Another Sissy passed on bit of interesting.
|
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Chicago Way
The Monster Behind the Enemy Within
| FROM STEVE KROFT (60 Minutes) This is very interesting material. Glenn Beck has been developing material to show all the ties that Soros has through the nation and world along with his goals. This article is written by Steve Kroft from 60 Minutes. It begins to piece together the rise of Obama and his behavior in leading the nation along with many members of Congress (in particular the Democrats, such as the election of Pelosi as the minority leader in Congress) Interesting read on George Soros: If you have wondered where Obama came from and just how he quickly moved from obscurity to President, or why the media is "selective" in what we are told, here is the man who most probably put him there and is responsible. He controls President Obama's every move. Think this is absurd? Invest a few minutes and read this. You won't regret it. Who is Obama? Obama is a puppet and here is the explanation of the man or demon that pulls his strings. It�s not by chance that Obama can manipulate the world. I don't think he knows how to tie his shoe laces. After reading this and Obama's reluctance to accept help on the oil spill you wonder if the spill is part of the plan to destroy the US ? "In history, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet someone planned it."/ Franklin Delano Roosevelt Who Is George Soros? He brought the market down in 2 days. Here is what CBS' Mr. Steve Kroft's research has turned up. It's a bit of a read, and it took 4 months to put it together.. "The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States .. "George Soros" George Soros is an evil man. He's anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good." He killed and robbed his own Jewish people. What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath's lack of conscience. He considers himself to be an elitist World class philosopher, despises the American way, and just loves to do social engineering and change cultures. Gyï Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros' father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of the Esperanto language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity. The Schwartz's, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the Gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s. When Hitler's henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary , to oversee the murder of that country's Jews, George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds. Soros has repeatedly called 1944 "the best year of his life." 70% of Mr. Soros's fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year, yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect" During an interview with "Sixty Minute's" Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his "best year." KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson. SOROS: Yes. Yes. KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from your fellow Jews, friends and neighbors. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes. KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many, years. Was it difficult? SOROS: No, not at all. Not at all, I rather enjoyed it. KROFT: No feelings of guilt? SOROS: No, only feelings of absolute power. In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having carried some rather "potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble." Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper's death in 1994. Two of Popper's most influential teachings concerned "the open society," and Fallibilism. Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. (Then again, I could be wrong about that.) The "open society" basically refers to a "test and evaluate" approach to social engineering.. Regarding "open society" Roy Childs writes, "Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper's advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess." In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation. Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today. In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for "The American Thinker" she says, "Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England . He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically, almost overnight." In 1994 Soros crowed in "The New Republic ," that "the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire." The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be "one of the greatest social robberies in human history. "The "Soros Empire" indeed. In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia . At the time, Malaysia 's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad, called Soros "a villain, and a moron." Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, "We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people." The website Greek National Pride reports, "Soros was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia , Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma] Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros' role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality." France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars. Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for "illegal market manipulation.." Elizabeth Crum writes that the Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. Soros deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary's economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover. My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach. But what about America ? Soros told Australia 's national newspaper "The Australian." " America , as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out," he said, adding that the time has come for "a very serious adjustment" in American's consumption habits. He implied that he was the one with the power to bring this about." Soros: "World financial crisis was "stimulating" and "in a way, the culmination of my life's work." Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil , in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama's largesse towards Brazil came shortly after his political financial backer, George Soros, invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Pet rob ras). Tait Trussel writes, "The Pet rob ras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil , but it is a bad deal for the U. S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U S could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security and independence." A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch. com. Their mission: "This blog is dedicated to all who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day be made to stop preying upon the world's poor, that justice will be served." Back to America . Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago, news sources reported that "Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous." In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, "Soros uses his philanthropy to change or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His "open society" is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of a PROGRESSIVE ideology of rights and entitlements." Perhaps the most important of these "whistle blowers" are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book "The Shadow Party" outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel. Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years. The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which recently became the Obama Administration. Discover The Networks. org (another good source) writes, "By his [Soros'] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia , Croatia , Georgia , and Yugoslavia . When Soros targets a country for "regime change," he begins by creating a shadow government, a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup." November 2008 edition of the German magazine "Der Spiegel," in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS (President of the U. S.. ) should do after taking office. "I think we need a large stimulus package." Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right. Soros also said that "I think Obama presents us a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U. S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights." Although Soros doesn't (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well. Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by "The Baltimore Chronicle's" Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by "a veritable who's who of former Republican leaders," from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head and ex-President George Bush, Sr. In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton, Dick Cheney's old stomping grounds. When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time. In 2008, Soros donated $5,000,000,000 ( that�s Five Billion ) to the Democratic National Committee, DNC, to insure Obama's win and wins for many other Alinsky trained Radical Rules Anti-American Socialist. George has been contributing a $ billion plus to the DNC since Clinton came on the scene. Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren't bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA. And I mustn't forget to mention Soros' involvement with the MSM (Main Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e. g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to. In short, George Soros controls or influences most of the MSM. Little wonder they ignore the TEA PARTY, Soro's NEMESIS. As Matthew Vadum writes, "The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives." Richard Poe writes, "Soros' private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America 's traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social engineering." Some of the many NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn. org, the Apollo Alliance , Media Matters for America , the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America ), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks. org. Poe continues, "Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia." Without Soros' money, would the Saul Alinsky's Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America and his puppet, Barack Obama is leading the way. The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" -------------- |
The Gun Is Civilization
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...
And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...
And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
Intrepeid field reporter Sissy sent this in to me. How they vote in the United Nations:
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States,
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time
Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
U S Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States,
still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States
And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States
Receives $6,721,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States
Receives $143,699,000 annually.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States
And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States
Receives $6,721,000,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States
Receives $143,699,000 annually.
WHY?WHO IN THE HECK STARTED
THIS AND WHY?THEY ACTUALLY BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.
Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know.
THIS AND WHY?THEY ACTUALLY BITE THE HAND THAT FEEDS THEM.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.
Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know.
GO GREEN - RECYCLE CONGRESS IN 2012 !!!
Rick Perry Conservative Candidate Profile
Veteran John sent this profile in to me and I thought I'd share this with you folks.Who Is this Rick Perry?
He is a fifth generation Texan, the son of hardscrabble west Texas tenant farmers – Democrats at first but conservatives through and through. He grew up in a farm town too small to be on the state map. Life was so hard that he was six years old before his house had indoor plumbing. His mother sewed his clothes, including the underwear he wore to college.
He is an Eagle Scout. After Paint Creek High School , he attended Texas A&M, graduated, and was commissioned into the Air Force where he became a C-130 pilot.
Now 61 years old, he has won nine elections to four different offices in Texas state government. In the first three elections he ran as a Democrat then switched to the Republican Party. He is currently the 47th governor of Texas – a position he has held for 11 years, the longest tenure of any governor in the nation.
He has never lost an election.
Rick Perry was the Lieutenant Governor to whom Governor George Bush handed over the office after winning the 2000 Presidential election. Since then, Perry won gubernatorial elections in 2002, 2004, and 2010, the last time by 55% against a field consisting of a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Green Party, and an Independent.
Since he became its Governor, Texas – a right to work state that taxes neither personal income nor capital gains – has added more jobs than the other 49 states combined. In the last two years, low taxes and little regulation led his state to create 47% of all jobs created in the entire nation. Five of the top ten cities with the highest job growth in the nation are in Texas . People follow jobs, so in the last four years for which data are available, Texas led every state in net interstate migration growth.
Perry signed ground-breaking “loser pays” tort reform and medical litigation rules that caused malpractice insurance rates to fall. Some 20,000 doctors have since moved to Texas .
Texas boasts 58 of the Fortune 500 companies – more than any other state. Since May 2011 Texas resumed its pre-recession employment levels. Only two other states and the District of Columbia have done that.
Texas ships 16% of the nation’s export value. California trails at 11%. Of the 70 companies that have fled California so far in 2011, 14 relocated in Texas .
In this year’s Texas legislative season, Perry got most of what he wanted. With no new taxes, a fiscally lean state budget was passed leaving $6 billion in a rainy day fund even as other states around the country struggled to balance budgets and avoid more deficit borrowing. A voter ID bill passed that was designed to prevent ballot box fraud and illegal voting. A bill passed that makes plaintiffs pay court costs and attorney fees if their suits are deemed frivolous.
Perry scored points even in his legislative failures. He failed to get sanctuary cities banned – Texas towns in which police cannot question detainees about their immigration status. The blame fell on the legislature. Perry also failed to get a so-called “anti-groping” bill passed that would put Transportation Security Administration agents in prison if they touch the genitals, anus, or breasts of passengers in a pat down. Federal officials threatened to halt all flights out of Texas airports and the bill died in special session. That endeared Texans even more to TSA employees living in Texas .
Perry jogs daily in the morning. He has no bodyguard with him, but his daughter’s dog runs by his side and he carries a laser-guided automatic pistol in his belt. Last year while jogging in an undeveloped area, a coyote paralleled his jogging route, eyeing his dog. He drew his pistol and killed the animal with one shot, leaving it where it fell. “He became mulch," Perry said. Animal rights groups protested, but Perry shrugged it off. “Don’t come after my dog,” he warned them.
Recently, Obama asked Perry to delay the July 7 execution of Humberto Leal in order to comply with the International Court of Justice in The Hague and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Perry refused. Therefore Obama asked the US Supreme Court to delay the execution because it would damage US foreign relations. The Court refused 5-4 and Perry ordered the execution to go forward as scheduled. Over the howls of diplomats, politicians, and the UN, Leal was administered a lethal injection at 6:20 p.m. Before he died, he admitted his guilt and asked for forgiveness.
The case has special implications for Perry, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2012. Even his critics resent federal interference in a Texas execution, which is related to a state, not a federal, crime – an alcohol and drug-fueled rape and murder 17 years ago by an illegal whose family brought him into the country 35 years ago as a child. The interference hinges not on the man’s guilt, which Leal’s advocates acknowledged, but on a technicality – failure to inform Leal that he could have gotten legal representation from the Mexican consulate in lieu of the court-appointed attorneys who represented him. Independent Texans saw Obama’s interference as another intrusion of federal power into the affairs of a state, which could cost Obama support in other states.
Needless to say, Perry is a hard-edged conservative and a ferocious defender of 10th Amendments rights (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) – an explicit restriction of the federal government to only those powers granted in the Constitution. Perry accuses the federal government, especially the Obama administration, of illegal overreach.
Perry said “no thanks” to the feds whose stimulus offered taxpayer dollars for education and unemployment assistance. The strings on “free money” from Washington , he said, would restrict Texas in managing its own affairs. Perry even depleted all state funds to fight recent wildfires before asking Washington for disaster relief. His request has been ignored, which comes across as an unvarnished federal power play, further pitting Perry and Texans against the federal government.
It’s little surprise, then, that 31% of Texans prefer Perry, who hasn’t announced for the presidency, versus 15% who prefer Romney and 11% who like Bachmann. This is consistent with a Fox poll which put Romney at 18% with national Republicans, Perry at 13%, and Bachmann at 11%. A Marist poll had Romney leading with 19% but Perry and Giuliani, neither of whom has announced, are tied for second at 13%. Perry is the favorite among Tea Party voters, beating Palin, also unannounced, and Bachmann. For a guy who is not officially running, Perry has more than an insignificant following compared with the announced candidates.
But none of the candidates – announced and unannounced – has caught fire. It’s still early in the 2012 election cycle, and polling results this far out border on meaninglessness. Yet I would have expected Romney to have a greater lead, given his money and name recognition, unless he is being perceived by voters as a nomination retread, now haunted by the Massachusetts experiment that Obama claims inspired his unpopular remaking of the national healthcare system. His business and economic expertise towers over Obama’s, but I suspect it would be easier for him to be elected than nominated. Palin has a fan base rather than a constituency ready to hand another rookie the keys to the White House. Bachmann, recently insulted by Chris Matthews in an interview asking if she was a “flake” because of her bizarre statements, might keep in mind that James Garfield was the only House member to be elected President – and that was over 130 years ago. Ryan may have recalled that fact when he declined to run.
But Perry is not without his negatives. French cuffs and cowboy boots adorned with the words “Freedom” and “ Liberty ” bespeak a self-assuredness that wears well in Texas and even in the south and southwest, but will it work in Philadelphia , New Hampshire , and Ohio ?
Perry is ruggedly handsome – a modern Marlboro kind of man – whom the late Texan and liberal columnist, Molly Ivins, called "Governor Goodhair.” His high octane rhetoric is unmistakably conservative. Speaking to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans last month, he pumped the air with both fists as he strode to the podium. “Whew!’ he cried repeatedly. “Yeah!” He was like an excited race horse being shoved into a starting gate.
I stand before you today a disciplined conservative Texan -- a committed Republican and a proud American -- united with you in the desire to restore our nation and revive the American dream…
Our party cannot be all things to all people. It can't be. And our loudest opponents on the left are never gonna’ like us so let's quit trying to curry favor with 'em! … Let's speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our effort to elect more conservative Republicans. Let's stop this American downward spiral! …
This administration in Washington that's in power now clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need, but it's the most qualified to make essential decisions for every American in every area. That mix of arrogance and audacity that guides the Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American and a threat to every private sector job in this country.
He left the podium and stage as he had mounted it: pumping his fists, shouting “Yeah!” and “Whew!” as if he were returning to his corner after Round 1 of a prize fight.
It’s hard to imagine the cautiously moderate Romney, the bland somnambulistic Pawlenty, or even the outspoken and misspoken Bachmann delivering that performance. Yet, what a contrast Perry is to the pontifical, condescending Obama speaking style, his head robotically swiveling from side to side, nose unconsciously elevated. I suspect even the leading GOP candidates wish they had Perry’s “negatives.”
Perry’s speech was a tea partier’s delight. The almost cocky swagger. The Texas accent. But I wonder how it would sell to political independents – those more pragmatic than ideological?
Sweeping these concerns aside, Perry’s biggest challenge may be overcoming the fact that he is “another” Texas governor seeking the White House. After four years of Obama, Bush fatigue may have attenuated. But by how much? For those in the center – the ones who will decide the next election – the choice will be between four more years of someone they know (which they didn’t four years ago) versus someone who reminds them of someone they know (Bush) and wish they didn’t.
Beyond the Texas Governor’s mansion, the accent, and the swagger, however, the similarity ends. Their differences have been no small source of friction between the Bush and Perry camps.
A 2007 YouTube, for example, showed Perry at a fundraiser saying, “George Bush was never a fiscal conservative – never was,” going on to say, “I mean, ’95, ’97, ’99, George Bush (while he was Texas Governor) was spending money.” The video came to the attention of Bush aides and they were not happy with Perry’s criticisms of their man.
Then after initially embracing Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” law, Perry turned against it, calling it “a monstrous intrusion into our (i.e. the Texas education system) affairs” in an interview. His 10th Amendment fire-breathing can’t be contained.
When Perry ran for his third gubernatorial election, the Bush family and political team retaliated by backing Perry’s Republican opponent, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, providing her campaign with fundraising and organizational support. Perry won the primary and went on to win in the general election by a sizable margin, no doubt giving him cause to gloat and giving the Bush camp cause to mope.
The relationship between Perry and Bush continues to be frosty. But it would be foolish for Perry to provoke the Bush family into working against him if he chooses to run for President. And it would also be petty of the Bush family to deny that politics requires a candidate to show that he is his own man, not a clone of his former boss. Gore ran against Clinton in 2000, and if Perry runs, he will have to show his independence of Bush if he is to have any hope of shedding the “Oh no, not another Texas Governor” image.
Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative,” probably a euphemism for the liberalism of his rich family, which is what caused Reagan to balance his conservative ticket with running mate George H. W. Bush. Perry will have to show that he intends to reverse the reckless spending of the Bush-Obama years.
Bush ran as a “uniter, not a divider.” Perry will have to show that he intends to be an unmistakable contrast to everything Obama stands for and will undo the Obama program, even as Clinton undid the Reagan legacy and Obama undid the Bush programs, complaining all the while that Bush was responsible for everything that was wrong with America .
Perry has not yet said he is in the race. Time is running out for him to do so. But should Obama be concerned if Perry runs? Absolutely. Obama cannot run on his record – an unpopular healthcare law, a failed stimulus, unprecedented spending and debt, a jobless “recovery” and the threat of a double-dip recession, not to mention a foreign policy he can’t explain and his undeclared war on Libya . Obama’s record is a disaster. Perry by contrast produced in Texas an oasis of prosperity in a sea of misery during the Obama years.
Not being able to defend his own economic record, or attack Perry's, Obama might try to paint Perry as a representative of the far right. That wouldn't be easy. Perry served three terms in the Texas House as a Democrat, and supported Al Gore's 1988 presidential bid. That was when there were still some conservative Democrats. Perry switched to the Republican Party in 1989 when the Democrat Party began moving left.
Obama might attack Perry’s ideological extremism. But Perry could remind voters that Reagan was initially painted as a conservative extremist, until Reagan’s folksy “Now there you go again” confidence showed Americans that the extremist was in the White House. Reagan’s proof was the economic chaos Carter had wrought (“Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”) and the foreign policy catastrophes his policies produced in Iran , whose hostage crisis was nearing 400 days.
He is an Eagle Scout. After Paint Creek High School , he attended Texas A&M, graduated, and was commissioned into the Air Force where he became a C-130 pilot.
Now 61 years old, he has won nine elections to four different offices in Texas state government. In the first three elections he ran as a Democrat then switched to the Republican Party. He is currently the 47th governor of Texas – a position he has held for 11 years, the longest tenure of any governor in the nation.
He has never lost an election.
Rick Perry was the Lieutenant Governor to whom Governor George Bush handed over the office after winning the 2000 Presidential election. Since then, Perry won gubernatorial elections in 2002, 2004, and 2010, the last time by 55% against a field consisting of a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Green Party, and an Independent.
Since he became its Governor, Texas – a right to work state that taxes neither personal income nor capital gains – has added more jobs than the other 49 states combined. In the last two years, low taxes and little regulation led his state to create 47% of all jobs created in the entire nation. Five of the top ten cities with the highest job growth in the nation are in Texas . People follow jobs, so in the last four years for which data are available, Texas led every state in net interstate migration growth.
Perry signed ground-breaking “loser pays” tort reform and medical litigation rules that caused malpractice insurance rates to fall. Some 20,000 doctors have since moved to Texas .
Texas boasts 58 of the Fortune 500 companies – more than any other state. Since May 2011 Texas resumed its pre-recession employment levels. Only two other states and the District of Columbia have done that.
Texas ships 16% of the nation’s export value. California trails at 11%. Of the 70 companies that have fled California so far in 2011, 14 relocated in Texas .
In this year’s Texas legislative season, Perry got most of what he wanted. With no new taxes, a fiscally lean state budget was passed leaving $6 billion in a rainy day fund even as other states around the country struggled to balance budgets and avoid more deficit borrowing. A voter ID bill passed that was designed to prevent ballot box fraud and illegal voting. A bill passed that makes plaintiffs pay court costs and attorney fees if their suits are deemed frivolous.
Perry scored points even in his legislative failures. He failed to get sanctuary cities banned – Texas towns in which police cannot question detainees about their immigration status. The blame fell on the legislature. Perry also failed to get a so-called “anti-groping” bill passed that would put Transportation Security Administration agents in prison if they touch the genitals, anus, or breasts of passengers in a pat down. Federal officials threatened to halt all flights out of Texas airports and the bill died in special session. That endeared Texans even more to TSA employees living in Texas .
Perry jogs daily in the morning. He has no bodyguard with him, but his daughter’s dog runs by his side and he carries a laser-guided automatic pistol in his belt. Last year while jogging in an undeveloped area, a coyote paralleled his jogging route, eyeing his dog. He drew his pistol and killed the animal with one shot, leaving it where it fell. “He became mulch," Perry said. Animal rights groups protested, but Perry shrugged it off. “Don’t come after my dog,” he warned them.
Recently, Obama asked Perry to delay the July 7 execution of Humberto Leal in order to comply with the International Court of Justice in The Hague and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Perry refused. Therefore Obama asked the US Supreme Court to delay the execution because it would damage US foreign relations. The Court refused 5-4 and Perry ordered the execution to go forward as scheduled. Over the howls of diplomats, politicians, and the UN, Leal was administered a lethal injection at 6:20 p.m. Before he died, he admitted his guilt and asked for forgiveness.
The case has special implications for Perry, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2012. Even his critics resent federal interference in a Texas execution, which is related to a state, not a federal, crime – an alcohol and drug-fueled rape and murder 17 years ago by an illegal whose family brought him into the country 35 years ago as a child. The interference hinges not on the man’s guilt, which Leal’s advocates acknowledged, but on a technicality – failure to inform Leal that he could have gotten legal representation from the Mexican consulate in lieu of the court-appointed attorneys who represented him. Independent Texans saw Obama’s interference as another intrusion of federal power into the affairs of a state, which could cost Obama support in other states.
Needless to say, Perry is a hard-edged conservative and a ferocious defender of 10th Amendments rights (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) – an explicit restriction of the federal government to only those powers granted in the Constitution. Perry accuses the federal government, especially the Obama administration, of illegal overreach.
Perry said “no thanks” to the feds whose stimulus offered taxpayer dollars for education and unemployment assistance. The strings on “free money” from Washington , he said, would restrict Texas in managing its own affairs. Perry even depleted all state funds to fight recent wildfires before asking Washington for disaster relief. His request has been ignored, which comes across as an unvarnished federal power play, further pitting Perry and Texans against the federal government.
It’s little surprise, then, that 31% of Texans prefer Perry, who hasn’t announced for the presidency, versus 15% who prefer Romney and 11% who like Bachmann. This is consistent with a Fox poll which put Romney at 18% with national Republicans, Perry at 13%, and Bachmann at 11%. A Marist poll had Romney leading with 19% but Perry and Giuliani, neither of whom has announced, are tied for second at 13%. Perry is the favorite among Tea Party voters, beating Palin, also unannounced, and Bachmann. For a guy who is not officially running, Perry has more than an insignificant following compared with the announced candidates.
But none of the candidates – announced and unannounced – has caught fire. It’s still early in the 2012 election cycle, and polling results this far out border on meaninglessness. Yet I would have expected Romney to have a greater lead, given his money and name recognition, unless he is being perceived by voters as a nomination retread, now haunted by the Massachusetts experiment that Obama claims inspired his unpopular remaking of the national healthcare system. His business and economic expertise towers over Obama’s, but I suspect it would be easier for him to be elected than nominated. Palin has a fan base rather than a constituency ready to hand another rookie the keys to the White House. Bachmann, recently insulted by Chris Matthews in an interview asking if she was a “flake” because of her bizarre statements, might keep in mind that James Garfield was the only House member to be elected President – and that was over 130 years ago. Ryan may have recalled that fact when he declined to run.
But Perry is not without his negatives. French cuffs and cowboy boots adorned with the words “Freedom” and “ Liberty ” bespeak a self-assuredness that wears well in Texas and even in the south and southwest, but will it work in Philadelphia , New Hampshire , and Ohio ?
Perry is ruggedly handsome – a modern Marlboro kind of man – whom the late Texan and liberal columnist, Molly Ivins, called "Governor Goodhair.” His high octane rhetoric is unmistakably conservative. Speaking to the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans last month, he pumped the air with both fists as he strode to the podium. “Whew!’ he cried repeatedly. “Yeah!” He was like an excited race horse being shoved into a starting gate.
I stand before you today a disciplined conservative Texan -- a committed Republican and a proud American -- united with you in the desire to restore our nation and revive the American dream…
Our party cannot be all things to all people. It can't be. And our loudest opponents on the left are never gonna’ like us so let's quit trying to curry favor with 'em! … Let's speak with pride about our morals and our values and redouble our effort to elect more conservative Republicans. Let's stop this American downward spiral! …
This administration in Washington that's in power now clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need, but it's the most qualified to make essential decisions for every American in every area. That mix of arrogance and audacity that guides the Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American and a threat to every private sector job in this country.
He left the podium and stage as he had mounted it: pumping his fists, shouting “Yeah!” and “Whew!” as if he were returning to his corner after Round 1 of a prize fight.
It’s hard to imagine the cautiously moderate Romney, the bland somnambulistic Pawlenty, or even the outspoken and misspoken Bachmann delivering that performance. Yet, what a contrast Perry is to the pontifical, condescending Obama speaking style, his head robotically swiveling from side to side, nose unconsciously elevated. I suspect even the leading GOP candidates wish they had Perry’s “negatives.”
Perry’s speech was a tea partier’s delight. The almost cocky swagger. The Texas accent. But I wonder how it would sell to political independents – those more pragmatic than ideological?
Sweeping these concerns aside, Perry’s biggest challenge may be overcoming the fact that he is “another” Texas governor seeking the White House. After four years of Obama, Bush fatigue may have attenuated. But by how much? For those in the center – the ones who will decide the next election – the choice will be between four more years of someone they know (which they didn’t four years ago) versus someone who reminds them of someone they know (Bush) and wish they didn’t.
Beyond the Texas Governor’s mansion, the accent, and the swagger, however, the similarity ends. Their differences have been no small source of friction between the Bush and Perry camps.
A 2007 YouTube, for example, showed Perry at a fundraiser saying, “George Bush was never a fiscal conservative – never was,” going on to say, “I mean, ’95, ’97, ’99, George Bush (while he was Texas Governor) was spending money.” The video came to the attention of Bush aides and they were not happy with Perry’s criticisms of their man.
Then after initially embracing Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” law, Perry turned against it, calling it “a monstrous intrusion into our (i.e. the Texas education system) affairs” in an interview. His 10th Amendment fire-breathing can’t be contained.
When Perry ran for his third gubernatorial election, the Bush family and political team retaliated by backing Perry’s Republican opponent, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, providing her campaign with fundraising and organizational support. Perry won the primary and went on to win in the general election by a sizable margin, no doubt giving him cause to gloat and giving the Bush camp cause to mope.
The relationship between Perry and Bush continues to be frosty. But it would be foolish for Perry to provoke the Bush family into working against him if he chooses to run for President. And it would also be petty of the Bush family to deny that politics requires a candidate to show that he is his own man, not a clone of his former boss. Gore ran against Clinton in 2000, and if Perry runs, he will have to show his independence of Bush if he is to have any hope of shedding the “Oh no, not another Texas Governor” image.
Bush ran as a “compassionate conservative,” probably a euphemism for the liberalism of his rich family, which is what caused Reagan to balance his conservative ticket with running mate George H. W. Bush. Perry will have to show that he intends to reverse the reckless spending of the Bush-Obama years.
Bush ran as a “uniter, not a divider.” Perry will have to show that he intends to be an unmistakable contrast to everything Obama stands for and will undo the Obama program, even as Clinton undid the Reagan legacy and Obama undid the Bush programs, complaining all the while that Bush was responsible for everything that was wrong with America .
Perry has not yet said he is in the race. Time is running out for him to do so. But should Obama be concerned if Perry runs? Absolutely. Obama cannot run on his record – an unpopular healthcare law, a failed stimulus, unprecedented spending and debt, a jobless “recovery” and the threat of a double-dip recession, not to mention a foreign policy he can’t explain and his undeclared war on Libya . Obama’s record is a disaster. Perry by contrast produced in Texas an oasis of prosperity in a sea of misery during the Obama years.
Not being able to defend his own economic record, or attack Perry's, Obama might try to paint Perry as a representative of the far right. That wouldn't be easy. Perry served three terms in the Texas House as a Democrat, and supported Al Gore's 1988 presidential bid. That was when there were still some conservative Democrats. Perry switched to the Republican Party in 1989 when the Democrat Party began moving left.
Obama might attack Perry’s ideological extremism. But Perry could remind voters that Reagan was initially painted as a conservative extremist, until Reagan’s folksy “Now there you go again” confidence showed Americans that the extremist was in the White House. Reagan’s proof was the economic chaos Carter had wrought (“Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”) and the foreign policy catastrophes his policies produced in Iran , whose hostage crisis was nearing 400 days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)