Rick Perry – Indictable Boy

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So in the grand tradition of Texas Republicans, Gov. Rick Perry is officially indicted, although I noticed his mug shot was a bit more presentable than was the woman who drew his ire.

So what did he do that was so criminal? Well, Rick Perry threatened to veto funding of an appropriation to support the public corruption unit in Travis County’s district attorney’s office, because it was being run by a drunken old bag, district Atty. Rosemary Lehmberg. He told the public what he would do and then he did it. He vetoed their funding because the convicted lush wouldn’t step down.

Perry didn’t see it as being proper to have a belligerent drunk as head of the office charged with combating public corruption. Go figure.

But we all know politicians aren’t supposed to do that – you know – threaten to do something and actually go through with it. They are supposed to promise to seal the border or cut spending or not raise the debt ceiling – and then do nothing. That’s the way it’s supposed to work. Rick Perry should know this.

So who filed the charges? Well, as some already know, it’s a group innocuously called “Texans for Public Justice” (TPJ). Now right here, one could stop the investigation and know who this group is. The term “public justice” is code for socialism.

But just for fun, let’s take a closer look.

Craig McDonald is the TPJ director. He launched the “watchdog” organization in 1997. Before that he was a “community organizer” in Michigan. Does anyone else come to mind? After the stint in Michigan, he moved to Washington DC to work for Ralph Nader’s “Public Citizen” group. Getting the picture? This guy is no “mainstream” advocate. He is a leftist hack.

So what about his current organization, “Texans for Public Justice”? They must need money to work on behalf of the people of Texas. Where does TPJ a get their funding, I wonder? read more

Malkin Beats Me to the Punch

I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.

Well, it appears, I don’t have to. Michelle Malkin has expressed her support for Santorum as well as I ever could.

From Michelle Malkin:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t

changed for me in 2012.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.

Newt is NOT a Conservative

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Pop Quiz: Who said this?

“The Progressive Movement has profoundly changed America for the better.”

If you said it was the great conservative, Newt Gingrich, you’d be correct. I’m kidding about the whole great conservative thing.

Yet today, that dope, Rick Perry drops out of the race and follows Sarah Palin by endorsing Newt. Has the world turn completely upside down? Heck, even Rush Limbaugh calls Newt a conservative.

This is yet another example of why I repeat, Newt Gingrich is NOT a conservative. Newt Gingrich is a big government Progressive. He has stated, on several occasions, his favorite Presidents were progressives.
I have personally heard him give positive statements regarding them all. He didn’t describe them as progressives, but has called them out by name. Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson & FDR. The only one he left out was LBJ. What true conservative, with any reverence and understanding of the Constitution, could possibly think this; much less say it out loud. In my opinion, these 4 are not only, not good, but are the 4 worst presidents in history!

Then why would he do this? Why would he speak favorably of these gentlemen? That’s an easy question to answer. He knows, as do many of us, the general public has been taught next to nothing of our history. He throws these historical quips and quotes out during the debates. He sounds like the great historian & is never challenged due to the dearth of historical knowledge of the other candidates or the moderators.

On that note I would like to present one of the great men Newt has recently quoted & appears to have great respect for; President Andrew Jackson.

Many believe the Father of Progressivism was Theodore Roosevelt. In fact it was Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson came to prominence as the Founding Fathers died out and I believe the republic that they envisioned also died with Jackson. He could not have done what he did if they had been around.

Jackson believed in Manifest Destiny, which is kind of the perversion of Divine Providence. Divine Providence occurs when you live your life in a good and moral way, try your best and pull yourself up by the bootstraps, God will open doors for you. You know, “Good things happen to good people”.

Manifest Destiny is more of the, “Get out of my way. I’m on a mission from God”. It’s my way or the highway. Like all progressives, he knew better than the people.

Founding Fathers = Divine Providence, Progressives = Manifest Destiny. It’s no surprise Jackson was also the father of the democrat party.

He declared war on the Bank of the United States (B.U.S.). I’m no fan of any national bank but unlike the Federal Reserve of today, the B.U.S. did not wield nearly the power of today’s central bank.

Although he declared it, he wasn’t championing the working class or Ron Paul supporters. He claimed to be fighting for the “little man”. Sound familiar? In fact he just wanted to shut the bank down because he couldn’t control it. Jackson simply wanted to replace it with another bank completely controlled by him and his party. Progressives must control all things for the betterment of society. They arrest control by pretending to be the champions of the “Little Guy”.

Most Americans think the Civil War was fought solely about slavery. In fact Andrew Jackson started the ball rolling when he signed the Tariff of 1832 that taxed imported and exported goods. The North grew successfully
under this tariff. The tax was rough on the southerners. As Andrew Jackson continued to tax goods, southerners found it hard to sell their products to the English and suffered badly.. South Carolina firmly refused to pay the taxes and threatened to withdraw from the Union if the tariff was enforced. It was eventually rewritten, but the damage between the North & South had been done.

Like the progressives that would follow, he was also a flaming racist. He believed neither Indians nor blacks should own any property in the U.S. He particularly hated Indians.

We have all heard of the “Trail of Tears”. That was Andrew Jackson’s doing. He declared war on the Eastern Indian Tribes, signing the Indian Removal Act. There would be no tribes east of the Mississippi. Many Indians were massacred. Those he didn’t have killed, were driven west along; you guessed it,
“The Trail of Tears”. Many of the Indians died on the trail (roughly 25%), freezing to death.

His excuse for the atrocity was, “Well, we needed the land, so we took it”. Manifest Destiny.

Andrew Jackson was a BAD dude & Newt goes out of his way to speak highly of him.

This is the advertised “True Conservative”?

Don’t be fooled!

Romney Likes to Fire People

This one has me ticked off. I am sick & tired of the lies flying around the republican primary.

What I heard today was the straw that broke the preverbial “Camel’s Back”.

Mitt Romney was speaking at an event when he said, “I like being able to fire people … who don’t give me good service.”

Find something wrong with that statement, I dare you. That is, without twisted the words around. In context, there’s nothing wrong with it.

Some people have twisted the words around to make Mitt say, “I like to fire people”.

That some being, the media, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman & even Rick Perry. The only candidate that didn’t was Rick Santorum. Good for you, Mr. Santorum.

Newt Gingrich has once again demonstrated he is the second coming of original big government progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, with his portrayal of Romney as the evil “Bain Capital”, wallstreet mogul. Teddy would have done the same. I’m sure it’s also an attempt at payback for what the Romney Super-pac did to him in Iowa.

He (Gingrich), Jon Huntsman & Rick Perry have all lied about the Romney quote. I say they’ve lied because anyone with a brain would understand what Romney very clearly said.

I am not even a Romney supporter, but when other’s just outright lie about a candidate, I have to say something.

I might add, it wasn’t some Super-pac on their behalf. It was the candidates themselves.

I get the whole Ron Paul half truth & lie by ommission commercials. He isn’t taken seriously by enough people. I don’t lend him enough credence to worry about. He’s in this to bring his delegates to the convention to advance some of his ideas. Hopefully it’s just the domestic ones.

I am also getting frustrated with the conservative radio hosts I usually trust to get it right. Neither Rush Limbaugh nor Sean Hannity got it right today. I discount Sean, due to him being the prototypical republican apologist.

I thought at least Rush might get it right though. He didn’t. Maybe he didn’t hear the whole Romney quote, so as to put it into context. If he didn’t, he should’ve held his comments. I didn’t hear the whole segment, so I may have missed something. For now, I’ll give Rush the benefit of the doubt. He’s usually right.

As I would expect, the only talk radio to get it exactly correct was the Glenn Beck show. Stu & Pat were hosting without Glenn today. They covered the whole flap. They were dead on.

This is what we all hate about politics guys!

ACLU Picks the Republican

The ACLU, that bastion of
righteousness, has now taken upon itself to rank the presidential candidates.
The Nashua Telegraph reports that the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has released their “Candidate Report Card”, ranking candidates for the Republican nomination and President Barack Obama on how well – or poorly – they adhere to the Constitution.

I wasn’t aware The ACLU had a sense of humor? They must have quite a good one because they have to be kidding. What would they know about the Constitution other than how to subvert it?

You may also say, who cares. I, for one, care. If the ACLU rates high, any Republican candidate, you best run away, from said candidate.

So, let’s take a look and see what they came up with.

You would think this would be a slam-dunk for the anointed one. Oh contraire.

The criteria that they used to rank the candidates is as follows:

The rankings, represented by lit or unlit “Lady Liberty torches” (see, they do have a sense of humor), were based on seven categories: humane immigration policy, closing Guantanamo Bay and ending indefinite detentions, gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, ending torture, ending a surveillance state, gay marriage and freedom of reproductive choice. (Weren’t these first seven amendments in the Bill of Rights?) Candidates could score up to four torches in each category, according to the report.

Here are the 2012 candidates in order of ACLU preference:

Gary Johnson, libertarian w/ 21 torches

Ron Paul, libertarian w/ 18 torches

Barack Obama came in third w/ 16

Jon Huntsman w/ 12

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry each got only 2 ACLU torches

Rating lowest and last on the ACLU scale are Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum with 0 torches. Michele Bachmann also rated 0 but has dropped out of the race.

I don’t know about you but if the ACLU doesn’t like a candidate, that alone is a good reason for me to support them.

So, that tells me I have 3 candidates to choose from.

There’s Bachmann, but she dropped out. That’s not much of an option.

How about Mitt? Well
, he’s a squishy moderate that keeps telling us he’ll work with the democrats. “Work with democrats” is code for conservatives must compromise & libs don’t. He’s out.

That leaves one. Rick Santorum.

I stand corrected. The ACLU has performed a service after all.

Attribution: Nashua Telegraph, GOPUSA