane Ike claims.

Many State Legislators believe homeowners and taxpayers have a right to know how much lawyers made in the TWIA-IKE settlements and how much of the settlements went to the people whose homes were damaged.

There’s More You Should Know About Steve Mostyn:
Mostyn has contributed millions of dollars to run negative advertising in Texas political campaigns against candidates who oppose lawsuit abuse. He is the president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association (TTLA) and lobbies for legislation that will overturn lawsuit reforms and increase opportunities to sue.

Q: What do you call a lawyer with an I.Q. of 50?
A: Senator.

PERRY’S TWIA NEMESIS PROMISES TO CONTINUE HIS FIGHT

He’s the trial lawyer Republican Gov. Rick Perry loves to hate: Steve Mostyn, from the small East Texas town of Whitehouse, founder of one of the state’s largest plaintiffs’ firms, single biggest political donor in the 2010 state elections, top financier of lost Democratic causes.

Mostyn gave about $10 million in 2010, much of it aimed at defeating Perry and nearly all of it going to Democrats. About the only thing he has to show for it now, though, is the ire of a powerful — and, in Mostyn’s words, “vindictive” — Texas governor and possible presidential candidate. In the marathon lawmaking session that just ended, a Perry-versus-Mostyn fight concluded with the trial lawyer on the losing end of an argument over how much money attorneys like him could make from storm insurance claims.

Q: What would happen if you lock a zombie in a room full of lawyers?
A: He would starve to death.

Steve Mostyn is behind the Back to Basics PAC

Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

Back to Basics PAC spreading lies about Rick Perry

Q: What’s the difference between a lawyer and a vulture?
A: A lawyer can take off his wingtips.

“Back to Basics” PAC Paints Distorted Picture of Texas Economy

In a print ad published in 41 newspapers across the state of Texas on October 5th, the so-called Back to Basics political action committee (PAC) claims that “the Texas unemployment rate has even grown more than the nation’s as a whole.” This is the same charge that Democratic State Representative Jim Dunnam made at a hearing on September 27, 2010 when I testified as Chairman of the Texas Workforce Commission before the House Select Committee on Federal Economic Stabilization Funding. I explained then to Chairman Dunnam that he was making a faulty comparison and that, in point of fact, the Texas economy was faring better than any other large labor market state and the nation at large.

Had the anti-Perry PAC bothered to consult with the Texas Workforce Commission, it would have discovered that the data being used by Representative Dunnam – which it parrots in order to make the Texas economy look worse than the national economy – made for a misleading and disingenuous comparison.

To use an analogy, what Representative Dunnam and the Back to Basics PAC are attempting to do is to compare apples and oranges. They take data from a period from February 2009 through August 2010, which purports to show that the Texas unemployment rate grew faster than the national rate (even though the Texas unemployment rate was—and remains—much lower than the national unemployment percentage).

At the hearing chaired by Representative Dunnam, the Director of our Labor Market and Career Information (LMCI) division and I both pointed out that this was a distorted comparison. If one is truly serious about comparing the impact of the recession on Texas versus the nation at large, there is a much better way to go about it to get an accurate comparison.

Here is what LMCI Director Richard Froeschle has to say on the subject:

“If one feels compelled to compare changes in the unemployment rate between the U.S. and Texas to illustrate the impact of the recession, the better metric might be the increase from the last pre-recession month of each area to the present time period. Thus, the difference in the November 2007 (last month pre-recession) unemployment rate of 4.7% in the U.S. to the August 2010 rate of 9.6% is 4.9 percentage points or an increase in the rate of 104.2 percent. For Texas, the last pre-recession month was September 2008 in which the unemployment rate was 5.2%. The August 2010 rate in Texas was 8.3%, which represents an increase of 3.1 percentage points or an increase in the rate of 59.6 percent. This clearly shows that from an unemployment rate perspective Texas has felt a lesser impact from the recession than did the nation as a whole. One could argue that there must be a whole lot more right going on in Texas than in the nation as a whole for us to experience this lesser impact from the recession.”

These clearly are difficult economic times. America faces its most serious economic crisis since the time of the Great Depression, and Texas has felt the adverse effects of this nasty, national recession. Nonetheless, to try to claim that the Texas economy is doing worse than the nation as a whole is pure demagoguery and doesn’t stand up to any serious evidentiary test. Rich Froeschle has it right when he says, “…there must be a whole lot more right going on in Texas than in the nation as a whole….”

Not only did you contribute to Social Security but your employer did too. It
totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only $30K over your
working life, that’s close to $220,500. If you calculate the future value of
$4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less
than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of
working (that was me) you’d have $892,919.98. If you took out only 3% per year,
you’d receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until
you’re 95 if you retire at age 65) and that’s with no interest paid on that
final amount on deposit!

If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year,  you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had.
I paid cash for my social  security insurance!!!!   Just because they borrowed the money, doesn’t make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!  Congressional benefits, aka. free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, now that’s welfare, and they have the nerve to call my social security retirement entitlements?

We’re “broke” and can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.!
In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti , Chile , and Turkey .  And now Pakistan ……the last home of bin Laden.  And Obama gave Brazil two billion dollars to help them drill for oil!

Literally, BILLIONS and TRILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$’s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

They call  Social Security and Medicare an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when its time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from the Social Security “trust fund” in the first place?

Imagine if  the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other countries.

Sad isn’t  it?

Eighteen (18) things that critics are saying about Rick Perry

Over the past couple of months Rick Perry has been considering a run for POTUS.
As of Thursday, August 11, it looks like the decision has been made and he’s in.

*(Update – Rick Perry announced for President at the Redstate.com gathering on 8/13/2011)

Since he’s been Governor of Texas for over ten years, folks from the other “56 states” are
asking Texans what kind of governor he’s been and what we think. I decided that what I “think” isn’t good enough – I could be wrong. So, I decided to do some research on Perry’s record and form a more accurate, fact-based opinion on his qualifications instead of relying on my general perceptions.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Perry in each of the three gubernatorial elections since 2002 and I am a conservative and a registered Republican. It was easy for me to vote for Perry since the alternative(s) were either uber-RINOs in the primaries or liberal Democrats in the general elections. Under the circumstances, my choice was always easy.

While researching Perry’s pros and cons, I’ve read every article and blog post that I could find – over several weeks. Many of those posts had 2-300 comments associated with them – I read them all.

After reading literally thousands of comments, it’s become apparent that there are quite a lot of anti-Perry activists out there throwing all sorts of disparaging rhetorical crap against the wall in hopes that some will stick and they can influence someone, anyone, to become anti-Perry too. The unfortunate thing is that most of their negative statements are either completely false, at worst, or misleading, at best. They’re simply parroting something they saw on another hater’s blog. Yet they maintain that they are the knowledgeable ones and those supporting Perry are ignorant clods who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time – “ignorant” is an adjective that they like to use a lot.

It’s ludicrous to think that some asinine statement like “Gardasil, Perry blew it – ‘nuff said,” deserves any consideration. No, it’s not “’nuff said,” there is usually more to know about an issue before a reasonable person can make an intelligent decision. For that reason, I have attempted to present some additional facts that have not been widely publicized just to educate those who have not been privy to Texas politics until now.

In that spirit, I do realize that anyone who reads this summary has a right to be skeptical of my facts. I therefore invite those who might dispute my findings to challenge them by verifying what I’ve presented here. And cross-check via reliable sources rather than relying on a single posting by some anonymous blogger – some spout “facts” which have no basis in the truth. I will identify the source of my data and in many cases, I’ll provide a link to the source so you can see for yourself … the real facts.

And finally, remember that any politician in office for ten years will have his/her critics and will have stepped on some toes during their term(s).

Following are subjects that are claimed by detractors to be Rick Perry’s failings – they are in no particular order.

1. Gardasil

Gardasil is a drug developed by Merck & Co.. It is supposed to prevent cervical cancer caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it in June of 2006 and subsequently recommended vaccination in females aged 11 and 12, before they become sexual active. Since it is not effective against an existing infection, it must be given before a sexually-transmitted HPV infection occurs.

Governor Perry issued an Executive Order (EO) (RP#65, February, 2007) which mandated that all Texas girls be vaccinated prior to their admission to the sixth grade. Parents were allowed to opt out of the mandate by filling out an affidavit.

Perry was rebuked by both houses of the Texas legislature which overturned his EO by a veto-proof margin. Seeing the writing on the wall, Perry did not sign the law. He subsequently rescinded RP#65 with another EO (RP#74) and the issue is now dead in Texas. At least 18 other states (notably New York and Michigan) were considering similar actions with Gardasil, but none were actually implemented. Here is a link to additional data on other state’s decisions, from a 2007 article in Time Magazine Health.

Perry’s negatives related to the Gardasil issue were:

• Issuing the EO requiring vaccinations for young girls. Even though a parent could opt-out (for religious or philosophical reasons), refusing the child’s shot, people were upset that the EO required inoculation. Had the vaccination been voluntary, there would have been no question.
• Perry’s former chief of staff (2002-2004) was a lobbyist for Merck at the time and is thought to have had undue influence on Perry on behalf of Merck’s drug.
• Merck contributed a grand total of $6,000 to Perry’s reelection campaign. While it is unseemly in its timing, $6,000 is barely enough money to get noticed, much less to buy the support of a governor, least of all a “high roller” like Perry’s critics claim he is. That Merck contribution amounted to .00025 of the $24 million dollar campaign funds that he received that year.

There are still some who are convinced that Merck contributed more than a paltry $6,000 to Perry. They are simply wrong. Merck gave two checks, one for $1,000 and another for $5,000 to Perry in the 2006 election timeframe (in 2008, they contributed a whopping $2,500). Here is a source to view all of Perry’s contributions: ProPublica. In fact, Merck has only contributed $23,500 to Perry over a 1998-2010 span, not exactly George Soros money. For comparison, from 2000-2006 Merck gave $2,460,000 to state politicians across 40 states.

The other side of the story:

Gardasil was believed to be a way to stop certain types of cancer among young women. Studies appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 found that Gardasil was nearly 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by the the strains that Gardasil protects against. Gardasil’s effectiveness increased when given to girls and young women before they become sexually active. Gardasil was found to be extremely effective in preventing several (but not all) of the strains of HPV known to cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

Some critics maintain that Gardasil has a record of “very serious safety issues.” That obvious attempt to further tarnish Perry’s image by intimating that not only did he do the bidding of Merck in ordering the vaccinations, he did so without considering the possible serious side effects. There is little doubt that Governor Perry knew a great deal more about Gardasil at the time than those critics do now. The CDC has been following Gardasil since its licensing and some current facts follow. Taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website:

“Since licensure, CDC and FDA have been closely monitoring the safety of HPV vaccines. “As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® have been distributed in the U.S. and the safety monitoring system (VAERS) received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.”

“Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious. Out of 35,000,000 doses distributed, there were 1,498 occasions of serious complications; that equates to a .0000428 chance that a dose will cause a serious adverse reaction.” Hardly enough to consider the vaccine “a very serious safety issue” as claimed by some critics. Apparently, they are too lazy to “do a little research.”

As of June, 2011, the CDC says: “Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of HPV vaccines.” Check out the CDC’s statements about Gardasil for yourself. And specifically check out the Summary at the end for the CDC’s conclusion about Gardasil’s effectiveness.

In Gardasil, Merck believed that they had a credible, FDA-approved, CDC recommended, fact-backed case for vaccinating young women and lobbied state officials to do so. Were they trying to make money on the drug? Without a doubt, that’s what a business does.

Perry maintains that the justification for his executive order making the shot mandatory was twofold: 1) that the vaccine offered a chance to save lives that might have otherwise been taken away by cervical cancer and, 2) that insurance companies wouldn’t cover the $360 cost of the vaccine ($120 for each of a 3-shot regimen) when it was simply an optional “recommended” vaccine. That put it out of the reach for most low-income Texans. This from the Time Magazine article (linked above), “Some pediatricians and gynecologists are refusing to stock Gardasil because many insurance companies reimburse so little for the vaccine, which costs $360 for the three required doses.”

When Perry mandated Gardasil, it would have become part of a school-related vaccine package which was then covered by insurance for simply the cost of a co-pay.

Agree or disagree, that does seem to be a reasonable justification for Perry’s actions.

2. Trans-Texas Corridor

The “Trans-Texas Corridor” (TTC) term identifies a plan, introduced by Governor Perry in 2001, that some saw as the beginning of a “North American Union” highway system. It was to extend from the Texas border with Mexico to the border with Oklahoma and would be a 4,000 mile system with routes crisscrossing Texas. The $175+ billion dollar project would have been the largest engineering project ever proposed for the state of Texas.

When details of the plan became public, critics became concerned that it would lead to a “NAFTA Superhighway” that would facilitate the United States, Canada and Mexico merging into a North American Union (a fringe conspiracy theory).

As envisioned, the TTC consisted of multi-use right-of-ways that would be up to 1,200 feet wide to accommodate six 80 mph vehicle lanes, 4 truck lanes, two tracks each for high-speed rail, commuter rail, and freight rail, a 200 ft. wide utility zone to accommodate underground water, natural gas, and petroleum pipelines, telecommunications cables and high-voltage electric transmission lines. A full-sized right of way would have required 146 sq. acres per mile.

While the concept of multi-use right-of-ways can be considered forward-thinking and progressive (in the proper use of the word), many were concerned that the proposed methods of land acquisition and financing could take advantage of landowners and the taxpaying public to the benefit of private entities.

In March of 2005, a Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA) was signed with Cintra/Zachry, a partnership between Cintra (Cintra Concesiones deInfraestructuras de Transporte,S.A.), an international developer of transport infrastructure, and Zachry Construction Corp., one of the country’s largest construction companies. There were several other participants in the CDA, but these are the two most prominent.

Headquartered in Madrid, Spain, with subsidiaries on three continents, Cintra is one of the world’s largest private-sector developers of transport infrastructure. Zachry is a privately held company founded in 1924 and headquartered in San Antonio,Texas. The concerns that critics raised over the TTC were:

• Cintra, a Spanish firm, was the largest financer. They would build, design and operate the highway (that included collecting toll revenue). While the Spanish firm would not own the system, they would benefit financially off of Texas’ infrastructure. All roads in Texas are owned by Texas and managed under Texas’ Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) authority.
• Since most of the Trans-Texas Corridor roads would be toll roads, toll earnings would be used to pay investors (Cintra) and to maintain the roads. If any public money was used to pay for part of the TTC, it would constitute double taxation. Motorists would have contributed gasoline tax revenues towards building and maintaining Texas highways and still have to pay for tolls on the TTC.
• It was estimated that 580,000 acres (906 square miles) would have been taken from private owners (mostly ranch and farm land) and either purchased by, or seized (via eminent domain) by the state for the Trans-Texas Corridor.
• The possible misuse of eminent domain – confiscating private land for “public” use – was a major concern.

Perry’s defense was that as Texas continues to grow by about 1,200 people every day, the state’s infrastructure must be improved to accommodate the growth. The TTC was an attempt to create a state-of-the-art, coordinated system of thousands of miles of roadways, rail lines, and gas transportation systems without raising taxes by using a financing method called a “Public Private Partnership” (P3s). It is important to note that P3s are a procurement option, not a revenue source. Some current examples are: the Chicago Skyway, the South Bay Expressway in California, and the Capital Beltway high-occupancy toll lanes in DC. Here is more on P3s from the Federal Highway Administration.

The TTC is now a dead issue in Texas. It cannot be resurrected under any other name. In fact, the governor recently signed HB 1201, which removed all remaining references to the TTC from state statutes. Perry has not attempted to resurrect it or do an “end run” around the legislature and the people. Here is a local (Houston) story that sums up the public outcry over the TTC.

By law, toll roads in Texas can never be owned by anyone other than the state and are not being “leased away.” The public never relinquished ownership of any state roads.

The governor signed a law in 2005 that prevents a free road from being “converted” to a toll road. This is current law under the Transportation Code, Chapter 228.201 and he signed SB 18 on May 19, 2011, a bill which strengthened property owner’s rights when eminent domain is exercised by a government entity. Eminent domain “land grabs” were one of the big concerns that Texans had relating to the TTA.

Unlike the current administration in Washington, Rick Perry heard the people and backed off.

3. He used to be a Democrat and

was Al Gore’s campaign manager in Texas

Both statements are true. Perry was raised in a Democrat family where his father was a long-serving Democrat county commissioner. It was natural for him to start his political career as a Democrat. He won his first election in 1984 when he was elected to the Texas house and soon became a rising star in Texas democrat politics. An opportunity to advance himself presented itself and he became Gore’s Texas campaign manager in 1988.

Those too young to remember wouldn’t recognize the Al Gore of 1988. He opposed the federal funding of abortion, supported a moment of silence in schools for prayer, approved funding of the Nicaraguan contras and was against the ban on interstate handgun sales. Gore’s platform was one that a conservative West Texas Democrat like state representative Perry could support when he signed up to chair the Senator’s Texas campaign.

From the election on, the Gore/Perry partnership began to crumble and the way that their paths diverged in the past three decades speaks eloquently to the way American politics has been reshaped. Gore has sailed left, while Perry’s political odyssey has seen him tack in the other direction — and to the opposing party.

Perry says that the Gore experience helped him to “come to his senses,” and he switched to the Republican party in 1989, fully 22 years ago. Perry switched parties over two decades ago and critics somehow think that bringing it up now is newsworthy? Sorry guys, as we say in Texas, that dog won’t hunt.

If you’re interested in more details, here is a Texas Tribune article titled “Rick Perry: The Democrat Years.”

If critics insist that it’s fair to criticize Perry now for his actions of 22 years ago, it is also fair to apply that same scrutiny and criticism to cover positions espoused by every other politician covering the past 22 years – President Obama included. Is it time to revisit Obama’s anti-American associations, his time in Rev. Wright’s church, his “present” votes, etc.? Let the scrutiny and criticism begin …

4. He wants Texas to secede from the union

Some say that Perry wants Texas to secede from the Union and he is a traitor for saying so. The governor never said that he wanted Texas to secede. Scholars know that Texas secession is an urban myth and certainly, the governor knows it as well.

What actually happened was that after people shouted “Secede!” at an Austin rally, he said that he understood their frustration but added, “We’ve got a great union. There is absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that. Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

Perry emphasized that he was not advocating secession, but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration. He said it’s fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments. Perry’s remarks were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the rally. The governor said he didn’t think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.

While some Texans still harbor fantasies about secession, it is not a serious issue. It’s an urban myth that Texas still has that right – most scholars don’t believe that. When Texas entered the union in 1845, it was with the understanding that it could pull out. However, according to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, in the end, Texas negotiated the power to divide into four additional states at some point (not five) if it wanted to, but did not retain the right to secede. here is a link to the 1866 ordinance declaring secession and here are the operative words: “and the right heretofore claimed by the State of Texas to secede from the Union, is hereby distinctly renounced.” Passed 15th March, 1866.

Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court case Texas v White (1869) established the principle that there is an existing prohibition against any state seceding from the Union without the consent of the other States.

5. The jobs created in Texas have all been low paying jobs. Texas’ average wage is much lower than the national average.

That statement would imply that Texans are working for minimum wage and must be living at poverty levels compared to other states.

Here’s a thought … isn’t a low paying job in Texas better than being jobless in another state?

Having a job is only one part of the Texas equation – the other significant part is Texas’ low cost of living. The Cost of Living (COL) index takes into account prices on a variety of basic goods and services, including groceries, housing, utilities, healthcare, and transportation, as well as common expenses like movie tickets and newspapers. These disparate costs of living can mean that a salary in one city has a far different value than the same amount of money in another city.

While it is true that Texas median household income ($48,259) is less than some states like California, New York, and Connecticut, the state does fare well when the income is adjusted by the Cost of Living (COL). When the COL is factored in, Texas’ median household income ($53,009) exceeds California by $8,550, exceeds New York’s by $10,403, and Connecticut’s by $1,532. These are 2009 figures from the U.S. Census Bureau reported in a U.S. News article.

Note that those figures are based on median income (a midpoint, as many above as below). Please explain: if Texas has been creating only minimum wage jobs, how is the Texas median income still $48,259? A minimum wage job in Texas would only earn $15,080/yr?

Here is a direct comparison illustrating how much the cost of living affects one’s standard of living. Let’s look at two cities, Los Angeles and Dallas. When Dallas is compared to L.A., here is the result: “The cost of living in Dallas is lower than the cost of living in Los Angeles. If you make $100,000.00 in Los Angeles and move to Dallas, you will only need to make $62,862.55 ($37,137.45 less) to maintain the same buying power.” The comparison is from Inflation Data.com where you can compare two selected cities against one another.

And here’s another objective, authoritative comparison:

Texas is ranked third among “Best States to make a living.” The ranking is based on an Adjusted Average Income value which considers taxes, housing, and cost of living. Texas’ average is $41,427. Compared to Massachusetts: $38,665, Minnesota: $37,721, and California: $29,772 just to compare a few. This from CBS MoneyWatch, April, 2011.

And finally, Texas places two metro areas, Houston ($60,634) and Dallas ($59,217) among the top ten metro areas in the nation with the highest real income. Real income is the median household income adjusted by the COL. Compare those figures with a couple of other large metro areas from the bottom ten: New York ($35,370) and Los Angeles ($41,331). The figures are from a June, 2011 analysis by the U.S. News using latest available (2009) data.

And what about wages? Texas has seen wages climb faster than the country overall. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage for employees in Texas rose 7.4% between May 2008 and May 2010 (the latest data available). For the nation as a whole, average wages climbed only 5%. This from Investors.com.

So, contrary to the poverty implied by the original criticism, the standard of living in Texas isn’t as bad as the “low paying” statement (if true) would indicate – the accusation is just an another attempt to diminish the job creation achievement, Texas’ standard of living, and by association, Governor Perry.

6. Texas ranks poorly in educational spending and high school graduations

That statement is true. Texas does rank near the bottom of generalized rankings in spending per student and high school graduations, but as usual, those rankings alone are misleading. The statement is intended to imply that the state does a poor job of educating its students and therefore its Governor, Rick Perry is to blame. It’s just another two-for-one Texas/Perry smear.

With Perry as governor, how does education in Texas really compare with other states?

To see how Texas stacks up, we’ll compare Texas to Wisconsin. We chose Wisconsin because earlier this year, during their sit-ins and demonstrations, Wisconsin teachers compared their state’s (supposed) #2 ranking in ACT/SAT test scores directly to Texas (at #47). Their reason for comparing to Texas was that Wisconsin teachers are unionized while teacher unions are illegal in Texas. This direct comparison was intended to show the benefit of unionized teachers in educating our children.

However, those rankings were found to be: 1) obsolete, using 12-year-old data, and 2) used questionable methodology. The ranking was debunked by PolitiFact and the claim has since been removed from the union’s website, in other words, they stretched the facts to fit their agenda.

One facet that makes a Texas comparison to many other states is the racial makeup of the student population. Minority students – regardless of state – tend to score lower than white students on standardized tests, and the higher the proportion of minority students in a state the lower its overall test scores tend to be. Regardless of the reasons, the gap does exist, and it’s mathematical sophistry to compare the combined average test scores in a state like Wisconsin (4% black, 4% Hispanic) to a state like Texas (12% black, 30% Hispanic).

But let’s ignore that mismatch and compare them anyway – broken down by racial groups. We’ll compare some 2009 standardized test scores (the latest available) for 4th and 8th grade students in the areas of math, reading, and science. A pilot program for 12th graders is being tested, but national comparisons are not yet possible for that grade. The data supporting the following rankings are found at the Nation’s Report Card website (link below the rankings).

2009 4th Grade Math

White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)
Black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)
Hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)

2009 8th Grade Math

White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 294)
Black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)
Hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 260)

2009 4th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)
Black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)
Hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)

2009 8th Grade Reading

White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)
Black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)
Hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)

2009 4th Grade Science

White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)
Black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)
Hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)

2009 8th Grade Science

White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)
Black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)
Hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)

To recap: white students in Texas perform better than white students in Wisconsin, black students in Texas perform better than black students in Wisconsin, and Hispanic students in Texas perform better than Hispanic students in Wisconsin. In 18 separate ethnicity-controlled comparisons, the only one where Wisconsin students performed better than their peers in Texas was 4th grade science for Hispanic students (statistically insignificant), and this was reversed by 8th grade.

Further, Texas students exceeded the national average for their ethnic cohorts in all 18 comparisons; Wisconsinites were below the national average in 8, above average in 8. That bears repeating: Texas fourth and eighth graders outperformed the national average scores in all categories.

Perhaps the most striking thing in these numbers is the within-state gap between white and minority students. Not only did white Texas students outperform white Wisconsin students, the gap between white students and minority students in Texas was much less than the gap between white and minority students in Wisconsin.

In other words, students perform better in Texas schools than in Wisconsin schools – especially minority students.

The above statistics and narrative was taken from Iowahawk’s great blog site (but they have been verified against the Nation’s Report Card site which was their original source). Read Iowahawk’s complete analysis HERE.

And here is a link to the Nation’s Report Card site – the original source of the data so you can compare and contrast any other state(s) you’d like to see.

About the website:” The Nation’s Report CardTM informs the public about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States. It communicates the findings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a continuing and representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time.

NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education.”

And lastly, this little publicized fact, Texas owns the top two spots (#’s 1 and 2) in the America’s Best High Schools list (Newsweek, June 2011) and has 19 of the top 100 best high schools in the country. How can it be that Texas, with about 8 percent of the country’s population, places 19 schools in the top 100 high schools in the country (that’s 19 %)? Here’s a link to the Newsweek article [be aware that the site has some display formatting problems, you'll have to scroll down to see the schools, but the data is all there, it's just in need of some TLC].

Is Texas leading the nation is education spending or achievements? No, the state must do better. Unfortunately, school budgets are being cut as we speak and that doesn’t bode well for the future of our children. That must change.

But Texas isn’t really the educational cesspool that the original accusation would imply – in fact, Texas is doing fairly well when actual achievements are compared to national averages. Is Rick Perry responsible? In some small measure, he is. Just as it would be wrong to credit Perry with all of Texas’s achievements, it would be just as wrong to assume that all of Texas’ problems are his fault. As governor, he certainly did contribute to both good and bad aspects of Texas life.

7. Perry turned down $555 million

in federal stimulus,  yet later asked for

federal disaster aid for Texas wildfires

That’s true. The reason that Perry gave for refusing that particular “stimulus” was that it was a one-time, temporary influx of money to assist in covering extended unemployment benefits, but had strings attached (the most serious was that the funding would only last about two years). After that, the state would have to find a way to continue the higher payments covered by the federal funding. In other words, it was a one-time, kick-the-can-down-the-road temporary funding that didn’t permanently fix anything and would leave Texas liable for replacing the $555 million when the federal money ran out. Instead Perry got a federal loan to cover the state’s unemployment fund shortfall. While a loan still must be repaid, it didn’t come with the extra burden of federal mandates that accompanied the $555 million stimulus funding. Thus, he avoided the federal meddling that was part of the original stimulus while still shoring up the state’s unemployment fund.

It is true that Governor Perry did accept part of the $787 billion Recovery Act money and used those funds to cover the state’s budget shortfall. Perry has never said that he would never accept federal funds, he has just been careful to decline when the funds came with unacceptable federal intrusion in state affairs attached.

Relative to the wildfires: Over 2.2 million acres of Texas land in 252 counties were lost to wildfires in 2011 due to severe dry conditions caused by drought. Across the state, hundreds of homes and countless livestock have been lost. As a result, Texas Governor Rick Perry requested a Major Disaster Declaration (MDD) and federal emergency funds to assist in fighting the ongoing fires. President Obama refused to issue a Major Disaster Declaration, originally requested on April 16, and instead provided lesser federal assistance for fires fought only between April 6 and May 3, 2011, covering just a fraction of the fires fought in Texas so far this season. A Major Disaster Declaration would have made the state eligible for much more response and recovery assistance from the federal government. Major Disaster aid is an entirely different type of federal aid and is specifically designed to assist states when natural disasters occur. Many in Texas believe that the MDD was withheld for political reasons.

It is hardly hypocritical to refuse federal funding with unacceptable strings attached while requesting federal disaster aid when a natural disaster occurs. It is the federal government’s responsibility to provide disaster relief, one of the few things they have an obligation to the states to fulfill.

8. Perry says he has not raised taxes, but he has

When Perry states that “we don’t raise taxes.” That’s such a broad generalization that it can’t possibly be 100% factual. And it is not. Perry has raised about half a dozen taxes during his tenure, including three 2006 changes that helped cover reductions in school property taxes, being essentially revenue neutral. He also signed into law tax increases on cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, fireworks, and diesel equipment. He also implemented a change to the business franchise tax law that increased the franchise tax that businesses pay to operate in Texas – that was an actual business tax increase.

Another tax that has gone up on his watch is the unemployment tax that is paid by Texas businesses. While the tax rate fell steadily from 2004 through 2008, the rate rose in 2009 and 2010 largely due to the national economic downturn. However, the state unemployment rate is set automatically based on the balances in the state’s unemployment fund and is independent of any gubernatorial action, thus Perry is not liable for that one.

Perry has managed to keep taxes low during his 10-year tenure as governor. Countless opportunities to raise taxes presented themselves during Perry’s ten years as governor, yet he resisted the temptation. Texas was ranked 49th among the states in per-capita taxes, at $1,434 a year in 2005, according to a 2009 Census Bureau report and a Texas Public Policy Foundation analysis (Feb., 2011) shows Texas with a 7.9% combined state/local tax burden, ranking it 45th among the states – for comparison, New York’s burden is 12.1%.

After 10 years in office, with ample opportunities to raise taxes, Perry has maintained an enviable record as a low-tax governor.

Currently, Texas imposes no tax on personal income or capital gains. Perry remains opposed to a Texas state income tax and recently vetoed a proposed Internet state sales tax. Perry supports a balanced U.S. budget and a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In his first veto of the year, governor Perry vetoed the Internet sales tax bill (HB 2403). That’s just one more reason for Texas’ low cost of living. At least for now, Texans can continue to buy goods over the Internet without paying sales tax on all purchases. Many other states have already enacted new laws to require all Internet sellers to collect a state’s sales tax (regardless of nexus) and others are feverishly getting on the bandwagon – drawn like a moth to a flame – to grab and spend this new source of previously out-of-reach revenue.

9. Perry has presided over the highest number

of executions in the nation

Be aware that I used the term “presided over” because that’s the way that several critical comments characterized Perry’s position. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perry did not “preside” over the trials, nor the jury’s decisions, nor did he act as judge. He did not preside over the multitude of appeals that are common in capital cases and he was not part of court decisions that denied a new trial. He was simply in office when these events occurred. He could issue a one-time thirty-day reprieve otherwise, short of a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, his only option was to grant the reprieve or allow the execution to proceed. That’s it.

231 executions have taken place while Perry was governor. He commuted the death sentence for 31 inmates – mostly those where the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the crime. In Texas, clemency can only be granted by the governor if it is first recommended by the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole – he cannot grant clemency without a prior recommendation by the board.

Governor Perry followed Texas law. He has done exactly what a Texas governor is supposed to do. Barring a recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Parole, he cannot unilaterally grant anything other than a single 30-day reprieve, at the end of which (barring a court order) the execution proceeds.

It’s one thing to be against the death penalty on moral grounds, in that case, work to change the laws. But in a nation built on laws, we are bound to abide by the law – even those we may find objectionable. When an individual has been tried in court, found guilty and exhausted all of the appeals available to them, there comes a time when the sentence must be carried out – that’s the law.

10. Perry refused to consider commuting the execution of Mexican national Humberto Leal Garcia even though it had been requested by the U.N. and the White House

Humberto Leal Garcia was sentenced to death for the 1994 rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl. Leal, a mechanic, was born in Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico, in 1973 and moved to the USA when he was two years old, but never became a United States citizen. He was an illegal immigrant.

On May 21, 1994, Leal kidnapped, raped, tortured, and murdered 16-year-old Adria Sauceda. Police discovered the girl’s nude body on a dirt road in San Antonio in May 1994. Evidence showed she had been gang-raped, bitten, strangled and bludgeoned to death.

She and Leal had been attending a party not far from where she was found. She became intoxicated at the party and Leal is said to have offered to drive her home. Leal carried an intoxicated semi-conscious Sauceda into his car. When Leal placed Sauceda in his car she was clothed. When Sauceda’s body was later discovered she was nude.

Leal was the last known individual to see Sauceda alive.

Official court documents state “There was a 30- to 40-pound asphalt rock roughly twice the size of the victim’s skull lying partially on the victim’s left arm; Blood was underneath this rock. A smaller rock with blood on it was located near the victim’s right thigh.” There was also a 15 inch long stick extending out of her vagina, with a screw at the end. Leal claimed that she fell and hit her head. No one was charged in the gang rape.

Among other evidence, the bite mark was matched to Leal. Her bloody blouse was found at Leal’s home, and Leal confessed to police and his brother that he had killed Sauceda.

The complaint is that even though the 38-year-old Mexican national had lived in the United States since he was 2 years old, he was not granted access to the Mexican consul prior to making incriminating statements (his confession).

In a letter to Texas Governor Rick Perry, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights asked that he commute the sentence to life in prison. “If the scheduled execution of Mr. Leal Garcia goes ahead, the United States government will have implemented a death penalty after a trial that did not comply with due process rights,” said Christof  Heyns, the U.N.  Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. “This will be tantamount to an arbitrary deprivation of life.”

In its 30-page brief, the Obama administration said that complying with its obligations to notify consuls in such cases would serve U.S.interests as well as those of the condemned man. “It would place the United States in irreparable breach of its international-law obligation to provide consular notification and assistance under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,” wrote Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., in a friend-of-the-court brief.

Leal had the benefit of 45 separate hearings and appeals before his execution and his guilt was beyond question.

Update: On July 7, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to stay the execution on a 5-4 vote and Leal was executed via lethal injection. In his last minutes, Humberto Leal repeatedly said he was sorry and accepted responsibility – admitting his actions for the first time since his original confession, “I have hurt a lot of people. … I take full blame for everything. I am sorry for what I did,” he said in the death chamber before shouting twice, “Viva Mexico!”.

11. Cameron Todd Willingham:

was he an innocent man?

This is a troubling case. Willingham was executed by lethal injection in 2004 after being convicted of setting a fire that killed his three daughters before Christmas 1991. But his case and the ensuing controversy frame the death penalty in a new way: whether Perry used his power as governor to try to dodge responsibility for presiding over the execution of a potentially innocent man. Again, that term “presiding” – a term specifically designed to make it appear that he had more responsibility in the execution than is true.

At Willingham’s trial, Texas fire investigators said they found clear indicators that the fire at the Willingham home in the small town of Corsicana had been intentionally set. By the time of Willingham’s execution in February, 2004, the science of fire investigation had dramatically advanced and what investigators had for decades considered telltale signs of arson were no longer considered reliable.

In the final days before Willingham was put to death, his lawyer filed with the courts a report from Gerald Hurst, one of the nation’s most renowned fire scientists. Hurst’s four-page report asserted for the first time in the case that the indicators of arson the investigators cited had been debunked by scientific advances. The fire, Hurst concluded, might well have been an accident – he did not state categorically that it was an accident. Perry reviewed the report and determined it did not present new information, only new opinion. He also decided it did not merit a stay of execution.

Under Texas law, the Governor can only issue a one-time temporary 30-day stay of execution. Any other clemency or commutation of sentence must be recommended to the Governor by the state’s Pardons and Paroles board. None was forthcoming in the Willingham case.

Lucy Nashed, a Perry spokeswoman said, “Willingham’s conviction was reviewed and upheld by multiple levels of state and federal courts, including nine federal courts – four times by the U.S. Supreme Court alone – over the course of more than a decade.”

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles reviewed the latest evidence and refused to recommend that Governor Perry act in this case. Governor Perry independently decided that the evidence did not warrant a stay and he allowed Willingham’s execution to proceed in accordance with his responsibility as Governor.

Did Texas execute an innocent man? In a case that could not have been overturned based on something as definitive as DNA evidence and seven years after the 2004 execution, there’s no way to be 100% sure, but under Texas law, the most that Perry could have done was issue a single 30-day stay. When someone takes the position that Willingham was “innocent,” that person is intentionally ignoring all of the legal maneuvers that occurred and is basing that determination on “feelings.” He was never deemed “innocent” by any legal authority.

If one Googles ”Cameron Todd Willingham” the majority of the hits will be different shadings of the same story line, that of those against the death penalty (Innocence Project, etc.). Every attempt is made to cast doubt on the evidence that Willingham was guilty, especially using quotes from “experts” in the field of fire science. The problem is that many of the quotes are massaged to remove any doubt and make them appear as unquestioned facts, when most stated that the fire could have been accidental. For someone really interested in the truth of the case, one must also have access to the other side of the issue. Here is a link to an interview with the Dallas Morning News by Dudley Sharp who was investigating the “innocence” of Willingham. Willingham’s “innocence” was never established, and none of his appeals gave the appellate courts reason to call for a new trial.

The charge that Perry was knowingly complicit in executing an innocent man is without merit. He rejected the last evidence (the Hurst report) as a reason to stay Willingham’s execution, just as the US Supreme Court, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had. His case was tried, appealed, and adjudicated according to the law.

But Perry’s critics don’t give up so easily. As another point of attack, they accuse him of replacing the members of the Forensics Science Commission (FSC) two days before the formal hearing because, they maintain, the commission was going to submit a finding that did not support the governor’s position on Willingham’ s guilt.

Not only is that position based on an incorrect supposition, it is also obviously biased.

Perry did replace the members because: 1) their terms had expired and appointing new members was standard policy, and 2) pushing back the date of the FSC hearing would allow more time for the Corsicana Fire Department (CFDR) and Texas Fire Marshall’s office (TFMR) to respond to the Beyler report (BR). Both were expected to be critical of the Beyler Report. Pushing back the date of the formal hearing also gave the new FSC members time to get up to speed on the details of the case.

The preliminary CFDR blasted the BR on some obvious and important points, making over a hundred comments and corrections to Beyler’s 19 page review of the Willingham case. It made the case that the Beyler report was both inaccurate and biased. The final determination awaits completed CFDR and TFMR reports.

12. Perry supports giving in-state tuition to illegals

This is true. Perry signed the bill six years ago. Under the law, any student who has lived in Texas at least three years and graduated from a Texas high school qualifies for in-state tuition. The law also requires noncitizens to apply for citizenship. “I’m for leaving the law like it is because I think it serves a good purpose,” Perry said. Texas was one of the first states to pass an in-state tuition bill for illegal immigrants. Ten states currently have such laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. About 3,800 children of immigrants got in-state tuition in 2004, less than 1 percent of students in Texas colleges and universities.

Critics have said it gives a financial advantage to illegal immigrants while U.S. citizens who are not Texas residents still must pay out-of-state tuition rates, which are higher. Personally, I don’t like giving illegals a favorable tuition rate over other state’s legal residents. I understand his reasoning, but I don’t have to like it. I do think that there was some pandering to the Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) behind the overwhelming votes for this bill.

As a measure of  Texas’ version of the “Dream Act,” popularity, it should be noted that it passed the Texas Senate with NO “no” votes – Perry was not out on a limb on this one, it was overwhelmingly supported. It should also be noted that the Texas “Dream” act should not be confused with the federal version. The Texas version relates to higher education only whereas the federal act would facilitate giving legal status to children who entered the U.S. illegally with their parents.

13. Rick Perry is gay

A story by Politico predicts that if Texas governor Rick Perry runs for president, he will again have to deal with unproven rumors that he’s gay. Meanwhile, the story itself is helping spread the rumors once more.

As example of the “evidence” that Perry is gay, some have noted that he was a “cheerleader” (and thus, likely to be gay). In fact, he was a Yell Leader, one of five supporting Texas A & M sports teams. Since the school was founded in 1876 and didn’t even admit female students until 1963, no female has been elected to Yell Leader, only men – it’s a tradition thing, not a gay thing.

While running for Governor in 2004,Texas state Democrats asked Perry to address the rumors. In a press conference Perry denied the rumors that he was gay, yet for some his denial raised more questions than it answered.

For his part, Perry continues to be staunchly antigay. He plans to host a prayer-apalooza in August, 2011 at a Houston football stadium, and organizers have confirmed that praying to end homosexuality’s effect on society is on the agenda. The big event is being run in partnership with the American Family Association, which is categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group” for its spreading misinformation that the SPLC says is dangerous to gay people.

In the past, Perry has been described as “homophobic.” His conservative Christian posturing has offended many liberals and others concerned with equal treatment under the law for the gay and lesbian community.

Here a statement from Instinct Magazine, a gay publication: “Sheeple worried about Rick Perry’s ambiguous statements in support of a state’s right to pass marriage equality last week can unclench their booties; the Texas Governor and possible 2012 GOP presidential candidate wants to remind you that he is still a raging anti-equality homophobe.”

How does one disprove unsubstantiated accusations except by denying them and by pointing out the absence of any evidence to the contrary? Those critics who maintain that Perry is homophobic and those who believe him to be gay should get together and work it out.

14. Perry is a “weak” Governor (the Governor of a state that limits the Governor’s powers)

This is true – but doesn’t tell the full story. Texas does limit the governor’s powers as compared to many other states, but to conclude that the governor is merely a figurehead, with little power or influence, is simply wrong. Once again, critics are trying to diminish Perry’s achievements by denigrating his part in Texas’ successes, as if his participation as governor was inconsequential.

The formal powers of a governor are measured by using four factors: tenure of office, appointive/administrative powers, budgetary powers, and legislative powers.

The Texas governor has the strongest tenure of office in that he is elected to four-year terms and there are no term limits.

The Texas governor’s appointive powers are limited by the state’s plural executive structure, meaning that he or she cannot count on the loyalty, support, or cooperation of other members of the executive branch. Some of them may even belong to the opposition party. In Texas, the lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller of public accounts, state land commissioner, agricultural commissioner, Railroad Commission, and Texas State Board of Education are all elected by voters, not appointed by the governor.

Unlike most other state governors, the Texas governor has very restricted budgetary powers. In Texas, it is the Legislative Budget Board, dominated by the speaker and lieutenant governor that presents a budget to the legislature for approval. A Texas governor’s most significant budgetary power is the line-item veto power over the state budget bill. Because the legislature has often adjourned within days of the budget bill reaching the governor’s desk, they often have no opportunity to override the governor’s line-item veto.

In terms of legislative power, the Texas governor’s veto power is very strong because gubernatorial vetoes or item vetoes are rarely overridden because the legislature has already adjourned by the time that the governor exercises the veto. In Rick Perry’s case, he has vetoed 273 bills since his first term in 2001. He’s not timid about his veto power. The governor also has the power to call additional special sessions of the legislature and is not limited to the number of special sessions he/she calls.

In comparison to other states: thirty other state’s governors were ranked as having more power than Texas’ chief executive, seventeen are ranked about equal, and three had even less power. In summary, Texas limits the governor’s power primarily in two areas, appointive and budgetary. The weakness in the appointive aspect is because in Texas, most of the other executives are elected, not appointed. And as noted above, the legislature has primary responsibility for drafting a budget. HERE is a link to a University of North Carolina chart which ranks the power of each state’s chief executive – using 2007 conditions.

The low comparative ranking of the Texas governor is consistent with the traditionalistic and individualistic political culture of the state. In other words, it is intentional, not accidental. Judging by Texas’ success, perhaps some other states might want to consider reducing the power of their governors too?

15. He is squishy on immigration

There is some truth in that. His stance against Texas adopting an Arizona-style immigration law was initially troubling to many conservatives even though his point was that it would be better to force the federal government to enforce the border since that is one of their primary responsibilities. A true statement, but one easier said than done.

He did add a bill prohibiting Sanctuary Cities as an emergency item in the regular session and added it to the call during the special session, but there wasn’t enough resolve in either the legislature or the Governor to overcome the business lobby that was adamantly against the bill. It died in the last special session. It was disappointing to conservatives that the Governor didn’t call another special session to continue the fight, but he maintains that It would have been a waste of taxpayer money to call another special session on an issue that lawmakers would not take action to pass – twice. The governor says that he will continue to support the prohibition of  sanctuary cities in the future.

Some have said that when Perry said that the Arizona law “wasn’t the right direction for Texas,” he was taking a position against strict enforcement of immigration laws. Not so – what he actually said was, “I fully recognize and support a state’s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas.” His concern was related to the portion of the Arizona law thatrequired peace officers to inquire about citizenship status. Perry believes that the best solution is to allow officers the discretion to ask if they deem it necessary to carry out their duty.

“Texas has a rich history with Mexico, our largest trading partner, and we share more than 1,200 miles of border, more than any other state,” Perry said. “As the debate on immigration reform intensifies, the focus must remain on border security and the federal government’s failure to adequately protect our borders. Securing our border is a federal responsibility, but it is a Texas problem, and it must be addressed before comprehensive immigration reform is discussed.” Texas has allocated more than $400 million in state funding to secure the border since 2005. In the last legislative session alone, $152 million was earmarked for border security.

Perry has also adopted the National Governor’s Policy, part of which states:

• Federal immigration policies should ensure that new immigrants do not become a public charge to federal, state, or local governments.
• The federal government must provide adequate information to and consult with states on issues concerning immigration decisions that affect the states.
• States should not have to incur significant costs in implementing federal laws regarding immigration status as a condition of benefits.

See the full National Governor’s Associationpolicy on immigration here.

In the final analysis, Governor Perry says that the nation cannot have effective immigration policy until the border is secure. Today, the border is not secure and this is where we need to focus our resources.

Here’s a link to On The Issues which has more references to Perry’s statements on immigration-related subjects (too many to include here):

16. Perry is a member of the Bilderberg cabal and therefore believes in a New World Order (NWO). That is reason alone to eliminate him from voting consideration.

Governor Perry did attend a Bilderberg meeting in June, 2007, and now some say (mostly Ron Paul supporters) that he is their hand-picked candidate for the job of POTUS in 2012. Since attending four years ago, his detractors would have us believe that he’s been studying his Bilderberg bible, taking classes in New World Governing, and polishing his Illuminati lapel pin. Does this mean that the Bilderbergers are ready to dump President Obama (who they also supposedly put in office) in favor of Rick Perry?

This is a Texas-sized Conspiracy theory – appropriate for the Governor of Texas.

Here are some hard facts about the Bilderberg Group. The group (named after the Dutch hotel where they first met) was founded in 1954. Started by Denis Healey, Joseph Retinger, David Rockefeller and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, they aim to bring together financiers, industrialists, politicians and opinion formers to discuss problems facing the western world. There are no “members” of the Bilderberg Group, only attendees.

Every year they meet, away from the intrusive eyes of the press. The confidentiality enables people to speak honestly without fear of repercussions. Attendance is only by invitation of the steering committee. They network, eat, drink, play golf and return home. At each meeting, a broad cross-section of leading citizens are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy.

It is a small, flexible international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced. Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, fifty-nine conferences have been held. After each meeting, the names of the participants as well as the agenda are made public and available to the press.

Invitations to Bilderberg conferences are extended by the Chairman following consultation with the Steering Committee members. Participants are chosen for their experience, their knowledge, their standing and their contribution to the selected agenda. There usually are about 120 participants of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labor, education and communications. Participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity.

Following are a few of the prominent persons attending one or more Bilderberg meetings over the years; the list is intended to illustrate the varied positions, background, and political views of those who have participated (only USA participants are listed):

Presidents Bill Clinton and Gerald Ford, John Bolton, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Timothy Geithner, Paul Volcker, Terry McAuliffe, Ben Bernanke, David Rockefeller, Rupert Murdoch, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfield, ABC anchor Peter Jennings, William F. Buckley, George Stephanopoulos, Mort Zuckerman, Thomas Friedman, George Soros, Senators Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Diane Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Chuck Hagel, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, John Corzine, and Governors Mark Sanford (SC), Mark Warner (VA), George Pataki (NY), Christine Todd Whitman (NJ) and Kathleen Sebelius (KS).

It’s common for many CEO’s of large corporations to be present at the meetings. For example, the CEO’s of Amazon, Alcoa, Coca Cola, Fannie Mae, Facebook, Ford, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Pepsico, Time Inc. and the Washington Post have all attended Bildergerg meetings. Even Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher (G.B.) attended a Bilderberg conference.

Here is a LINK to conference meeting dates, locations, and agendas, and this LINK will take you to the “Latest Meetings” tab. Simply select the year and click on “Participants” to see who attended.

Some say that they secretly control the world’s governments; they seek the world’s destruction so it can be rebuilt more perfectly. They have long infiltrated nearly all aspects of American society, business and government and they are bent on establishing a New World Order. The appeal of this theory is its utter vagueness and total flexibility based on location and government. Basically, the conspiritists believe that anyone in power is probably doing something super secretive and deadly right now that’s designed to increase the suffering of the masses and bring more wealth and power to the elite. It goes without saying that there’s no proof of any of this, but then, that’s the appeal of conspiracy theories.

And what about Perry’s attendance violating the Logan Act? For those not versed on such matters: “The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.” It is ludicrous to accuse Perry of “negotiating” with “other nations” just as it would be to accuse the other participants, like Bill Clinton, Diane Feinstein, Chris Dodd, or Bill Gates. They attended a conference with other influential people, that’s the extent of it. Find something else to complain about.

No one is saying that the movers and shakers who have attended the conferences don’t have an impact on our world, just look at the people who attend – they are among the most influential and powerful individuals in every category – of course they have an impact. But these people will have influence on our lives because of who they are and the power they hold, not because of any blood oath to the Bilderbergers. Frankly, the United Nations (UN) is probably a bigger threat to our republic than the Bilderberg group.

Only in science fiction (and conspiracy theories) can someone like Rick Perry be turned into a mind-numbed robot following the Bilderberg’s nefarious instructions to take over the world … instructions that they somehow implanted in less than three days … four years ago … right.

17. Texas’ abysmal rankings on various lists

These rankings were selected by critics for one purpose, and that is to smear Texas and by association, Rick Perry.

No sources have been cited for the rankings, thereby preventing a reader from verifying that: 1) the numbers were accurately reported, 2) they are from a reliable source, and 3) the original context is known.

Nevertheless,  we’ll treat them as if they are true and offer a reason to explain such a dismal performance. The rankings themselves (assuming that they’re true) are not anything that the state or Rick Perry should take pride in achieving.

But, the biggest single factor that affects the state’s ranking in almost anything that uses population as a factor, is an estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants currently residing inTexas.  Source: Pew Hispanic Center. (Ten states have populations that are less than 1.6 million).

After all, if the federal government was doing what is clearly their responsibility (controlling the border), Texas wouldn’t have 1,600,000 illegal residents. Think for a moment, how would your state cope with 1.6 million more illegal immigrants? What would that influx do to your state’s rankings?

For example, here is one of the rankings relating to high school graduations, Texas is said to be ranked:

• 1st in the percentage of people over 25 without a high school diploma

This position suffers from the impact that 1.6 million illegals have on the Texas rankings. Most illegal immigrants don’t come to Texas bringing a high school diploma with them and they don’t come to the U.S. to finish high school, they come to work. Though they are counted in the census, few will have graduated, resulting in a disproportionate number ofTexas residents without high school diplomas.

And here is another group of awful Texas rankings:

• 1st in percentage of uninsured children
• 1st in percentage of non-elderl y uninsured
• 1st in percentage of population uninsure

When one considers that fully 38% of Hispanics in Texas do not have health insurance(that’s almost 3.5 million people, more than the population of 17 states), it’s not surprising that the state would show up poorly on national rankings of residents insured.Over 17.5% of the Hispanic population in Texas is illegal. Those factors, along with the high cost of health insurance and the income level of the illegal residents explain why the state would rank high in uninsured residents.

Here’s another one, Texas is

• 3rd in percentage of people living below the poverty level

Once again, the ranking will be badly skewed by illegal immigrants. The Pew Center estimates that 21% of Hispanics living in Texas are below the poverty level and since 17.5% of the Hispanic population are illegal, that amounts to approximately 336,299 illegal residents below the poverty level. Once again, more than enough to skew the rankings.

There are only two ways to improve these rankings, 1) reduce the number of illegals, or 2) increase tazes to pay for the additional help they will need. It may not be compassionate, but Texans generally will not vote to increase taxes to pay for illegal immigrant support.

All of the Hispanic-related information referenced above can be found at: Pew Hispanic Center.

18. Rick Perry is way too chummy with Muslims

“Perry has had a surprisingly warm relationship with Muslims as governor,” says Mohamed Elbiary, founder of the Freedom and Justice Foundation, a Muslim public policy organization in Texas.

His record indicates that Perry has had a “respectful” relationship with at least one particular group of Muslims, the Ismailis. Perry’s relatively good relations with the group has already sparked distrust among some conservative bloggers. It is sometimes wise to remember that the governor is the governor of all Texans, without exclusion.

“We’ve seen him for 20 years at state level, as lieutenant governor and state governor,” Mr. Elbiary says. “Throughout that whole history, he’s never taken an anti-Muslim or anti-Islam position. He’s a live-and-let-live type of Texan, and relations have been good.” It should be noted that while Perry has remained “respectful” to Muslims, he has been a staunch, unwavering supporter ofIsrael.

The governor – like other American politicians (from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to President John F. Kennedy) – has built a relationship with the Aga Khan (head of the Ismailis) based on respect and mutual interest, one that could be carried into the White House if Perry runs and gets elected. Here is another source for an analysis of Perry’s ties to Aga Khan. It also includes the complete lesson plan for what critics have called “Perry’s Pro-Sharia School Curriculum.”

In fact, Perry’s relations with the Ismailis, a Shia sect of Islam whose adherents number between 30,000 and 40,000 in Texas and 15 to 20 million worldwide, have been particularly positive, says Mahmoud Eboo, President of the Ismaili Council for the USA. “I believe that Governor Perry’s leadership philosophy has been to serve Texans of all races and religions and his relationship with the Muslim community generally and the Ismaili community in particular has been cordial and respectful,” Mr. Eboo says in an email.

I’ve seen many accusations that reference CAIR’s support of Perry for President, but they all emanate from the same single source –  (I won’t give her any publicity), I’ve not found any other independent source for CAIR support of Perry.

CAIR supposedly was upset that Perry didn’t invite them to the “Response” prayer event in Houston. They even teamed up with the ACLU to protest the exclusion. Why on earth would they have wanted to be at a Christian event anyway?

He also took a stand to stop the Gaza flotilla boat, “The Audacity of Hope” with his June 28 letter asking Eric Holder to bring the flotilla participants to justice for violating US law and he has never appointed a Muslim to any significant government position (including Judgeships) in Texas.

I’ve not found any evidence of Perry being supportive of any Muslim group other than the previously mentioned Ismaili group. And since the Islamailis are a persecuted Shia minority in Saudia Arabia, that probably means that the Saudis may not like Perry’s association with them either.

Rather than reaching out – as both presidents Bush and Obama mistakenly did – to problematic organizations associated with the Muslim Brotherhood’s expressly political agenda, Perry’s choice to engage with a more “progressive” group should be a good sign.

And on the New York mosque issue: When Perry was questioned about a mosque near ground-zero in New York, he said, “To build a mosque near Ground Zero would be insensitive to the victims and families of 9/11 and would make the healing process much more difficult for everyone that was touched by this tragedy.”

He continued, “I’m a big believer in freedom of religion but believe it would be best for all involved to put the facility elsewhere.” “However, zoning is a local responsibility and as a staunch supporter of the 10th Amendment, I do not think the federal government should take steps to intercede or overrule the wishes of local residents. The citizens of New York City will decide the fate of this building.” There’s that 10th Amendment again.

In a nominating race where every candidate is vying for the Christian conservative vote, a critical part of the GOP’s base, Perry will likely be criticized for his relationship with the Muslim community in Texas, says one professor of political science.

Another thing that should be considered when vetting Perry on the Muslim/Islam issue is his support of Israel. Governor Perry has been a staunch supporter of Israel. After a trip to the area in 2007, the governor supported Texas’ divestment from companies that do business with Iran, a main opponent of Israeli freedom. Additionally, the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce was created to help launch future commercial interests and solidify the strong business and cultural connections between the two states.

In 2009, Gov. RickPerry received the Defender of Jerusalem Award, given to public figures who have demonstrated support and commitment to the state ofIsrael and its capitol,Jerusalem. The governor accepted the award while on his trip toIsrael, where he also met with Israeli President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and business and academic leaders.

During that trip, Perry gave an interview to the Jerusalem Post in which he affirmed his support for Israel, “I’m a big believer that this country was given to the people of Israel a long time ago, by God, and that’s ordained.”

Here’s another article about Perry’s ties with Muslims at Newsmax.

And finally, a word from our sponsor, Pesky Truth:

Groucho Marx once said, “Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

Doesn’t that sound like most of our politicians took lessons from Groucho?

Click here to jump to “Want to know more about Rick Perry.”

Please send it along.

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and
laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and
plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:

Be responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard In the withering heat and the rain all summer long,
building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant Is a fool and laughs and dances
and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference
and demands to know why the ant should be
allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the
shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant
In his comfortable home with a table filled with food.
America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth,
this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper
and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green…’

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where
the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We shall overcome.

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray
for the grasshopper’s sake, while he damns the ants.

President Obama condems the ant and blames President Bush 43,
President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus,
and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King
that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the Grasshopper, and
both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts The Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act
Retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of
green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes,
his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends
finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house
he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house,
crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house,
now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the
ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Don’t give in to Obama and Be careful how you vote in 2012!!

Who Pays Rick Perry’s Travel Bill?

Gov. Rick Perry has been burning up the miles since he won re-election last year. He is on track to have made nearly 50 stops in 21 states by November.

He has been on a book tour. He has been the top pitchman for the Lone Star State’s friendly business climate and an unabashed poacher of jobs from other states. Also, as leader of the Republican Governors Association, he has traveled the country to help Republican candidates for governor.

All that travel is not cheap. But it is unclear exactly how much it costs.

Oh, wait that is different than the amount of money that Obama spends on travel isn’t it?

Mr. Miner described the governor as a frugal traveler who only needs “the bare necessities.”

His definition of frugal, however, may differ from the average Texan’s. Mr. Perry’s journeys around the country and the world have come under scrutiny in the past. Critics like Keith Elkins, the executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said the few records that had been released to the public included rentals for a golf cart and scuba gear during an economic development trip Mr. Perry made to the Bahamas in 2005.

And when it comes to security expenses for the governor, Mr. Elkins said taxpayers should “know specifically how taxpayer money is being spent. Then they can make a decision on whether they support that use of funds or not.”

As a Texan I support Rick Perry and will gladly pay for him to travel all 57 states in defeating Obama.

I am pretty sure Anita Perry won’t be spending the kind of money Michelle Obama has been spending.

So what’s up with this:

President Obama Issues “Signing Statement” Indicating He Won’t Abide by Provision in Budget Bill

In a statement issued Friday night, President Obama took issue with some provisions in the budget bill – and in one case simply says he will not abide by it.

Last week the White House and congressional Democrats and Republicans were involved in intense negotiations over not only the size of the budget for the remainder of the FY2011 budget, and spending cuts within that budget, but also several GOP “riders,” or policy provisions attached to the bill.

One rider – Section 2262 — de-funds certain White House adviser positions – or “czars.” The president in his signing statement declares that he will not abide by it.

Hmmmm, remember how the left flipped out everytime Bush used signing statements?

That is all – now back to the left’s takeover of America…..
See you all on the other side.

Egyptians demand restoration of Islam

Spokesman of Muslim Brotherhood said that the unprecedented presence of over 7 million Egyptian people in the Friday protests shook the palace of Hosni Mubarak.
Ahmad Mersi told al-Alam news network that the Egyptian revolutionary people demand a restoration of Islamic rules in the country andan ouster of Mubarak’s despotic rule.

So what part of this does President Obama not get?

Obama: Muslim Brotherhood Lacks Major Support in Egypt…

When O’Reilly asked Mr. Obama about the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood and whether the group is a threat, Mr. Obama said, “I think they’re one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt. But they’re well organized. There are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There’s no doubt about it.”

Mr. Obama went on to say that there are many secular people in Egypt, along with many educators and a civil society that wants a representative government.

The Brotherhood aims to create an Islamic state in Egypt, but insists that it would not force women to cover up in public in line with Islam’s teachings and would not rescind Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

If Obama really believes that – then not only is Egypt in trouble but America & Israel as well.

Dangerously underestimating the Muslim Brotherhood

The precedents are fresh and obvious. Yet the US government seems intent on ignoring them.

In Iran in 1979, leftist and other secular forces, central to the rising pressure that ousted the Shah, were duped and then outflanked by Islamist supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini, who took power and have cemented it for 32 years since. The Islamists achieved this despite having constituted only the most marginal of forces just a couple of years earlier.

(snip)

For all President Barack Obama’s declared intent to usher in a new partnership between the US and the Muslim world, what he termed “a new beginning” in his 2009 speech in Cairo, his diplomats did not deliver significant diplomatic pressure on Mubarak to reform his regime in the past two years. This was most starkly confirmed by December’s vigorously fraudulent parliamentary elections, which featured mass arrests of opposition supporters and the firm muzzling of critical media, and in which the Muslim Brotherhood’s 88-seat share of the previous 454-member parliament descended to zero because of the regime’s machinations.

Washington evidently failed to foresee that embittered Egyptians might then resort to the massed protests of the past two weeks, and it abandoned Mubarak with alacrity as it scrambled to avoid being caught on the wrong side of a largely spontaneous people’s push for freedom and democracy.

But however one gauges the realpolitik involved in that dramatic recoil from a 30-year ally, the White House’s subsequent reported moves to legitimate Egypt’s Islamists – whose outlook conflicts utterly with the democratic agenda – make no sense, and suggest a frighteningly superficial understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood’s intentions and potential achievements.

Muslim Brotherhood Hails Imam Khamenei’s Support of the Egyptian Revolution

A senior member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has expressed gratitude to the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei for his support of the Egyptian revolution.
Kamal al-Halbavi made the remark in an interview with the state-funded BBC Persian on Sunday night.

Halbavi further expressed hope that Egypt would have “a good government, like the Iranian government, and a good president like Mr. Ahmadinejad, who is very brave.”

EGYPT: OMAR SULEIMAN ACCEPTS MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN POLITICAL NEGOTIATIONS

One can’t help recall the international acceptance of the Nazi party in Germany. Ya know, let’s all get along.

Anwar Sadat is spinning in his grave ……. the Muslim Brotherhood is tied to the assassination of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. It was an offshoot of the group that murdered Sadat:

The attackers included four enlisted men, an army major and a lieutenant. The major and two enlisted men were killed in the swarm around the reviewing stand, once other members of the military realized what was taking place. The rest were arrested. The attackers would eventually come to be identified as Islamist nationalists associated with the Muslim Brotherhood under the name of Islamic Jihad.

And of course there is their direct connection to al-qaeda, but why split hairs? Like Bob Beckel says, September 11th? Get over it.

Please read this last paragraph of this blog post.

The left wing lemmings are eating up this discourse among us like maggots on dead flesh, but that is their only joy, so let them have it.

A personal note from Salim Mansur sent to an editor at Ricochet:

Extremely distressed by the crew in Washington, and in most European capitals. Media is so corrupted by left-leaning thinking that there is not much of an analysis to be expected in the media that is now competing with facebook, twitters, etc. The dumbing down of thinking is itself a huge problem the West is facing now as it tries pathetically to undertstand/explain politics and history of other cultures when it no longer has faith in its own civilizational values. I despair, and so I follow Samuel Pepys who confined himself to his diaries while London burned and I am trying to devote my time to reading and writing of my own (that of course I might not be able to publish, and even if published few will read).

I am more convinced now, as I wasn’t when Paul Kennedy wrote about the rise and fall of great powers, that the West has gone over the tipping point in its terminal decline. That intelligent people, or people who claim to be intelligent, (I have in mind the talking heads in the U.S. media such as Chris Matthews or Fareed Zakaria) cannot make the difference between the sham of the Muslim Brotherhood talking about freedom and democracy and the generic thirst in man to be free. These are the people who have like the Bourbons learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They are glibly about to put the Lenins of our time into trains heading for Moscows of our time, they find nothing odd that they are pushing for the Muslim Brotherhood to be taken into governing when everything needs to be done to keep the Muslim Brotherhood out even as one carefully negotiate the long historic transition of Arab societies from tribal autorcracy and military dictatorships to representative rule and constitutionally limited government. I read you when I can, and I wish that you and others like you were closer to the main media control in the West, or in government.

Take care, and God bless.

Salim

He would be perfect for the job.
70% of all Americans would gladly let Obama resign
so he could lead his brothers in Egypt to the aspirations
that he talked about in his Cairo speech.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

And the leftists of America can move to Egypt to help support Obama in his noble cause.

The House of Representatives approved a bill that would grant thousands of young, illegal immigrants the chance to become American citizens Wednesday night.

Called the DREAM Act, the proposal would permit young people brought illegally into the U.S. by their parents the opportunity for citizenship. However, that’s contingent on them completing two years of college or military service.

The vote was 216 to 198.

The White House lobbied hard for the bill’s passage, lauding it as a step towards a comprehensive reform of the nation’s immigration laws.

Supporters say the measure would strengthen the U.S. economy and boost military readiness.

Critics contend that the legislation offers what they call “amnesty” for illegal immigrants.

January 3, 2011 cannot get here soon enough.

The Dream Act Scam – Giveaway
Of US Tax Dollars

“It’s all too easy to get discouraged as well as disgusted, watch guys like Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) grandstanding to “pay back” his Hispanic supporters for his squeaker election win in Nevada by trying to ram through the DREAM Act in the lame duck session now sitting,” said Collins. “Since new Open Border laws were passed in 1965, they have been central in bringing our present population from 194 million to its present level of 310 million-on the way, as a Roy Beck video recently projected, to a population of 400 million by 2050 and 625 million by 2100. There has been no effort since to slow unneeded numbers, to even measure need, or even to calculate the impact on our environment, our culture or our general well-being.”

In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation. Take five minutes to see for yourself:

“In short, no effort by Congress to have a really reasoned debate,” said Collins. “These elitist worthies simply sold out, lock, stock and barrel, to the Cheap Labor crowd, the big bucks manipulators on Wall Street, and the religious and ethnic lobbies.

“But, the above notwithstanding, I am now more than ever optimistic that we can shortly win real patriotic reform.

“Why? Because our present economic situation bids fair to stay lousy for years and years.

Senate Delays Votes on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ and DREAM Act

With time running out on the lame-duck session of Congress, the Senate Wednesday postponed a vote on the controversial immigration bill known as the DREAM Act and didn’t take up the Defense Authorization bill, which includes an amendment aimed at repealing “Don’t ask, Don’t tell,”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also announced postponement of plans to consider a bill that would make a $250 payment to Social Security recipients and a measure to provide health care to 9/11 first responders. The measures won’t be taken up until Thursday at the soonest.

“We sometimes run into roadblocks in the Senate,” Reid said, as he explained that a scheduling conflict with the House delayed the DREAM act vote.

But how much gets done remains to be seen. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his caucus have promised to block consideration of any legislation until the Senate has resolved questions over the Bush tax cuts and funding the federal government for the next year.

Reid voiced his frustration at the Republicans’ tactics.

Call your Senators now!!! Don’t let the democrats screw us like they did with ObamaCare.

If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.

If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.

If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Cuban border illegally, you will be thrown into political prison to rot.

But, if you cross the U.S. border illegally, you get……..

A job

A driver’s license

A Social Security Card

Welfare

Food Stamps

Credit Cards

Subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house

Free education

Free health care

A lobbyist in Washington D.C.

Billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language

The right to carry your country’s flag while you protest that you don’t get enough respect

And in many instances, you can vote!!!

I just wanted to make sure I had a firm grasp on the situation.

And it looks like Nevada & the unions will give Harry Reid six more years to drag America down.

Well Texas will re-elect Rick Perry and we are open for business.

Texas Business Start-Up Information

Git out while you can. Jerry will hand Kalifornia to the unions on a silver platter.

Harry will take all his union buddies cash to screw the people of Nevada.

Come to Texas and let’s build a new stronger business model that the world will envy.

Say that Chris Coons is not like any of us……

Chris Coons: ‘I Studied Under A Marxist’

“I realize that Kenya and America are very different, but experiences like this warned me that my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in America might be largely untrue.”

In short then, Chris Coons the Senate candidate is determined to get to the Senate and be an agent of the Obama radical redistributionist agenda.

And the person that stands in the way is Christine O’Donnell.

Any questions?

Just a few months ago, Dirty Harry thought he had the NRA endorsement in the bag.

The NRA-PVF is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. We do not base our decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on his or her record on Second Amendment issues. The NRA is a single issue organization. The only issues on which we evaluate candidates seeking elected office are gun-related issues. While there are many issues a candidate must address with voters, and while voters evaluate a number of non-gun-related issues in factoring which candidate they will support or oppose, NRA-PVF’s sole criteria in issuing grades and endorsements is a candidate’s position on gun-related issues.

With four million NRA members and 80 million gun owners in the country, our constituency is diverse in its views on multiple issues of our day. However, we are all united in our support of the Second Amendment and our opposition to the notion that passing more laws that negatively impact law-abiding gun owners will reduce crime. For us to divide that otherwise united base of support on non-firearm-related issues would be strategically foolish.

NRA has an incumbent-friendly policy that dictates our support for pro-gun incumbents seeking reelection. It is important that we stand with our friends who stand with us in Congress or the state legislature through their actions. Of course, should a pro-gun challenger win his election, and stay true to support for our gun rights, then he will be the beneficiary of this policy when seeking re-election.

I think the NRA was getting tired of losing the support of lifetime NRA members like myself.
This is a great victory and I think RedState was in the forefront of drawing America’s attention to this matter. It’s still not over. Harry Reid MUST be defeated. Keep strong and we will prevail!!!

Oh, Oh how the democrats facing an angry electorate this November wished they would have listened to the people instead of following Obama, Pelosi & Reid off the cliff.

For Obamacare supporters, judgment day approaches

Say you’re a Democratic member of Congress. You proudly cast your vote for Obamacare, you cheered when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed it as the achievement of a generation and you scoffed at Republicans who vowed to repeal it. Now you’re running for re-election, and a voter asks: What is the most important thing you’ve done in the last two years?
The answer should be easy. In passing the national health care bill, you accomplished something your party dreamed of for decades. It was your most important vote, and now is the time to take credit for it.

Except it’s not.

(snip)

The reluctance to defend Obamacare as a cost-cutter and deficit-reducer is particularly telling. Wasn’t that the No. 1 reason for passing the bill in the first place? “This legislation will … lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” President Obama said when he signed the bill into law on March 23. Now, Democrats are throwing that argument out the window.

It’s no mystery why the party is in retreat. The public’s disapproval of Obamacare hasn’t changed in the last five months. The RealClearPolitics average of recent polls shows 52 percent of Americans oppose the new law, while 39 percent support it. A variety of pollsters — Rasmussen, CNN, Pew, and CBS News — all find significantly more opposition than support. And there’s not just opposition but enthusiasm for outright repeal. “Overall support for repeal has ranged from 52 percent to 63 percent since the law was passed by Congress in March,” writes Rasmussen.

(snip)

Just a few months ago, Obama issued a very public challenge to opponents who seek to dump Obamacare. “For those Republicans and folks who are on the ‘repeal’ platform, my attitude is, go for it,” the president told a cheering crowd at a Democratic fundraiser in Florida April 15. “I’ll have that fight. We’ll have that argument.”

Well, the time to fight, the time to argue, has arrived. But with everything on the line, the president’s party is trying to run away.

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess represents the 26th District in Texas, talks about de-funding and repealing ObamaCare. The fight has begun.

Sen. John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Friday that there is a “very active” effort under way to reach a negotiated political settlement with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Kerry (D-Mass.) acknowledged that “efforts” have begun after visiting Afghanistan and Pakistan this week, meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other officials.

“I can report without being specific that there are efforts under way. They are serious and I completely agree with that fundamental premise — and so does General [David] Petraeus and so does President Obama — there is no military solution,” he told NPR. “And there are very active efforts now to seek an appropriate kind of political settlement.”

Hmmmm, this is starting to sound familiar. Kerry is the perfect hatchet man for Obama.

Kerry’s Vietnam “service”

Have the Democrats Learned Anything from Vietnam?

The Vietnam War was the defining event for the modern Democratic Party. Nearly four decades after the war ended, we ought to ask if the Democrats learned anything from Vietnam that is applicable to Afghanistan.

(snip)

In Vietnam, the United States lost. In Afghanistan…we’re not winning.

Have the Democrats learned anything from Vietnam? Actually, they have learned many important lessons.

First, they have learned that anti-war riots and protests should be conducted only against Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents. (Isn’t it amazing how Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan disappeared after George W. Bush left office?)

Second, they have learned to not send Jane Fonda to enemy territory to pose for enemy propaganda photos. Unlike the warm reception she received in Hanoi, the Taliban would probably behead her live on the internet for failing to wear a burqa.

Third, they have learned that if a Democratic presidential candidate plans to conduct a foreign policy of national self-abasement and groveling before our enemies, it is probably better to not announce it during the campaign. George McGovern promised that he’d “crawl on his hands and knees to Hanoi and beg for peace” in 1972 and lost 49 states. Obama did not apologize to the Muslim world and bow before foreign monarchs until after he was elected.

Finally, the most important lesson the Democrats have learned is that they should not draft long-haired, stoned hippies and America-hating radicals on college campuses and send them to war. They’ll only riot and try to bomb the Pentagon (like Bill Ayers did). And it makes no sense to offend the voters who are virtually guaranteed to support the Democratic Party anyway.

It’s far better to prosecute a war with patriotic, America-loving volunteers from red states who probably voted Republican in the first place, and to play them for suckers by sending them on a mission about which you’ve said you’re “uncomfortable” using the term “victory.”

The Democrats have indeed learned a lot from Vietnam, haven’t they?

History is repeating itself.

WHY WE LOST SOUTH VIETNAM?

With terrorism in South Vietnam, the Communists needed only from 2 to 5 guerrillas to control a remote village of 1,000 people though only at night. They imposed severe and prompt punishment ranged from “three-month re-education” to “mutilation” (chopping off one finger if the convicted had intended to join the RVN army). A VC district “security chief” had the competence of giving death sentence to those considered as “incorrigible enemy’s collaborators.”

Terrorism also helped the Communists with huge cash support. A large number of businesses, large or small, mostly in South Vietnam remote areas that lacked of security protection, had to pay the Communist “kinh tai” (economy & finance) regularly. Failure to pay after repeated warnings or telling on them to the authorities surely brought death sentences to the victims. Many restaurants were attacked by hand grenades, hundreds of cross-country buses and local three-wheeled passengers vehicles were blown up by land mines because of similar reasons.

(snip)

It could be said that the American and RVN governments were on the defensive in the psywar front instead of offensive. Like in pure military front, attack is the best way to defend. So by “freedom of press,” South Vietnam and the United States were open to Communist propaganda while hostile Western media agencies were free to attack Saigon and Washington with ammunition provided by Hanoi. On the same front, the Communist regime in Hanoi only had to confront sporadic small-size attacks from its foes in Saigon and Washington.

(snip)

The Americans, like other rich Westerners, haven’t had the patience required in supporting such an unconventional war. The Western media and Communist propaganda made them lose patience, especially after the 1968 Tet Offensive, turning a military victory in Vietnam into a morale defeat in Washington.

During the war, every bit of news or statement, especially the unfavorable, published in America and reported via magazines and radios – BBC, VOA – all produced extreme negative effects among South Vietnamese soldiers who were free to listen to the radio broadcast even while they were in operations. A fib fabricated by a third-rated American politician, however silly it might have been, would deal a severe blow to the morale of South Vietnamese troops.

Let’s not forget who the Taliban are:

The Child-Beating Taliban Obama Would ‘Welcome Talks’ With

ISLAMABAD – Taliban militants flog two men and a teenage boy in a video that has emerged from Pakistan’s tribal belt along the Afghan border, showing the hold of insurgents in at least one area there despite army offensives and intensified U.S. missile strikes in the region.

The video was shot on a mobile phone on Feb. 3 and passed to a local journalist who occasionally provides video to Associated Press Television News. The man who provided the clip said it was taken in the Mamozai area of the Orakzai tribal region, though there was no way of verifying that because travel there is dangerous for outsiders. The tribal elder requested anonymity out of fear for his life.

The Taliban are known to beat people in areas they control if they are suspected of criminal acts, spying or violating the militants’ ultra-strict interpretation of Islamic law. People accused of serious crimes are often reportedly killed.

(snip)

Do we really need to pose the ‘elephant in the room’ question – the one that asks which sort of politicians would talk to these animals? US Democrats and electorate, you really played a blinder (to use somewhat sarcastic British expression), when you voted this man (Obama) into office.

Not to belabor the point but war is never good.
So what role should the US play in the future of Afghanistan? We can argue for many more decades if it was the right thing for the US to invade Afghanistan. We can only look at history as our guide. The link below goes to an article written by Wade Hatler.
Wade was 100% against the Vietnam war but his article is very informative.

The American War

Here is my last thought on the government of Vietnam. There’s an old saying that I think applies, although I can’t remember the author:
“Every country has the government it deserves”.
I think this applies to Vietnam, and to America as well. Whether you like the communists or not, there are 80 million Vietnamese, and only a few thousand communist party officials, and only a few hundred at the top. There are no foreign powers dictating how things are done, and there is absolutely nothing stopping the Vietnamese people from changing out their government if they want a new one. There are lots of examples they can see in history, and even some bloodless ones. The rules of historical dynamics are being rewritten as we speak. If you don’t think so, read about the changes in South Africa over the last 15 years.

I see Vietnam as a dynamic place, where the people are really just starting to recover from nearly 50 years of almost continuous warfare, and they are starting to figure out what their place is going to be in the modern world. I really wish I’d come here five or ten years ago so I could see the changes. I’ve talked to people that did so, and the changes are huge and very noticeable in both big and small ways.

All in all, I personally think that 20 or 30 years down the road the Vietnamese people will have figured out their place in the world, and that place will be good.

I am not sure when Wade wrote his article. He talks of the “collapse of communism”.
Looking at Obama’s policies I am not sure that communism has collapsed just yet.
John Kerry and his elk were in part responsible for the abandonment of Vietnam by the US.
And now John Kerry is leading the charge again. The MSM will pump up the calls to
abandon Afghanistan and their people.

So, I ask – What will we say and write about Afghanistan in 20-30 years.

Will we say it was a mistake that we handed Afghanistan over to the Taliban and regret the loss of life after the Taliban purge? Or will we say staying the course was tough and expensive but in the end it prevented the domination of radicals to rule from Pakistian to Turkey and beyond?

For more information visit: www.burgessforcongress.com
Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess on Grassroot Networks

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess on Health Care Reform

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess on democratic tatics

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess talks about Congressman Paul Ryan, Budgets & Bailouts

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess on America’s Finances

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess on Small Business

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess on BP & The Gulf Oil Spill

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess on the Energy & Commerce Committee

Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess talks about Stephen Broden