Breaking: Rick Perry Admits That He Is Indeed Dumb

By Gary P Jackson

On Tuesday I addressed Rick Perry's letter in support of Hillary Clinton's plan to "reform" health care in America. I noted this was just one in a series of poor judgements, and even poorer policy, that render Perry unfit to hold the highest office in the land.

What I didn't address what his campaign's weasel words on the subject, as quoted in the Daily Caller: [emphasis mine]

Asked by TheDC about the 1993 letter, Perry’s presidential campaign defended it, saying the full scope of Clinton’s healthcare plan was not yet known when Perry signed it.

"You need to read the letter," top Perry political strategist Dave Carney told The Daily Caller. "He praised her efforts in trying to tackle the issue and urged her not to overlook rural Americans. The letter was at the onset of her efforts before she proposed anything. No one could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up, in fact not to be outdone until ObamaCare years later."

"As Agriculture Commissioner he was concerned that rural Americans would be overlooked and their options even more limited," Carney continued. "Working with the administration regardless of party, working with members of the other party, as long as you don’t violate your principles, is important to getting things done."

I'm getting old, but my memory of the events is Conservatives not only "could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up" but did from the second it was announced Hillary had started!

The socialist wing of the democrat party spent almost the entire 20th Century attempting to engineer a government take over of America's health care system. I posted video of Ronald Reagan talking about this in my previous article. It's worth revisiting.

Like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton is a Saul Alinsky communist. Unlike Obama, she knew Alinsky personally, to the point he tried to hire her as a "community organizer." Hillary wrote an analysis of Alinsky’s methods for her senior thesis at Wellesley College. They remained friends until Alinsky’s death in 1972.

This is rather common knowledge. Since many, if not most democrat politicians, are followers of Alinsky, surely Rick Perry knew of Clinton's communist leanings.Perry was a member of the democrat party until 1989.

One of Alinsky's teachings is to drop the openly radical nonsense, like the terror bombings Obama's buddy Bill Ayers was into. Alinsky advised his pupils to take a bath, cut their hair, and put on a smart suit. The idea was to blend in with the establishment, and eventually BECOME the establishment. It was a good plan that worked out well, for the hard left. They are now part of the establishment.

Hillary was able to blend in and look respectable, but Conservatives saw her coming a mile away when she pounced on health care. It was a disaster for Bill Clinton, as even some democrats opposed the idea, and would be one of the reasons the democrats lost their 40 year control of the House.

But Rick Perry's campaign would have you believe "No one could have imagined the horrible monstrosity she cooked up"? It's more like everyone, but Rick Perry, could imagine it!

This is nothing more than a typical politician trying to spin a horrible decision. A fellow who has a history of supporting plans that Conservatives will never approve of. A candidate who is saying don't look at my record, just listen to my pretty words.

In the end, there are only two possibilities regarding the Clinton letter. Rick Perry really didn't have a clue, which makes him incredibly dumb [and naive] or he and his campaign are being a whole lot less than truthful.

Either way, this is not the sort we need leading this nation. We already have Barack Obama, who is both dumb and a liar.

Sarah Palin To New Hampshire On Labor Day

By Gary P Jackson

After what is expected to be a landmark speech in Iowa on Saturday, Sarah Palin will spend Monday, Labor Day, in the first primary in the nation state of New Hampshire. Sarah will headline a Tea Party Express event.

"We are always thrilled to have Sarah Palin join one of our rallies," Tea Party Express chairman Amy Kremer said in a statement released late Tuesday.

"She is an electrifying figure in conservative politics and a hero to the tea party movement."

Game on.

The Letter In Which Rick Perry Praises Hillary Clinton For Her Socialized Medicine Scheme Shows A Pattern

By Gary P Jackson

One of our readers sent this a couple of days, now I see Drudge has picked up on it, and Team Perry is scurrying to explain it all. This is more than a letter from one democrat to another, it shows a pattern that Perry can't escape.

From the letter:

I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system are most commendable.

I would like to request that the task force give particular consideration to the needs of the nation’s farmers, ranchers, and agriculture workers, and other members of rural communities," Perry continued, noting his administration’s focus on economic development for rural Texans. "Rural populations have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services.

Again, your efforts are worthy, Perry concluded, "and I hope you will remember this constituency as the task force progresses.

Perry ends his letter:

Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance

Now in all fairness, Perry was a democrat back then. But despite reports to the contrary, democrats in Texas were and are just as whacked out as any other democrat. And supporting socialized medicine goes against the very fiber of the American soul.

To me, this shows a pattern for Perry, and no, I'm not just talking about the Gardasil fiasco, which was nanny statism and crony capitalism deluxe. Earlier we reported that in 2001, as the REPUBLICAN Governor of Texas, Perry backed a bi-national insurance scheme that would have included Mexico.

Let's not forget that as Charmain of the Republican Governor's Association, Perry teamed up with his democrat counterpart, Joe Manchin to write a series of letters begging Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to pass TARP. Bi-partisanship at it's "finest"!

Patterns ....

Perry talks a different story now, but I'd much rather look at the man's actual record as Governor of Texas. No smears, no BS.

The more you dig into Perry's actual record the more you realize that he isn't all that much of an upgrade from the current president. Yes, Perry would make a better president than Obama, but so would almost anyone, that's not a very high standard.

Again, Perry has talked big lately, but with the campaign disavowing much of that fiery rhetoric, it all becomes meaningless.

We all give Mitt Romney hell for creating the first socialized medicine program in America, giving the Obama regime the needed blueprint for a national version of the same thing, on steroids. And we are right in giving Romney hell. That said what Hilary Clinton had proposed, and Perry enthusiastically backed, was not much different. Given the fact Perry backed a plan that would have not only included Texas, but another COUNTRY, please tell me how Perry is much different than Romney?

There's a lot of things in Perry's record as Governor to give Americans great pause. There are better choices.

As a reminder, here's what the great Ronald Reagan had to say about socialized medicine. This applies to HillaryCare, RomneyCare, and ObamaCare.

Flashback: Sarah Palin: Alaska’s Promise for the Nation

By Gary P Jackson

One of my favorite things that shows up in my mailbox regularly is Imprimis from Hillsdale College. If you aren't a subscriber, you are missing some great commentary. It's free, so sign up here.

On August 2, 2008, before she was chosen as the Republican vice presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin gave a speech outlining Alaska's role in America's future. Specifically she's talking about energy independence, and national security. What strikes me most is Governor Palin's consistency. She was saying the same thing in 2008, before most Americans knew who she was, as she does today in 2011, when everyone knows who she is.

More importantly, she's just as correct today, as she was in 2008. Sarah is the only candidate who seems to understand the link between energy independence and national security. She's absolutely the only one talking about it. She's also the only one with actual executive experience in the energy sector. When she talks energy, she talks from first hand knowledge.

Sarah Palin actually has a solid plan for making America energy independent. A plan that will create millions of jobs, jump start our economy, and make us a lot safer and more secure.

From Imprimis online:

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on August 2, 2008, aboard the Regent Seven Seas Mariner in Juneau, Alaska, to Hillsdale College friends and supporters during the College’s "North to Alaska" cruise from Seward to Vancouver.

NEXT YEAR IN ALASKA we are celebrating 50 years of statehood. We are still a very young state, and we’re still experiencing some growing pains, perhaps, as we seek opportunities for Alaska to become more self-sufficient and less dependent on the federal government. And the key to our becoming self-sufficient—and doing our part for our fellow Americans—is to develop further our state’s vast natural resource wealth.

Fifty years ago, this was our deal with the federal government—that we pull our own weight. And we’ve already come a long way from being known as "Seward’s Folly," back when Alaska was purchased from the Russians for two cents an acre. We’re earning our keep, largely by tapping our energy resources such as crude oil and liquefied natural gas. In fact, Alaska has our nation’s only liquefied natural gas export facility, located in the south-central Alaska town of Nikiski. But Alaska could and should be doing much more.

Being an Alaskan today is especially exciting and historic, as the energy and fuel crisis in our nation spawns creativity and makes us reevaluate what is important and necessary. As we consider where our energy will come from in the future, Alaska can and must be a big part of the answer. In fact, Alaska has already begun to take the lead on a sorely needed national energy policy. Groundbreaking history was made just up the hill at the capitol building yesterday, as Alaska’s lawmakers voted to award TransCanada Alaska a license to proceed with fieldwork, permitting, and development of the biggest construction project in the history of North America—the building of a natural gas pipeline, a project we have been fighting to begin for three decades. Once constructed, this pipeline will supply four to four-and-one-half billion cubic feet of natural gas per day—roughly six percent of America’s demand—to our fellow countrymen in what we call "the lower 48."

Just to provide some perspective, Alaska has tens of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas under the surface, especially on the North Slope. Alaskans have longed for the right to access our gas and more of our oil to assist in supplying the U.S. market, and now we are finally on the road to doing so. This $30-40 billion infrastructure project—which will be built by the private sector—is one of the most exciting and progressive events in Alaska’s history.

This is a good start, to be sure. But Alaska has much more to offer in the way of resources. And let me tell you clearly that we can do so in a way consistent with good environmental stewardship. Each and every Alaskan recognizes that our most precious resource is the pristine environment in which we are privileged to live and where our "First People" still subsist to this day. No one can love or care for Alaska more than Alaskans. And we who live here recognize that sound science and constantly improving technology make it possible to extract oil and gas safely and responsibly. Furthermore, with gas and fuel prices reaching record highs, oil and gas must be extracted—even as we move in the direction of renewable and alternative sources of energy.

Because of the lagging economy, Americans do not have time for "all talk and no action." Here at home, Alaskans struggle with the highest gas prices in the nation—the cost of gas in parts of Alaska is four to five dollars more per gallon than gas in the lower 48—and many face the choice between heating their homes and putting food on the table. Now other Americans are experiencing the same challenges. And we are in this position only because Alaska’s vast resources are being warehoused underground by Congress—placing us in a ridiculous and difficult position.

The price of oil, and now gasoline, has always been sensitive and subject to events occurring outside the U.S. We have placed ourselves in the position of having to plead with Middle Eastern suppliers to increase production, when instead we could lift the development bans that are keeping us from our own resource independence—namely, the bans relating to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and offshore drilling.

Alaskans find it incredibly frustrating that others—many of whom have never even set foot in our state, much less lived here—dictate how and when we can best use our own resources. Whether over the barren tundra or in our majestic mountains, we have a strong history of responsible development. To date, Alaska has sent more than 15 billion barrels of oil, safely and efficiently, to the lower 48. One look at the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System illustrates that development and wildlife can and do coexist.

I’ve heard it said by some politicians that Alaska doesn’t have enough oil to make a difference. I can tell you honestly that we do have enough. And while consultants and experts debate the current energy crisis, Alaska is already preparing for its next role—providing American consumers with a safe and secure domestic source of crude oil and natural gas. In fact, if energy imports were curtailed completely, Alaska could provide our nation with seven years of crude oil independence and an eight-year supply of natural gas. These are numbers that reflect known and recoverable oil and gas deposits.

To repeat, Prudhoe Bay has produced 15 billion barrels of crude oil, and there’s more where that came from in ANWR, which is home to more than ten billion barrels of oil and nine trillion cubic feet of natural gas. I know this is a controversial issue. But most Americans do not realize that of the 20 million acres that make up ANWR, we are asking for the right to access just 2,000 of them—a mere 1/10,000th of the total area. Opening up just that sliver of ANWR—which would create a footprint smaller than the total area of Los Angeles International Airport—could produce enough oil (an estimated one million barrels per day) to ease America’s fuel crisis and greatly reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

It is also estimated that there are 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil and another 104 trillion cubic feet of natural gas offshore. In other words, offshore areas that are geologically promising, such as the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, hold roughly three-and-one-half years of U.S. oil consumption and four-and-one-half years of natural gas.

Congress can make it possible to take advantage of these resources right now, by streamlining access to offshore areas. As usual, outside interests are throwing up roadblocks and manipulating the legal system to achieve their agenda. But we need to bring some sanity back to the legal and permitting processes in the area of energy production.

In calling for bans to be lifted in order to get our nation out of the chokehold of high oil prices and dependence on the Middle East, I am certainly not rejecting the idea of alternative and renewable resources. I believe that we need to move in that direction, ultimately weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. But we can’t do it overnight—or even over a decade. In Alaska, we have almost limitless opportunities for thermal, wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy. In fact, our capital city of Juneau receives 80 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric energy. Recently we have created a renewable/alternative energy fund with an initial $50 million that will build to $250 million over a five-year period. Yet until the science is fully developed, until all our vehicles are green, we must wisely and responsibly utilize known and given oil and natural gas resources so that we can provide for ourselves.

Alaskans are a very unique kind of people. We hear this on a regular basis from our visitors from the lower 48. One thing that makes us so unique is that we are at once fiercely independent and incredibly community-minded. It may seem as though these two qualities would be in conflict, but I believe they are the complementary qualities which, in tandem, drove the American Revolution. Our forefathers fought and died for liberty and independence, but they did so together. Today, as we seek freedom from dependence on foreign oil—and freedom from having to send our presidents to plead with the Saudis for more oil production—we must join together again, in the spirit of freedom and independence, to gain access to our own energy resources.

I say this to you not just as Alaska’s governor, but as the mother of a soldier—my son, Track, will soon be deploying overseas in service to his country and to a war that is certainly complicated by our dependence on foreign resources.

We must open ANWR and lift the ban on offshore drilling. The science and technology to harvest our resources responsibly and safely are in hand. The time for congressional action and leadership is now.

~ Sarah Palin

Happy Anniversary Todd and Sarah Palin

By Gary P Jackson

Todd and Sarah Palin are celebrating their 23rd wedding anniversary today. Here's some photos of them together:

Todd and Sarah share each others adventures:

Aboard the USS Stennis:

The Iron Dog!

On this date in 2008 Sarah and Todd started out a big adventure:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg0darQB7r4?rel=0]

All things point to an even bigger adventure to come.

Here's wishing Todd and Sarah many more years of happiness together.

There is a neat slideshow of Sarah and Todd together here.

Perry Campaign: Everything in "Fed Up!" Was Meaningless BS

By Gary P Jackson

I have a copy of Rick Perry's Fed Up! on my bookshelf. In the book Perry sounds like the kind of solid conservative Americans would like to have in the movement. I must say I enjoyed the book, and agreed with what was written. Thing is, it seems Perry himself does not.

One of the main themes of the book was going back to the Founder's original intent of a decentralized government, with the states more in charge and responsible for things affecting the people. The entire book is an homage to the Tenth Amendment.

Another strong theme is, Perry wants nothing to do with Washington, or it's politics. He also says [as he has many times] that being Governor of Texas is the "greatest job on earth." And yet, he wants to leave that and go to the cesspool that is D.C.? The D.C. that he said in his book he wanted nothing to do with? Hmm.

Perry has also said that Tenth Amendment stuff was just BS as well, if not in words, then by his actions.

When he first got serious about running for President, and the issue of gay marriage came up, he got it right, at first. It's a states' rights issue. Then when pressured, he flip-flopped faster than Mitt Romney on his best day, and said we need a federal ban on gay marriage.

Same goes for abortion. That Tenth Amendment became meaningless as soon as Perry was approached. The reason Roe v Wade is bad law is because it usurped states' rights. The federal government has no business dealing with this issue. Left alone, most states would ban, or severely limit abortion all on their own. Perry should know this, as Texas, thanks to our legislature, is doing everything it can to limit the slaughter of the innocent.

That said, you can't have it both ways. You either believe the Tenth is the law of the land, or you don't. You can't say you are 100% for it, except when it's inconvenient.

Recently Perry, who talks tough, was called out for statements he made about Social Security. Neil King Jr writes in the Wall Street Journal: [emphasis mine]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry used to be pretty frank when it came to the country’s Social Security system. In his fiery anti-Washington book, "Fed Up!", published last fall when he had no plans to run for president, Mr. Perry called the program, which turned 76 on Monday, "a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal."

He suggested the program’s creation violated the Constitution. The program was put in place, "at the expense of respect for the Constitution and limited government," he wrote, comparing the program to a "bad disease" that has continued to spread. Instead of "a retirement system that is no longer set up like an illegal Ponzi scheme," he wrote, he would prefer a system that "will allow individuals to own and control their own retirement."

But since jumping into the 2012 GOP nomination race on Saturday, Mr. Perry has tempered his Social Security views. His communications director, Ray Sullivan, said Thursday that he had "never heard" the governor suggest the program was unconstitutional. Not only that, Mr. Sullivan said, but "Fed Up!" is not meant to reflect the governor’s current views on how to fix the program.

The issue bubbled up Thursday, when a gaggle of protestors confronted Mr. Perry outside a café in Portsmouth, N.H., accusing him of trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Perry didn’t respond when one of the protesters inside the café accused him of believing the Social Security system was unconstitutional.

In an interview, Mr. Sullivan acknowledged that many passages in Mr. Perry’s "Fed Up!" could dog his presidential campaign. The book, Mr. Sullivan said, "is a look back, not a path forward." It was written "as a review and critique of 50 years of federal excesses, not in any way as a 2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto," Mr. Sullivan said.

The campaign’s disavowal of "Fed Up!" is itself very new. On Sunday evening, at Mr. Perry’s first campaign stop in Iowa, a questioner asked the governor to talk about how he would fix the country’s rickety entitlement programs. Mr. Perry shot back: "Have you read my book, ‘Fed Up!’ Get a copy and read it."

In the book, Mr. Perry dings politicians who don’t have the courage to take on Social Security. So what is his position now? "The governor wants to see the benefits for existing retirees and those close to Social Security be strongly protected," Mr. Sullivan said. Beyond that, "he believes a full review and discussion of entitlement reforms need to be had, aimed at seeing that programs like Social Security and Medicare are fiscally responsible and actuarially sound."

The fact that Perry's campaign is saying the book is not a "2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto" while Perry himself is saying "read my book" [rather than just answer a question] should bother voters. It should bother them a lot.

The Perry campaign is saying "don't believe a word in it, it's irrelevant now" while their guy is saying hey, go read my meaningless words!

We already know we can't trust the words written on the page, so why bother?

It's also hypocritical for to Perry call out others who don't have the courage to do something about Social Security, when it sure sounds like he doesn't either.

Now wait, hold the phone, as I write this, I see a new report from the Los Angeles Times. It's all OK now, Perry is back to attacking Social Security again![emphasis mine]

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is standing firm in insisting that Social Security, the federal government’s insurance programs for retirees and disabled, is a Ponzi scheme designed to deceive the young.

In a weekend campaign stop in Ottumwa, Iowa, Perry, who has surged into the lead in the Republican presidential sweepstakes in at least one major poll, repeated his characterization of the social insurance program that is generally supported by the electorate. He has made the same point before, especially in his book, "Fed Up!," though at one point his campaign tried to explain that he had softened his language.

There's more.

So Perry "softened" his rhetoric, his campaign disavowed his book, and now it's all back on. See, it's all better now!

The Hill reported a few days ago that something else Rick Perry was all for in the book, the "flat tax" is being distanced by the campaign:

The campaign of Texas governor and GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry is being hounded by statements he has made.

The Perry campaign on Monday was, once again, trying to distance itself from another policy prescription in Perry’s book, "Fed Up!," which was released last year.

In the book, Perry argues that the federal government should repeal the 16th Amendment — which grants Congress wide leeway to levy income taxes — and institute instead a "flat tax" that would tax all Americans at the same rate, regardless of income.

But a Perry spokesman conceded Monday that dramatic income tax reform was likely a non-starter, according to The Washington Post. The campaign declined to reaffirm support for the repeal of the 16th Amendment or the passage of a flat or national sales tax, despite continuing to assert that the current tax code is "onerous, complex and confusing."

Read more here.

So which is it?

The book is a full throated defense of the flat tax, and Perry laid out a reasonable plan, but now the campaign "declined to reaffirm support"? Does Perry believe a flat tax is the answer, or not? Or is it all just too damned hard?

How does one count this anyway? Is it a flip-flop, or pure political cowardice?

Sorry, but I want a candidate who says what they mean, and means what they say. I don't want "nuance" or "softened" rhetoric. I don't want someone who'll write a book, and when asked a question, instead of answering, refers people to that book, while at the same time his campaign is saying you can't really believe a word in that book!

I want someone, who when talking tough, and prescribing tough medicine, has the courage of their convictions. Someone who not only knows what must be done, but will actually do it, if elected. 

This is vintage Rick Perry though. Talks a good game, but when it's post time, he comes up limp. Texans know this already.

I read Fed Up!. I enjoyed Fed Up!. I'd vote for the character "Rick Perry" portrayed in Fed up!. Sadly, "Rick Perry" is a fictional character, and doesn't exist. The real Rick Perry is just another politician, and not a particularly appealing one at that.

I've asked readers before to look at Perry's record. Not the media nonsense, not the smears, just his actual record as Governor of Texas. That's all one needs to know to understand Perry is not suited for the job of President of these United States.

The book deal proves Perry is just another pandering political hack who wrote Fed Up! because he figured that's what people wanted to hear. I'm not saying Perry didn't believe some of what he wrote. [though his campaign is] What I'm saying is Perry isn't prepared to defend what he said, or live by it.

Perry, like most career politicians can talk the talk, but has no intention of walking the walk.

America deserves better.

Audio: The Victory Sessions Stephen Bannon Hosts Jedediah Bila and Peter Singleton

By Gary P Jackson

On Sunday night Jedediah Bila and Peter Singleton were guests of Stephen Bannon on KABC Radio’sVictory Sessions.

RuBegonia has the audio. Click here and listen.