Perry’s Oops Moment? Obama’s Whole Career Is One Long ‘Oops’ Moment

If the media were even remotely fair Obama never would have been allowed to visit the White House, let alone actually live there.

New Video: Obama’s Own 53 Seconds of Oops
By Paul Bedard
November 14, 2011

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been on the receiving end of a ton of criticism for his self-described “oops” moment when, during a presidential debate last week, he forgot the third federal department he wants to kill. His 53 second brain freeze has made him the star of late night comedy.

But he’s not the only one who apparently suffers from memory loss, and conservative Gary Bauer, himself a former presidential candidate, has just produced a video documenting several of President Obama’s wandering speeches. [Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

It’s full of a lot of “ums,” and presidential teleprompter errors that have sometimes had the president tongue-tied.

Bauer, chair of the Campaign for Working Families, kept his video to the Perry-length of 53 seconds. It starts showing a picture of Perry over the words, “You’ve heard about the 53 seconds that supposedly ended a presidential campaign,” followed by another screen showing the president over the line, “How about the 53 seconds that should end a presidency?” [See a slide show of 10 reasons Obama should be re-elected.]

Said Bauer, also president of American Values: “53 seconds of silence by a Republican is better than 53 seconds of blather from Barack Obama.”

Watch the video below:

And that doesn’t even include the one with Obama telling a crowd he’d visited 57 states with one left to go.

Herman Cain Surges To Lead In The STILL-Early GOP Primary Race

The news is interesting – and not unwelcome:

IBOPE Zogby Poll: Perry Trails Cain in GOP Race
Monday, 26 Sep 2011 05:15 PM

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has tumbled among GOP primary voters and now trails business executive Herman Cain in the race for the nomination, according to the latest IBOPE Zogby Poll.

Cain’s campaign appears to have picked up steam after a win in Florida’s Straw Poll this weekend, while Perry continues to suffer from lackluster performances in GOP debates, the most recent held last Thursday in Orlando.

Perry, at 18 percent, has tumbled by more than 20 percentage points over the past month, according to IBOPE Zogby numbers and is now second to Herman Cain, who leads the field with 28 percent.

Mitt Romney trails the others at number three, with 17 percent of the vote.

The poll, conducted Sept. 23-26 was done after Perry’s performance last Thursday in the most recent debate, but was still in the field as Cain took the Straw Poll win in Florida. Cain was the choice of only 8 percent of the GOP voters a month ago.

The worst news came for Michele Bachmann, who took just 4 percent of the votes — down from 34 percent on June 30.

I took an early stand supporting Rick Perry.  And I STILL support Rick Perry.  But I’ve always liked Herman Cain, too.  My biggest reason for not supporting him was that he hadn’t demonstrated the ability to get a substantial following and WIN.

Perry has been abysmal in the three debates thus far.  He just aint cutting the mustard.  That isn’t fatal – if he can get his ‘A’ game working.  But at this point his poor performances lead to the question: Does the guy even HAVE an ‘A game’?

On Perry’s side, my understanding is that the man had major back surgery, and that the tendency is that he starts out well in debates, and then fades as the pain from standing takes over.  Pain has a way of being very distracting and interfering with the ability to focus and concentrate, and in my own experience when you’ve got a bad back or bad knees, standing is actually far worse than walking.  On the other hand, it doesn’t matter; somehow the man simply has to come through in a major debate or he is going to (deservedly) fade away.

Cain has done well in the debates; personally, I believe either he or Newt Gingrich have won all three (with two out of three going to Gingrich).  And while “debate skills” certainly don’t determine my choice of a candidate, that has got to be a factor.

Why has Bachmann tanked so?  I believe she’s tanked for the exact same reason that Tim Pawlenty tanked.  When Pawlenty tore into Bachmann, it really annoyed me and I lost a lot of respect for Pawlenty.  And now here Bachmann is PERSONALLY attacking Rick Perry, and it really annoys me and I’ve lost a lot of respect for Michelle Bachmann.

Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann have chosen to blast away at Rick Perry – who had the lion’s share of the “conservative” vote.  But if you like a candidate (the way I like Rick Perry), do you really think you can tear that candidate to pieces and then I’ll like the person who tore my candidate to pieces?  And it’s not just that; it’s that Mitt Romney – the establishment “moderate” candidate – is laughing all the way to the nomination.  If you want a conservative to win, the worst thing that can happen is that Bachmann, Santorum and Perry cancel each other out.

So with all that going on, it really doesn’t bother me that Herman Cain might be surging.  At least none of the other candidates have placed him in a suicidal death grip – at least yet.

Ultimately, what I most want is for the GOP to take the White House away from the worst president in American history.  Which means I’ll be a loyal soldier to whichever candidate emerges to take on our Marxist-in-Chief.

Ponzi-Scheme Alert: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient

Rick Perry called Social Security a “ponzi scheme.”  For which he was lambasted by the mainstream media.

I mean, how DARE he call Social Security what it clearly is?

Well, here’s the bad news for you, you anti-Perry sub-rock-dwellers:

Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient
By Terence P. Jeffrey
September 12, 2011

(CNSNews.com) – There were only 1.75 full-time private-sector workers in the United States last year for each person receiving benefits from Social Security, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Social Security board of trustees.

That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government.

Most state and local workers are part of the Social Security system and pay Social Security taxes; and, since 1984, all federal workers have been part of the system and pay Social Security taxes. However, unlike private sector workers who pay Social Security taxes with private-sector dollars, government workers pay their payroll taxes out of wages government pays them with tax dollars or with money that was borrowed by government and taxpayers must eventually repay.

In its latest annual report, the Social Security board of trustees reported that the federal government’s total revenue from Social Security taxes in 2010—$544.8 billion—was not enough to cover Social Security’s total benefit payments—$577.4 billion.

The board of trustees also reported that there were 156.725 million “covered workers” in the United States who paid some Social Security taxes during 2010. But these 156.725 million “covered workers” included all workers—including government workers—who were “paid at some time during the year for employment” on which Social Security taxes were due. People who worked full-time for 52 weeks during the year were included with people who worked only part-time for a month.

The Social Security board of trustees reported that there were 53.398 million Social Security beneficiaries in 2010.

That meant, as the Social Security board of trustees reported, that there were just 2.9 “covered workers” who paid some Social Security taxes in 2010 for each individual who received Social Security benefits.

(According to the Social Security board of trustees, there were 41.9 “covered workers” per Social Security beneficiary in 1945.)

However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has generated data indicating how many full-time workers there were in the country in 2010 and how many of these worked in government as opposed to the private sector.

According to BLS, there were 111.714 million full-time workers in the United States last year. Of these, 18.073 million worked for local, state or federal government, and 93.641 million worked in the private sector.

The 93.641 million full-time private sector workers last year worked out to 1.75 for each person receiving Social Security benefits.

These 93.641 million full-time private sector workers were the foundation of the tax base that supported both government at large and Social Security in particular.

Prior to 1983, states and localities could legally opt their employees out of the Social Security system. In 1981, for example, the employees of Galveston County, Texas, voted 78 percent to 22 percent to opt out of the Social Security system for a locally run retirement plan. Brazoria and Matagorda counties in Texas also opted out of Social Security.

You damned liberals are dead dumbass fools walking, aren’t you?

In 1960 there were 5.1 workers paying into the system for every 1 retiree.  But liberals like to murder little babies, and 54 million aborted workers later things are really starting to suck.

Proverbs 8:36 describes all those who hate God “loving death.”  And that fits Democrats to a “T”.

D. James Kennedy rightly warned us about the socialist takeover of health care (aka ObamaCare):

“Watch out, Grandma and Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after YOU.”

Now Medicare will go bankrupt by 2017.  And Democrats are going to MAKE ABSOLUTELY SURE it goes bankrupt by refusing to allow the system to get the changes it needs to even possibly remain solvent.

And of course grandma and grandpa are going to find themselves standing in front of death panels to justify their existences.

Actually 160 separate and distinct death panels, mind you:

One particular progressive liberal put it best:

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW, NOBEL PRIZE WINNER: I don’t want to punish anybody. (INAUDIBLE) an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly-appointed board, just as they might come before the income tax commissioner, and say every five years, or every seven years, just put them there, and say, “Sir, or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence?”

But I didn’t have to go back that far in time to prove my point.  I merely wanted to document that liberal progressives HAVE ALWAYS “loved death.”  I can also cite recent stuff from liberal progressives, such as this beauty by liberal progressive Robert Reich:

“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Having commented on that statement before, I went on to also document the following:

Robert “Third” Reich isn’t the only one pointing out this actually quite obvious central tenet of the Democrats’ health plan. Obama has appointed at least two other “experts” to advise him on medical issues. Here’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.” Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care. Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Then there’s Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

There’s a great deal more about Obama’s own advisers’ plans here.

Which very much jives with what Obama himself told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

We can sum it up quite nicely with the words of Obama’s former senior economic adviser: “So we’re going to let you die.”

Die with dignity. Or die without it. It doesn’t matter. What matters in the brave new world of ObamaCare is that liberals have finally succeeded in turning health care into a socialist boondoggle. And it will one day be your duty to die in order to sustain that boondoggle.

So when I call Democrats “fascists,” it’s not like I’m exaggerating or anything; it’s simply what those dangerous and toxic rat bastards are.

And old people are supposed to be afraid of Rick Perry because the man had the indecency to say the truth maybe – MAYBE – in time to do something to prevent a soon-coming holocaust of senior citizens???

Take a look at the following peer-reviewed International Monetary Fund publication claim and tell me that Rick Perry is the enemy:

Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says U.S. government debt is not $13.5-trillion (U.S.), which is 60 per cent of current gross domestic product, as global investors and American taxpayers think, but rather 14-fold higher: $200-trillion – 840 per cent of current GDP. “Let’s get real,” Prof. Kotlikoff says. “The U.S. is bankrupt.”

Writing in the September issue of Finance and Development, a journal of the International Monetary Fund, Prof. Kotlikoff says the IMF itself has quietly confirmed that the U.S. is in terrible fiscal trouble – far worse than the Washington-based lender of last resort has previously acknowledged. “The U.S. fiscal gap is huge,” the IMF asserted in a June report. “Closing the fiscal gap requires a permanent annual fiscal adjustment equal to about 14 per cent of U.S. GDP.”

$200 TRILLION?  That’s our unfunded liabilities, thanks to evil liberal progressvies who have been slowly killing us for the last seventy years setting up the day when the American people would die by the tens of millions.  Do you got that in your pocket?  Because I sure don’t.

I got bad news for you, grandma and grandpa.  But you’re going to die.  And you’re going to die because the same party that set up your death (the Democrats) are actively working to ensure that your future medical care gets its life support plug pulled so you can “die with dignity.”  Which is another way of saying so Democrats who set up programs that were GUARANTEED to collapse can now wash their hands of you and walk away while you slowly and painfully die.

I support Rick Perry for president.  The man who is honest enough to point out the problem is the only man who can even possibly have the courage and will to fix that problem.  Because my mom and dad are on both Social Security AND Medicare.  And I don’t want any God DAMNED (and by that I mean, “damned by God to HELL”) Democrats killing them off while I’ve got a breath of life left in my body.

New York Times: Democrats Growing Increasingly Frightened Over Failure-In-Chief Obama’s Re-Election Chances

Most New York Slimes articles are simply pure leftwing drivel, of course.  But it is nice to read an article in which these leftwing propagandists look at one another with wide-eyes and admit they are terrified:

September 10, 2011
Democrats Fret Aloud Over Obama’s Chances
By MICHAEL BARBARO, JEFF ZELENY and MONICA DAVEY

Democrats are expressing growing alarm about President Obama’s re-election prospects and, in interviews, are openly acknowledging anxiety about the White House’s ability to strengthen the president’s standing over the next 14 months.

Elected officials and party leaders at all levels said their worries have intensified as the economy has displayed new signs of weakness. They said the likelihood of a highly competitive 2012 race is increasing as the Republican field, once dismissed by many Democrats as too inexperienced and conservative to pose a serious threat, has started narrowing to two leading candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, who have executive experience and messages built around job creation.

And in a campaign cycle in which Democrats had entertained hopes of reversing losses from last year’s midterm elections, some in the party fear that Mr. Obama’s troubles could reverberate down the ballot into Congressional, state and local races.

“In my district, the enthusiasm for him has mostly evaporated,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon. “There is tremendous discontent with his direction.”

The president’s economic address last week offered a measure of solace to discouraged Democrats by employing an assertive and scrappy style that many supporters complain has been absent for the last year as he has struggled to rise above Washington gridlock. Several Democrats suggested that he watch a tape of the jobs speech over and over and use it as a guide until the election.

But a survey of two dozen Democratic officials found a palpable sense of concern that transcended a single week of ups and downs. The conversations signaled a change in mood from only a few months ago, when Democrats widely believed that Mr. Obama’s path to re-election, while challenging, was secure.

“The frustrations are real,” said Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, who was the state chairman of Mr. Obama’s campaign four years ago. “I think we know that there is a Barack Obama that’s deep in there, but he’s got to synchronize it with passion and principles.”

There is little cause for immediate optimism, with polls showing Mr. Obama at one of the lowest points of his presidency.

His own economic advisers concede that the unemployment rate, currently 9.1 percent, is unlikely to drop substantially over the next year, creating a daunting obstacle to re-election.

Liberals have grown frustrated by some of his actions, like the decision this month to drop tougher air-quality standards.

And polling suggests that the president’s yearlong effort to reclaim the political center has so far yielded little in the way of additional support from the moderates and independents who tend to decide presidential elections.

“The alarms have already gone off in the Democratic grass roots,” said Robert Zimmerman, a member of the Democratic National Committee from New York, who hopes the president’s jobs plan can be a turning point. “If the Obama administration hasn’t heard them, they should check the wiring of their alarm system.”

At a gathering of the Democratic National Committee in Chicago this weekend, some party leaders sounded upbeat after they toured the Obama campaign headquarters. But others expressed anxiety that Mr. Obama’s accomplishments were not being conveyed loudly enough to ordinary people, that Republican lawmakers were making it impossible for him to get more done, and that Mr. Obama’s conciliatory approach might be translating to some voters as weakness.

“Now that they’re slapping him in the side of the face, he’s coming back,” said William George, a committee member from Pennsylvania. “He needs to start stomping his foot and pounding the desk.” At the White House and at Mr. Obama’s campaign headquarters in Chicago, officials bristled at the critiques, which they dismissed as familiar intraparty carping and second-guessing that would give way to unity and enthusiasm once the nation is facing a clear choice between the president and the Republican nominee.

Jim Messina, the campaign manager for the president’s re-election, said the criticism was largely a “Washington conversation” that did not match up with the on-the-ground enthusiasm for Mr. Obama among his network of supporters. Yet even without a primary challenger, the campaign purposefully started its effort early to allow concerns from supporters to be aired.

To reassure nervous Democrats, the president’s campaign aides are traveling the country with PowerPoint presentations that spell out Mr. Obama’s path to re-election. Their pitch is that Mr. Obama’s appeal has grown in traditionally Republican states like Arizona, where there are fast-growing Hispanic populations, and that Republicans have alienated independent voters with “extreme” positions on popular programs like Medicare.

“We always knew 2011 was, in part, a conversation with our supporters and a time to tell the story to our base to make sure they understand what he has gotten done,” Mr. Messina said. “Our supporters are reasonable and need to be reminded about the things we’ve done.”

He added: “No one is calling me up and yelling. They are people saying: ‘How can we get the word out? How do we better talk about it?’ ”

For Mr. Obama’s strongest supporters, his jobs speech on Thursday night to a joint session of Congress seemed to affirm their belief that after a rough patch, the White House had seized the upper hand, however temporarily, in both substantive and political terms.

After ceding much of the debate over the economy to Republicans, they said, Mr. Obama had framed next year’s election as a struggle between a president with a plan for creating jobs and reducing the deficit and a Republican Party that would rather score political points and adhere slavishly to ideological positions than address the needs of Americans.

Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who attended the speech, described a changed president, no longer so reluctant to be outwardly aggressive. “He seemed liberated for the fight and very confident in his own skin,” Mr. O’Malley said.

But given the risk of voters’ locking in judgments that Mr. Obama’s presidency has failed to address the economy adequately or to deliver on its promise of changing Washington, many Democrats said that both the speech and Mr. Obama’s change in tone had been long overdue.

“He should have given it earlier,” said Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio said, “He’s got to engage, make the contrast and occasionally be combative.”

The president is already embracing the suggestion that he spend more time outside Washington, which emerged as a recurring theme in the interviews with Democrats. He promoted his economic plan in Virginia on Friday and has trips to North Carolina and Ohio on tap this week.

At the Democratic National Committee meeting in Chicago, Mannie Rodriguez, a committee member from Colorado, said Democrats needed to find a new blast of energy — something to remind them of what they felt in 2008 when Mr. Obama was elected on a slogan of hope and change.

“We need to work more on the message,” Mr. Rodriguez said, adding that much of Mr. Obama’s challenge stems from a group of Republicans who “simply say no” to all of his advances. “We have to re-energize people and get them back to the party.”

In many parts of the country, Democrats are still reeling from the punishing defeat in the 2010 elections, which gave Republicans control of a majority of governor’s seats and legislative chambers. State Democratic leaders are criticizing the White House with candor, fretting aloud about the president’s electoral vulnerability.

“If the election were held today, it would be extremely close here in Florida,” said Jon M. Ausman, a member of the Democratic National Committee from Florida.

Problems for Mr. Obama in Florida, Mr. Ausman said, could trickle down into next year’s Senate race there, where Bill Nelson, a Democrat, faces re-election. “Too many people here have lost their jobs,” Mr. Ausman said.

For all the hand-wringing among Democrats, some party leaders say Mr. Obama has time to reverse his slipping fortunes — but not much.

“I think there’s an uneasy feeling, but it’s a little early for an ulcer to develop,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly of Virginia. “Obviously, the dark cloud over everything is the economic performance.”

Mr. DeFazio recalled attending a dozen or so town-hall-style meetings recently in his district, a slice of western Oregon that Mr. Obama carried in 2008 by 11 percentage points. Mr. DeFazio said party loyalists had bluntly said they were reconsidering their support.

“I have one heck of a lot of Democrats saying, ‘I voted for him before, don’t know if I can do it again,’ ” he said.

This is getting to be an increasingly far cry from the days that Democrats owned everything and Obama was refusing to so much as give Republicans the time of day while telling them, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”  Now this same group of hypocrite fascists are crying and whining and demonizing because Republicans are refusing to compromise with them almost as much as Democrats refused to compromise with Republicans just a couple of years ago.

I tried to warn Democrats about the consequences of their reckless and frankly evil actions.  Back in March of 2010, I wrote:

You Democrats, don’t you think for a SECOND that what you are doing now won’t one day come back at you with a vengeance that will leave you even more stunned and terrified than conservatives are today.

In an article from February, I wrote regarding Obama’s abandonment of the Defense of Marriage Act – which just happened to be the law of the land, for what little that is worth any more – in boldface red font:

Just remember this, Democrats. If Obama gets away with this, the next Republican president has the right by precedent to decide which laws HE wants to ignore. And you will have supported that right by supporting what Barry Hussein is doing right now.

And that was before Obama decided that the law meant nothing when it came to illegal immigration, too.

I have pointed it out over and over again.  Democrats have become true fascists.  They have repeatedly stomped on the faces of the American people, even after the people gave them a massive warning in November 2010 with the largest political asskicking in midterm election history.

The thing that should make Democrats the most terrified is that we conservatives are finally starting to learn that to treat you people with anything other than pure contempt is dangerous.  And we have nothing other than DEMOCRATS’ OWN VILE EXAMPLE to learn said lesson.

What’s going to happen when Republicans start running as roughshod over the law to advance their special interests as Obama and his cockroach Democrat Party have been doing?

Some Democrat “strategists” like Bob Beckell are stupidly cheering Rick Perry as some unelectable conservative hillbilly.  I pointed out the following:

As one example of how this phenomenon turns out, it is said that the Carter campaign team actually toasted champagne the night Ronald Reagan defeated George H.W. Bush to become the Republican nominee. Because, of course, George H.W. Bush was the “establishment” Republican and Ronald Reagan was the crazy rightwing bomb-throwing governor who didn’t stand a chance. At least not until Ronald Reagan grabbed the Carter team’s champagne bottle and shoved it right down Jimmy Carter’s pencil-neck in one of the worst elections blowouts in history:

That champagne bottle is going to hurt you all kinds of ways going in this time, Democrats.  Because Rick Perry is going to shove it up a different orifice this time.  And he’s going to shove it in sideways.

You damn better be scared, Democrats.  Because you deserve hell, and you’re about to get what’s coming to you.

Why Sarah Palin Should NOT Run For President In 2012

There seem to be two camps regarding Sarah Palin: there is the camp who hates her, demonizes her, trivializes her, etc.; and then there is the camp that fanatically adores her.

Imagine how lonely I must be for not being in either camp.

I genuinely admire Sarah Palin, and if anyone takes the time to search my blog, he or she will find only positive things about Sarah Barracuda.

And yet I do not want Sarah Palin to run; and in fact I would argue that it is BECAUSE I admire Palin and her past and future contribution to this nation that I do not want her to run.

I write this the day after Sarah’s Iowa speech, during which she offered no clues whatsoever on whether she would enter the race.

First, let me present the list of things that I think would make Sarah Palin a great future president:  She is fearless; she has proven that she is ready to take on the entrenched special interests of EITHER party; she has a rare degree of common sense; she has a talent at zeroing in on the heart of an issue and framing it in a way that enables a real solution; and I believe she has genuine integrity and that she truly understands America in a way that we’d have to go back to Ronald Reagan to rival.

Does that sound like something that would come from a Sarah Palin hater?

So why don’t I think – after all the above accolade singing – that Sarah should NOT run for president this year?

Another list: she is too young; too inexperienced; too distant from Washington to understand the people or the political system; too much of a lightening rod; and too polarizing.

Sarah Palin had more relevant experience than did Barack Obama when Obama ran for president, because she had served as a governor.  That said, she was the governor of one of the smallest states in the nation by population, and a state that is almost entirely dependent upon federal money.  And she only served half of her term as governor.

While I personally believe she was forced to leave the governorship for the sake of her family due to a system that allowed the left to despicably personally target her over and over again, the fact remains that she left office.  And the left will never let America forget that she left.  And of course you can’t quit when you’re president, can you?

Barack Obama has demonstrated that he was far too young and far too inexperienced to be the president of the United States.  But the man has the single virtue of being nearly three years OLDER than Sarah Palin.

It certainly is not Sarah Palin’s fault that the mainstream media went beyond morally rabid and psychologically unhinged in their coverage of her; the fact of the matter is that to too large of a degree, their blood libel paid off.  Sarah Palin was torn down one vicious, hateful lie at a time.  And at this point in her career, she simply has not recovered from that.

According to the Fox News polling (hardly unfavorably to her), Sarah Palin would begin with 8% in the polls if she ran.  And that is way too little, way too late.

Barack Obama announced in February of 2007.  He ran for president for nearly two full years.  If Sarah Palin had wanted in, she frankly should have got in a long time ago.

I support Rick Perry, and most of the reasons I support him have to do with the fact that where Palin has deficiencies, Perry has assets.  He is in his sixties; he has been the longest-serving governor of one of the largest states; he very much understands how the Washington system works; he has a documented record of job-creation that Sarah Palin simply cannot match.  And he has the ability to both unite the Tea Party and the GOP establishment AND to raise large institutional money that Sarah Palin simply will not be able to do.

Barack Obama will have a billion dollar war chest, by most accounts.  He is a cynical disingenuous hypocrite and liar to amass that war chest, given his previous rhetoric, but he will have a billion dollars nevertheless.  Sarah Palin’s unfunded moxy will simply not defeat a billion dollars’ worth of ads that will make her look like a Christian fanatic “last days psycho” version of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by the time the smoke clears.

The other reason I hope that Sarah Palin does not run is that doing so would tremendously undermine the brand of none other than Sarah Palin.

As long as she dances on the edges, the fact remains that no one will know what would have happened had she run.  She’ll continue to possess her mystique.  If she runs and loses, that bloom will forever be off the rose, and Sarah Palin will be nothing more than another failed presidential candidate.  She’ll be a loser.  Yes, if she were to lose in a closely fought campaign, it could actually help her – as it helped Ronald Reagan who ran a primary challenge against Gerald Ford in 1976 (which sadly guaranteed the presidency of one unmitigated fool named Jimmy Carter, but that’s another story).  But if she loses by a wide margin – which I predict would happen this season – she would be done as a future viable Republican candidate.  She would never get the attention or the money of the establishment she needs to win, because that establishment would judge her by her performance this time around and simply never give her another chance.

Sarah Palin is currently incredibly successful at identifying and helping good candidates, raising funds and framing issues.  I still marvel at how she transformed the narrative in the ObamaCare debate using Facebook while on vacation.  That capacity – which I would argue all Republicans should treasure – would be massively undermined by an unsuccessful primary run now.

To put it into gun metaphors, Sarah, keep your powder dry.

Stay out, keep working, keep raising money, keep your profile up and come to America’s rescue in (hopefully!) 2020 when you are older and demonstrably wiser.

After Democrats’ Huge Tax Hike, Illinois Has Lost More Jobs Than Any Other State (Contrast With Texas Miracle)

Taxes work great.  Just ask all the newly unemployed people in Illinois:

After Quinn’s Big Tax Hike, Illinois Has Lost More Jobs Than Any Other State
Mike “Mish” Shedlock, Global Economic Trend Analysis|Aug. 31, 2011, 1:27 PM

Thanks to Illinois governor Pat Quinn and the Illinois legislature Illinois Loses Most Jobs in the Nation

In a trend that continues to worsen, more Illinoisans found themselves unemployed in the month of July.

Illinois lost more jobs during the month of July than any other state in the nation, according to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report. After losing 7,200 jobs in June, Illinois lost an additional 24,900 non-farm payroll jobs in July. The report also said Illinois’s unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 percent. This marks the third consecutive month of increases in the unemployment rate.

Illinois started to create jobs as the national economy began to recover. But just when Illinois’s economy seemed to be turning around, lawmakers passed record tax increases in January of this year. Since then, Illinois’s employment numbers have done nothing but decline.

Image: Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis

When it comes to putting people back to work, Illinois is going backwards. Since January, Illinois has dropped 89,000 people from its employment rolls.

A combination of high taxes, overspending and red tape do nothing but chase away job creators and leave too many citizens without jobs. Springfield needs to act now and reverse course.

Inquiring minds may also wish to check out the foreclosure pipeline in Illinois, 7th worst in the nation at 128 months (over 10 years).

See First Time Foreclosure Starts Near 3-Year Lows, However Bad News Overwhelms; Foreclosure Pipeline in NY is 693 months and 621 Months in NJ for more details on the mortgage mess everywhere.

Illinois Unemployment Rises from 9.1% to 9.5% after Tax Hike

Please listen to CEO of the Illinois Policy Institute John Tillman on WLS AM on the Fiasco in Illinois. It is an excellent interview that gets much better as it progresses.

A tip of the hat to John Tillman for an excellent, must-hear interview.

I have little to add to this miserable report other than to emphasize Pat Quinn is the worst governor in the nation. He will not be re-elected. Unfortunately, taxpayers will suffer the consequences of his stupidity for the full length of his term.

Please follow Business Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

If you want to get out of this economic malaise, elect Governor Rick Perry of Texas.  Rick Perry and conservative Texas created nearly half the jobs in the nation since our so-called “recovery” began.

Because the former Senator from Illinois simply doesn’t have the faintest clue about what the hell he’s doing.

Do you want America to be more like Texas or more like Illinois?

Hardcore Leftwing Media Bias As The New ‘Objective’ – And You KNOW They’re Scared Witless Of Rick Perry

I once heard a liberal TV talking head say something that still horrifies me to this day.  Rather than deny media bias, he essentially called leftwing bias objective, comparing entertaining conservative ideas with giving legitimacy to flat earth talk.  With such a mindset, allowing conservatives to have any voice at all alongside liberalism isn’t “objective,” but ridiculous.  And why be ridiculous and allow conservatives to have any voice whatsoever?

That’s what liberal “tolerance” and “objectivity” gets you: rabid censorship.  Consider what almost-president John Kerry recently said:

The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?

Such talk ought to be terrifying to liberals, who congratulate themselves on their open-mindedness.  But the quintessential ingredient to liberals is abject hypocrisy, such that they can shut down any competing voice to their own at the same time they pat themselves on the back for their committment to free speech, etc. etc.

CNN loves to present themselves as the REAL news (even though nobody watches them) because unlike Fox News they’re “objective.”

What does “objectivity” look like to a liberal?

It looks just like CNN‘s Jack Cafferty:

“In an election where the Republican candidate actually stands a chance against a weakened incumbent president, so far it is a couple of intellectual lightweights who are stealing the show.

Since Michele Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll and Rick Perry entered the race, these two have been sucking up most of the media’s attention, mostly for saying stupid stuff. Like Bachmann‘s claim that as president she’ll bring gasoline down to $2 a gallon. Or Perry’s highly inappropriate shot at Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke saying that his actions could be “treasonous.”

Meanwhile, some Republicans, including Karl Rove, are suggesting that the former half-term dropout governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, is going to join the race as well. Swell. Palin’s people are pushing back against the speculation, saying that anyone who claims to know about her plans is misleading the American people. But Palin has certainly been acting like a candidate, now hasn’t she? Showing up in Iowa during the straw poll voting, and…Iowa-themed political video released ahead of her Labor Day speech which is also scheduled to take place in Iowa. If Palin runs, we’ll have yet another MENSA candidate to join Bachmann and Perry. There is no doubt this three-some would consume the lion’s share of the media coverage.”

At the other end of the intellectual spectrum, there’s Ron Paul, who placed a very close second in the Iowa straw poll. He continues to talk sense – whether or not enough people are listening. There’s Newt Gingrich – love him or hate him, he’s a very bright man. There’s also Jon Huntsman, who says candidates like Bachmann and Perry are too far to the right and have “zero substance.” Testimony to his intellect right there.

He may be right, but I venture to say none of the three has a prayer against Curly, Moe and Larry. And that’s a sad commentary on the state of our politics, isn’t it?

Here’s the question: When it comes to presidential politics, why does America seem to be allergic to brains?

“Objectivity” looks like openly mocking every Republican who has any chance whatsoever of winning the GOP nomination.

And for what it’s worth, if Ron Paul, or Newt Gingrich, or Jon Huntsman actually pulled it out, Jack Cafferty and CNN would be attacking any of them, too.  We saw it with our own eyes when RINO “maverick” (because he constantly rubbed the Republican base raw) John McCain won the nomination.  Next thing you know they were doing this to him:

You know, versus all those “Obama as transcendent haloed messiah” figure that the mainstream media fed us over and over and over again.

The mainstream media have been feeding us this garbage – and ridiculing our candidates as stupid – since Ronald Reagan.  It’s like Lucy promising to hold the football for Charlie Brown.  “Journalists” say, “That conservative candidate can’t win; in fact NO conservative candidate can win!  Because conservatives are stupid and out of touch with the values of the American people.  It doesn’t matter if conservatives outnumber liberals by a full 2-1 margin.  Just like it didn’t matter if Barack Obama was THE most liberal Senator in the entire nation prior to his run for the presidency, just as John Kerry was before Obama.  Facts don’t matter.  Just trust us and let us pick your candidate for you.

And too often Republicans have done just that – and then watched in amazement as the media went from praising the Republican as “the moderate whom the Democrats most fear” into a rightwing fanatic boogeyman.

You want to know whom the Democrats most fear?  Just watch whom they attack the most viciously.  THAT’S the candidate they don’t want to see get the nomination.

And the candidate they most don’t want to see facing their beloved “haloed messiah” is Rick Perry.

Which is why the mainstream media propagandists have been ganging up on him with pure unadulterated lies they’ve artificially created and deceitfully slandering his record.

Remember how Obama made Chris Mathews leg tingle?  Nothing has changed:

Hypocritical Matthews Slams ‘Nasty’ Perry’s Attacks on Obama
By Scott Whitlock | August 22, 2011 | 12:22

On his syndicated program, Sunday, Chris Matthews slammed Rick Perry for being too “nasty” to Barack Obama. The liberal host also wondered if the fact that Perry is not a Mormon gives southerners a “permission slip” to like him.

Speculating on the Texas Governor’s popularity, Matthews theorized, “Do you think part of this southern appeal of this guy, who is to most of us this guy, Rick Perry, is he’s not a Mormon. He’s a Southern Baptist.”

The NBC anchor then suggested sinister motives behind his supporters: “And a lot of it is that permission slip people give themselves, ‘Oh, I’m not bigoted on race or religion, but I just like this guy.'”

On his self-titled program, Matthews said of the presidential candidate: “Some people like- apparently on the right- the fact that [Perry’s] so nasty against Obama.”

Just in the last week, Matthews has used his other program, Hardball, to compare Perry to segregationist Bull Connor.

He also suggested that the governor would have opposed integration. On Sunday, Matthews wondered if the GOP was the “nasty party.” Matthews certainly knows something about being nasty.

A transcript of the exchanges from the August 21, 2011 Chris Matthews Show can be found below:

10:10am EDT

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Do you think part of this southern appeal of this guy, who is to most of us this guy, Rick Perry, is he’s not a Mormon. He’s a Southern Baptist. And a lot of it is that permission slip people give themselves, ‘Oh, I’m not bigoted on race or religion, but I just like this guy.’

RICHARD STENGEL: Well, he checks all the boxes on the right and he doesn’t have to actually say all those conservative things all the time because people know he does that. So it’ll be fine with that. But I think it’s not so much about reaction to Mormonism, it’s a reaction to Obama. It makes the contrast with Obama seem much greater than it–than Romney does. Romney and Obama, if you blur a little bit, they can seem pretty similar.

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

STENGEL: Perry and Obama, no.

MATTHEWS: Yeah. That’s very true. Some people like–apparently on the right–the fact that he’s so nasty against Obama.

JOHN HEILEMANN: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: They like that.

HEILEMANN: The Republican Party is a very conservative party now and a lot of people in the Republican Party don’t believe that Mitt Romney is a genuine conservative. That is always going to be a huge problem for him going forward.

MATTHEWS: Is it a nasty party?

HEILEMANN: Well, there is a piece of it that obviously is very angry. And just to your point about the middle, the middle–there are a lot of different parts of the middle. There are a lot of suburban mothers who are–moms who are not going to like Rick Perry. But there’s an angry downscale part of the middle and they are mad about the economic condition of the country.

In just the past month Chris Matthews has called Republicans “muggers,” “kidnappers” and “terrorists” and slandered Rick Perry as a supporter of segregation and called Perry “Bull Conners with a smile.”

For the record, Bull Connor was so personally vile and such a racist that he was actually a DEMOCRAT.

So it’s really quite remarkable that a vile little weasel such as Chris Mathews would care that a politician not be “nasty,” given what a nasty little rodent he constantly has been toward Republicans in general and toward Rick Perry personally in particular.

It’s also amazing that this same Chris Matthews who is so upset with Republicans’ and Rick Perry’s “nasty” side didn’t mind at all when Barack Obama viciously slandered George Bush as “unpatriotic” and as a “failed leader.”  More recently, Obama tore into Republicans as people who put their party ahead of the country, and as people who “would rather see their opponents lose than America win.”

Meanwhile, Obama’s vice president Joe Biden said Republicans “acted like terrorists.”  While Democrat Representative Maxine Waters said “The Tea Party can go straight to hell.  And I intend to help them get there,” and Democrat Rep. Frederica Wilson said, “Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party.”

But of course Chris Mathews is a hard-core Goebbels-style propagandist.  And being “fair” or “objective” is always a mantle such people want to claim while they attack their political enemies with every word they speak or write.

Another Reason To Love Rick Perry: Because Ambulance-Chasers Loathe Him

There’s that old but oh-so-true joke:

Question: What would you call a million lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

Answer: A good start.

Lawyers routinely are in the hall of shame as one of the most distrusted professionals in America.

America is still the unrivaled leader of the world … in lawsuits.  We are the most litigious society on the face of the earth.  And every single item you buy you pay more for because of lawsuits.  Especially your healthcare, for what it’s worth.

Trial lawyers are like cockroaches, only you can (at least you can still) crush cockroaches without getting sued.

The only time trial lawyers aren’t slime is when they’re protecting you from another trial lawyer.  And of course even the trial lawyer on your side ends up raping you.

Trial lawyers really hate Rick Perry.  Which means he’s got to be a pretty good candidate.

Politico: Trial Lawyers Prep for War on Perry

Trial lawyers really don’t like Rick Perry, and one whose name should be familiar to PJ readers is gearing up to go after Perry as he runs for president:

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.

“The legal issues are important and near and dear to my heart,” Mostyn told POLITICO. “But more important is the myth that we’re doing great down here when we’re not. We’re falling behind the rest of the country, and the country is falling behind the rest of the world.”

But the “legal issues,” as Mostyn calls them, are far more than incidental to the hostile relationship between Perry and trial attorneys.

The governor has pushed through a string of tort reform laws, including a 2003 measure putting a monetary cap on non-economic damage awards. He passed another law in the most recent Texas legislative session, making it easier to dismiss some lawsuits and putting plaintiffs on the hook for legal costs in certain cases that are defeated or dismissed.

Texas used to be a land of milk and honey for trial lawyers like Mostyn. He made his considerable fortune in mold lawsuits, back when “mold was gold” (also: a giant trial lawyer scam). Mostyn’s firm also made a handsome profit, no one outside the firm knows how much due to the sheer volume of lawsuits they handled, off the last couple of hurricanes that struck Texas. Those lawsuits left the state’s windstorm insurance fund depleted and the state at risk of bankruptcy until Gov. Perry and the GOP legislature shored the fund up in the 2011 session. But the tort reform successes of 2003 and 2011 have really put trial lawyers on the back foot in Texas. Two trial lawyers have emerged as the prime sources of funding for Democrats and left wing causes in Texas: Mostyn and the late Fred Baron. Baron’s name should also sound familiar; before he died, he used a chunk of his fortune to help John Edwards cover up his love child situation. Baron’s money also funds Matt Angle’s “shadow party” that I’ve written about before. That the Baron estate and the Mostyn empire are the prime engines behind nearly all Democrat activity in the state of Texas gives the game away neatly, proving that when the Democrats talk about good government, they’re really talking about government that’s good for trial lawyers. Mostyn even employs a couple of Democrats currently serving in the legislature. Another Democrat trial lawyer likely to be involved in a war on Perry is former state Rep. Jim Dunnam. Dunnam lost in the 2010 wave to newcomer Marva Beck, so he is out of the lege at the moment, but not out of power in Democrat circles. Dunnam built his empire in part on viatical settlements, which are means by which terminally ill people cash in on their life insurance policies before they die. You can look at viaticals as a service to the terminally ill, or a predation on very vulnerable people in their hour of need, depending on your point of view.

So you’re likely to see several PACs appear out of nowhere, funding slick ads and attack web sites casting Rick Perry as a tool of rich devils, or a killer of education, or some other kind of boogeyman who kicks puppies, hates babies and just might be a shapeshifting vampire in the service of the Bilderbergers. Mostyn is very likely to be behind those ads and web sites, and his actual agenda has very little to do with the content of the attacks. He is all about restoring the old order in which trial lawyers were king.

I came across the following question: “Are too many laws, lawyers and lawsuits destroying small business in America?”  And there were some short Youtube videos to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgHFKyiIzzM&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-N4d8ocJ2s&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMtrhCUugX0&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eytbRmrIYZI&feature;=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1MF3lJCwbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u9JAt6gFqM

Yeah, they sure are.  If you actually want a job, you should join me in wanting these lawyers on the bottom of the ocean where the real sharks can take care of them.

If lawyers hate Rick Perry, that’s all I need to know to really like Rick Perry.

Obama Administration Spews Documented Lies To Slander Gov. Rick Perry’s Education Record

Barack Obama is a very, very frightened man right now.  And a very small and petty one wbh:

Robert Scott calls out Arne Duncan (with good reason)
By Rodger Jones/Editorial Writer
5:58 PM on Fri., Aug. 19, 2011

Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s insult to Texas public education was a politically motivated distortion that doesn’t become a federal official in his position.

What a load this guy is.

We shouldn’t hear lies come out of the mouth of the nation’s top education official when he discusses the record of millions of students and dedicated educators.
People work too hard to have their work dismissed with his pathetic statement about feeling “very, very badly for the children there.”

TEA Commissioner Robert Scott emailed Duncan a sharp response last night (keep reading for text), and I’m glad he did.

The tipoff that Duncan doesn’t care about facts was his statement about “massive increases in class size in Texas” during Rick Perry’s time in the governor’s office.

Does that sound right to you — considering the fact that the 22-1 class-size cap has been in place that whole time for primary grades?

I checked TEA records on statewide class size averages. Primary grades held steady, of course, while most secondary class averages went down during the Perry years.

Examples: Secondary math classes averaged 20.3 students in 2000-01 and dropped to 18.5 by last year. Average size of secondary English/language arts classes fell from 20.2 students in 2000-01 to 17.8 by last year.

Anybody could look this stuff up. It’s right there on the TEA website. Duncan surely has a few thousand employees who could help him find it.

…Here is the email from Scott to Duncan:

Mr. Secretary,
I have read your recent comments criticizing Texas public education, and I am disappointed that you have never raised your concerns during any of our personal conversations. If you had, I may have been able to correct any misunderstanding you have about Texas public schools and the efforts of the 333,000 teachers and the 4.8 million students who have been striving to meet increasing standards and graduation requirements.

Your pity is misplaced and demeans the hard work that is taking place in schools across Texas. Texas students are doing very well and in many cases outperforming their national peers. Since you appear to be misinformed about the achievements of Texas educators and students I would ask that you consider the following information:

— In 2009, Texas ranked 7th in a 26 state comparison of the only states reporting four-year on-time graduation rates. That year Texas’ on-time graduation rate was 80.6%. The Texas on-time graduation rate for 2010 is now 84.3%, an amazing 3.7 percentage point increase in a single year on the dropout indicator that you are now requiring all states to report to the Department.
— Texas is ranked 13th in Ed Week’s Quality Counts report. Quality Counts gave Texas an “A” in “Standards, Assessment and Accountability,” and an “A” in “Transitions and Alignment” of the Texas system with college and career readiness. This year’s graduating class is the first to graduate under Texas’ required 4×4 graduation requirements (four years of math, science, English language arts and social studies) and we are already seeing great things from the class of 2011.

— The Texas class of 2011 posted a record-high math score on the ACT college entrance exam. The Texas average math score was 21.5 and was higher than the national average of 21.1. ACT scores from 2007 to 2011 showed increases in all four subjects.

— The 2009 NAEP Science results were impressive, as well. Texas’ African American eighth-grade students earned the highest score in the nation and our Hispanic eighth-grade students were eighth. Only eighth-grade students attending the Department of Defense schools scored higher than Texas’ white students who were tied with white students in Massachusetts. On the fourth-grade test, Texas’ African American students out-performed their peers in every state accept Virginia and those students attending Department of Defense Schools. Texas’ fourth-grade white students were ranked third behind only Virginia and Massachusetts.

— We are also a leader in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) education. Texas has established 59 STEM schools, 7 STEM professional development centers and is a leading state in creating a national STEM network of states that want to pursue STEM education reform. Texas’ STEM reform began in 2005, long before your administration decided to model this and other aspects of your reform agenda on the efforts that have been taking place in Texas for nearly a decade.

Finally, I’m not sure where you are getting your information regarding class sizes in Texas public schools. Texas is experiencing a four-year trend of class sizes getting smaller across the board in both elementary grades and in core subjects in high school. If you would like to see the actual data, I would be more than happy to provide it for you.

As you can see, Texas has a strong record, and I am proud of the accomplishments of Texas educators and students. It is clear that they have risen to the challenge of higher standards and expectations placed before them.

Rather than simply talking about education reform, Texas policy makers, educators and students have delivered. I look forward to seeing the student performance results of your efforts to centralize more control of public education in Washington, D.C.

Robert Scott
Commissioner of Education

Not a lot more to add to that, is there?

Other than to quote Joe Wilson again: “YOU LIE OBAMA!!!”

And shame, as usual, on the mainstream media propagandists for allowing Obama’s goon to advance lies as ‘facts’ on their network.

Rick Perry Doesn’t Believe In Man-Made Global Warming. And Neither Should You If You’re Capable Of Thinking For Yourself.

To the left’s abject horror, Rick Perry doesn’t believe in anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming:

Perry: Theory on manmade global warming unproven, based on scientists manipulating data
 Article by: STEVE PEOPLES , Associated Press
Updated: August 18, 2011 – 3:30 AM

BEDFORD, N.H. – GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.
 
“I think we’re seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists that are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change,” the Texas governor said on the first stop of a two-day trip to the first-in-the-nation primary state.
 
He said some want billions or trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to address the issue, but he added: “I don’t think from my perspective that I want to be engaged in spending that much money on still a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”
 
His comments came at a packed breakfast meeting with local business leaders in a region known for its strong environmental policies. And he made his global warming comment in response to a question by an audience member who cited evidence from the National Academy of Sciences.
 
But Perry’s opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet. Perry’s home state of Texas releases more heat-trapping pollution carbon dioxide — the chief greenhouse gas — than any other state in the country, according to government data.
 
Global warming has become an issue for contenders for the Republican nomination to run away from, since many conservatives question overwhelming evidence showing climate change is happening and the big government solutions to stem it.
 
Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney — who all at one point supported steps to curb global warming pollution — have since tempered their stances. But unlike Perry, both Romney and Huntsman acknowledge the scientific evidence.
 
On Wednesday, Perry promised to return regularly to a state that was not kind to a past Texas governor; Arizona Sen. John McCain upset GOP frontrunner and former Texas Gov. George W. Bush here in the 2000 presidential primary.
 
For many New Hampshire voters, Wednesday offered their first close look at the longtime Texas politician, who formally launched his White House bid over the weekend.
 
At the breakfast, Perry also questioned the loyalty of the Federal Reserve, just days after saying that if the Federal Reserve puts more money in the U.S. system, it could be considered a treasonous act that would be treated “pretty ugly” back home.
 
He noted the criticism he took for the comment, but did not back away from them. And he called on the institution to open its books.
 
“It would go a long way toward either finding out whether or not there is some activities that are improper of that they’ve been handling themselves quite well,” he said. “But until they do that, I think there will continue to be questions about their activity and what their true goal is for the United States.”
 
Perry also said he would not have signed the debt-ceiling compromise brokered by congressional leaders and the White House to avoid a national default.
 
“No I would not have signed it,” he said. “We got to quit spending money.”
 
Perry was meeting with more business leaders Wednesday before touring the seacoast region Thursday.

Let’s see: “Perry’s opinion runs counter to the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists that pollution released from the burning of fossil fuels is heating up the planet.”  And “many conservatives question overwhelming evidence showing climate change is happening.”  This “journalist” loves the word “overwhelming.”

How about the first use?  Describing “the view held by an overwhelming majority of scientists.”  Is that one legit?

Nope.  Fake.  Liberals created a false report and have kept coming back to their false report that confirmed their false assertion again and again and again.  I wrote about this bogus pseudo-consensus in my article entitled “What You Never Hear About Global Warming” that I wrote in June 2008.  And BELIEVE me that any “consensus” is a LOT THINNER since the Climategate shennigans emerged:

The truth of the matter is that scientists from around the world are having to gather to discuss academic misconduct – the falsification or misrepresentation of research data – which is described as an “open sore” in scientific research. But the media does not seem to be interested in anything that would undermine their narrative of a crisis caused by global warming.

History professor Naomi Oreskes’ 2004 paper purporting to show “a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming” garnered a great deal of media exposure. However, Dr. Benny Peiser’s devastating refutation of that paper by revealing its terrible methodology was largely shunned. Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte provided another refutation of Oreskes’ work. No matter: Oreskes paper is accepted as gospel by global warming advocates and by the media. Thus a history professor with an obviously biased and flawed methodology declares a scientific consensus on man-caused global warming, and that view has become the gospel-truth with the media which disregards the truth in favor of a footnote that supports their agenda.

Dr. Benny Peiser went on to present an 18 April 2007 paper titled EDITORIAL BIAS AND THE PREDICTION OF CLIMATE DISASTER: THE CRISIS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION at the conference “Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses” before the European Parliament. He said:

Over the last 10 years, the editors of the world’s leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists skeptical of the climate consensus. The key message science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: “The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It’s time to take political action.”

Instead of serving as an honest and open-minded broker of scientific controversy, science editors have opted to take a rigid stance on the science and politics of climate change. In so doing, they have in effect sealed the doors for any critical assessment of the prevailing consensus which their journals officially sponsor. Consequently, their public endorsement undoubtedly deters critics from submitting falsification attempts for publication. Such critiques, not surprisingly, are simply non-existing in the mainstream science media.

Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, has decried the myth of “scientific consensus,” and pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists. He has also pointed out that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. But he has largely been ignored by the media. Other scientists, such as Dr. Richard S. Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have similarly come out to declare their scientific skepticism of global warming alarmism. “I must state at the outset, that, as a scientist, I can find no substantive basis for the warming scenarios being popularly described. Moreover, according to many studies I have read by economists, agronomists, and hydrologists, there would be little difficulty adapting to such warming if it were to occur. Such was also the conclusion of the recent National Research Council’s report on adapting to global change.”

There are plenty of scientists who have officially put their skepticism to anthropogenic global warming in writing.  And that list is growing.

We had Climategate, in which it was revealed that numerous leading global climate change researchers were conspiring to conceal and even purge data and use “trick’s to conceal declines in temperatures.  We’ve also got NASA-gate.  The same NASA which has repeatedly “refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has repeatedly corrected its climate figures.”

Then there’s the issue of “WHAT THE SCIENCE REALLY SAYS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.”  And what the science says, in summary, is that we have overwhelming evidence of warming cycles that have repeatedly and routinely occurred in earth’s history throughout time about every 1,500 years.

And to make it worse for the proponents of man-made global warming, there is ALSO the fact that the same “global warming” that’s occurring on earth is occurring on other planets in our solar system which presumably don’t have carbon-spewing humans crawling all over them:

“Evidence that CO2 is not the principle driver of warming on this planet is provided by the simultaneous warming of other planets and moons in our solar system, despite the fact that they obviously have no anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Mars, Triton, Pluto and Jupiter all show global warming, pointing to the Sun as the dominating influence in determining climate throughout the solar system.”

Finally, I urge you to read the following easy-to-understand article that explains why this argument was framed by people who had little interest in “science” and basically framed the issue in a way which DEMANDED a conclusion that man was to blame:

An inconvenient truth: SOS from Al Gore
BY PATRICK BEDARD, September 2006
 
He’s baack! Just when you thought the scolding was over and it was safe to pull your ear plugs out, Al Gore has a brand-new harangue going.

Actually, it’s the same old doomsday prediction he’s been peddling since he was a senator bucking to be President back in the ’90s, only this time it’s packaged as a 94-minute film. An Inconvenient Truth previewed at the Sundance Film Festival last January. “This is activist cinema at its very best,” said the official festival guide.

You can guess what activated him; his long-playing paranoia about global warming. He and the mainstream media say it’s a done deal. We’re toast.

“Be Worried. Be Very Worried,” blared the cover of Time in April. “Climate change isn’t some vague future problem — it’s already damaging the planet at an alarming pace. Here’s how it affects you, your kids, and their kids as well.”

This is, by the way, the same Time that was telling us as late as 1983 to be worried, very worried, that temperatures were descending into another era of “glaciation.”

Gore’s “inconvenient truth” is that — there’s no tactful way to say this — we gas-guzzling, SUV-flaunting, comfort-addicted humans, wallowing in our own self-indulgences, have screwed up the planet. We’ve hauled prodigious quantities of fossil fuels out of the ground where they belong, combusted them to release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the sky where it shouldn’t be, and now we’re going to burn for our sins.

This feverish sort of should-and-shouldn’t evangelism plays particularly well these days among those who are looking for something to believe that carries no obligation to sit in a church pew. Nature has left us no scripture, so Gore can preach it as he feels it. Faith, brother. Don’t even pretend to understand. Anyway, humans, except for the rare enlightened ones like Al Gore, are alien trespassers in nature.

Let’s not dispute the earth’s temperature. It’s warmer than it used to be. As an Iowa farm boy, I learned about the soil we tilled. Most of Iowa is flat, graded smooth by glaciers. The rocks we plowed up in the fields, or plowed around if they were big, were rounded in shape. The glacier tumbled them as it scraped along, and it ground their corners off.

The North American ice sheets reached their largest expanse about 18,000 years ago and then began to recede. Within 5000 years they had pulled back considerably but still reached south as far as central Ohio. After another thousand years, however, the U.S. was largely ice-free.

Needless to say, there have been no glaciers reported in Iowa as long as anyone can remember. It’s warmer now. And if it would just warm up a bit more, fewer Iowans would need to trot off to Florida, Texas, and Arizona during deepest winter.

The long absence of farm-belt glaciers confirms an inconvenient truth that Gore chooses to ignore. The warming of our planet started thousands of years before SUVs began adding their spew to the greenhouse. Indeed, the whole greenhouse theory of global warming goes wobbly if you just change one small assumption.

Logic and chemistry say all CO2 is the same, whether it blows out of a Porsche tailpipe or is exhaled from Al Gore’s lungs or wafts off my compost pile or the rotting of dead plants in the Atchafalaya swamp.

“Wrong,” say the greenhouse theorists. They maintain that man’s contribution to the greenhouse is different from nature’s, and that only man’s exhaustings count.

Let’s review the greenhouse theory of global warming. Our planet would be one more icy rock hurtling through space at an intolerable temperature were it not for our atmosphere. This thin layer of gases — about 95 percent of the molecules live within the lowest 15 miles — readily allows the sun’s heat in but resists its reradiation into space. Result: The earth is warmed.
 
The atmosphere is primarily composed of nitrogen (78 percent), oxygen (21 percent), argon (0.93 percent), and CO2 (0.04 percent). Many other gases are present in trace amounts. The lower atmosphere also contains varying amounts of water vapor, up to four percent by volume.

Nitrogen and oxygen are not greenhouse gases and have no warming influence. The greenhouse gases included in the Kyoto Protocol are each rated for warming potency. CO2, the warming gas that has activated Al Gore, has low warming potency, but its relatively high concentration makes it responsible for 72 percent of Kyoto warming. Methane (CH4, a.k.a. natural gas) is 21 times more potent than CO2, but because of its low concentration, it contributes only seven percent of that warming. Nitrous oxide (N2O), mostly of nature’s creation, is 310 times more potent than CO2. Again, low concentration keeps its warming effect down to 19 percent.

Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.

They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”

When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.

In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.

Notice that the article acknowledges that it is getting warmer now.  Also notice that the author basically points out that “Greenland” is called “Greenland” because it used to be very GREEN rather than white with ice and snow.  And the glaciers that are melting now have formed, melted, formed again and melted again, over and over. 

It also points out that the global warming theorists arbitrarily decided to rule out 99.9 percent of the greenhouse gases that generate global warming in order to focus on the 3.2 percent of the man-caused carbon dioxide which is itself just one-tenth of one percent of said total global warming greenhouse gasses.

I’ll tell you what: Rick Perry says he doesn’t want to be forced to gut the American economy by forcing it to pay the $76 TRILLION that the United Nations says we need to fork out to “solve” the “crisis” of global warming.

If you want to doubt Rick Perry, fine: just bankrupt yourself by sending every single penny you’ve got to the U.N. and go crawl under a rock until you starve.  But please don’t inflict your foolishness on rational people who frankly have a lot more problems than global warming to worry about.