State of the Union Sound Familiar? Watch This!

Obama's Third State of the Union Address Shows Familiar Rhetoric, Failed Record

Today's Democrats Have Moved Far From America's Core Value Of Freedom

Today's Democrats Have Moved Far From America's Core Value Of Freedom - Investors.com: "Central to today's Democratic manifesto are policies that would gall our founders, men who wanted to be free of tyranny, to be liberated from a government that interfered with their God-given right to pursue their own lives.

Democrats of the last half century have taken the opposite path. They want to order people's lives; to supervise, monitor and regulate; to rule rather than represent. Sending swarms of officers to harass the people, and to eat out their substance is their idea of good governance.

Democrats are the grand promoters of the welfare state, a wider and deeper dependence on government and a bitterness toward those who have more. Is that what the framers were thinking about when, at their peril, they drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence?"

Five Ways Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins

Five Ways Conservatives Will Have to Sell Their Souls if Romney Wins - John Hawkins - Townhall Conservative: "Romney's candidacy also runs counter to almost every political trend in the book right now. He's the antithesis of everything the Tea Party stands for -- a moderate establishment-endorsed, principle-free Rockefeller Republican. On the other hand, he's like a bad guy straight out of central casting for the Occupy Wall Street crowd, a conscience-free 1 percenter who makes $10,000 bets and lectures the public about how corporations are people -- while hordes of poor and middle class Americans that he fired trail in his wake telling tales of woe about how Romney made their lives into a living hell."

Why Rick Perry is Still a Credible Candidate and How He Can Make a Come Back.

Why Rick Perry is Still a Credible Candidate and How He Can Make a Come Back. - New York Conservative | Examiner.com: "Rick Perry is able to not only promise to be a leader in delivering economic prosperity, he has done it, and will do it for America. Many can promise such results but few have the exceptional record of doing it like Rick Perry"

Mark Levin on ‘Ameritopia:’ ‘We Now Live in a Post-Constitutional Country’

EXCLUSIVE—Mark Levin on ‘Ameritopia:’ ‘We Now Live in a Post-Constitutional Country’ | CNSnews.com: "Look, I’ve said that Obama is a Marxist. Now, there’s 50 different types of Marxists, but it really doesn’t matter if I call him Marxist or not. If people are more comfortable, call him a utopian, because that’s exactly what he is. Call him a statist, call him whatever you want. What I do know is when a man runs for office and he says repeatedly that he wants to fundamentally transform America, I know two things: Number one the Constitution does not empower the president to fundamentally transform America. It gives him certain responsibilities. That’s what he gets to do, that and nothing more. Fundamentally transforming America is unconstitutional on its face. Number two, fundamentally transforming America, as I’ve said before, means you must hate America. Why would you want to fundamentally transform something that you love? So, he doesn’t like the Constitution because the Constitution stands in the way of these people, the leftists. The Declaration of Independence is rejected."

Steve Forbes: Perry’s flat tax ‘most exciting tax plan since Reagan’s’

Steve Forbes: Perry’s flat tax ‘most exciting tax plan since Reagan’s’ | The Lookout - Yahoo! News: "Steve Forbes, whose flat tax plan helped make him an unlikely contender for the Republican presidential nomination 15 years ago, is praising a new version of the idea from Rick Perry. And Forbes, who says he helped devise Perry's plan, left little doubt that he'll formally back the Texas governor before long.

In an interview with Yahoo News, Forbes called Perry's proposal, announced in a speech Wednesday, "the most exciting tax plan since Reagan's," in 1980."

Obama on Pace to Borrow $6.2T in One Term—More Than All Presidents from Washington Through Clinton Combined

Obama on Pace to Borrow $6.2T in One Term—More Than All Presidents from Washington Through Clinton Combined | CNSnews.com: "The national debt was $10.6 trillion ($10,626,877,048,913.08) on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. As of the close of business on Jan. 11, 2012, it was $15.2 trillion ($15,236,307,075,631.58.) In Obama’s first 1,087 days in office, the debt increased $4.6 trillion ($4,609,430,026,718.50)—or an increase of $4.24 billion ($4,240,506,004.34) per day."

Is the Tea Party Missing the Mark in GOP Race?

I am appalled, dumbfounded, and discouraged to see pseudo-conservative candidates getting votes, from those who consider themselves part of the Tea Party movement, in the early GOP presidential primaries. 

Having attended the very first Tea Party "Porkulus" rally in Seattle, a protest against Obama's original near trillion dollar Stimulus Plan, it's perplexing to see the overwhelming support going to candidates whose track records are antithetical to the core principles in which the movement was founded.  Along with strong opposition to government "stimulus", bailouts (TARP), restoring adherence to the U.S. Constitution (including the Tenth Amendment), the skyrocketing national debt, unconstitutional ObamaCare, high taxes, cap-and-trade, onerous regulations, and other forms of big government intrusion in our lives became main themes of the completely grassroots, spontaneous movement.  Many of the GOP candidates in the 2012 race fail miserably when held up against Tea Party principles, yet surprisingly, according to exit polls in the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, those same candidates are receiving overwhelming Tea Party support.  

For example, front-runner Mitt Romney created a mandatory health-care system in Massachusetts that was the precursor to ObamaCare.  This flies in the face to small, limited government and free markets, even if it is on the state level.  Romney supported the Wall Street bailouts, government "stimulus" (although he favored a different "Republican" version).  What kind of conservative proposes a "59 Point Economic Plan" that is 156 pages long?  

Newt Gingrich, as recently as 2008, supported the unconstitutional government mandate to purchase health insurance (i.e., Romney/ObamaCare), and teamed with leftist Nancy Pelosi to fight against the myth and farce of anthropological global warming with big government solutions.  Gingrich also supported the TARP bailouts.

Rick Santorum's senatorial voting record should be considered an abomination to the Tea Party movement.  According to Erick Erickson of RedState.com regarding Santorum's record:

"This is not the record of a man committed to scaling back the welfare state or the nanny state. Had he been up for re-election in 2010 instead of 2006, this is the record of a man who the tea party movement would have primaried. The only real justification for supporting him now is he is not Mitt Romney, but I still believe we can do better."

Santorum voted for the expansion of Medicare (Medicare part D), voted to pour billions into the failed Department of Education bureaucracy, voted against defunding the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts, and voted against simplifying our disaster of a tax code with a flat tax (these are only a few of his unfortunate votes out of a long list).  He also voted for trillions in deficit spending and for increasing the debt ceiling multiple times.  Santorum has repeatedly said he is proud of his earmarks.  He is no fiscal conservative.

Ron Paul's stance on economic and fiscal issues is 100% aligned with Tea Party principles.  Tea Party favorite, Senator Jim DeMint, said as much in this recent statement:

“Ron Paul is right on the fact that we’ve got an out of control and unaccountable Federal Reserve that is eventually going to create a major crisis,” said DeMint. “He’s also right in the importance of individual liberty and the whole constitutional limited government. And more of our candidates need to incorporate that.”

With America on the verge of national bankruptcy, Paul's desire to discontinue all foreign aid across the board is laudable. He is correct that, constitutionally,  all wars must be declared by Congress.  However, Paul's downfall, which I believe produces a ceiling to his support, is his naive foreign policy, especially in regards to Iran, whose leader publicly calls for the annihilation of both Israel and the United States.  Paul seems to have no problem with Iran having possession of a nuclear weapon, even referring to their desire to have one as "understandable".  I agree to a large degree that we can no longer afford to be the world's policeman, nor do I think we need to be in 130 countries, but to bring all of our troops home, while completely turning a blind eye to sworn enemies and real threats is a naive and potentially dangerous view that most Tea Partiers and conservatives (including a lot of libertarians) will have a hard time supporting.  

Rick Perry, successful two-term governor of Texas, the 13th largest economy in the world, has drastically fallen from his immediate front-runner status because of two sub par debate performances, including an embarrassing memory lapse in which he couldn't, for several seconds, remember the third government bureaucracy he would eliminate (that's three more than most candidates have stated!).  

Perry's goal is to make Washington, D.C., as "inconsequential in your lives as possible". This short statement, I believe, accurately summarizes the ultimate goal of the Tea Party in standing against big government.  Perry was against Obama's "stimulus" program, the original outrage of the Tea Party movement, as well as government bailouts.  Like Congressman Paul, Perry has rightfully and forcefully been critical of the Federal Reserve, even going to the point of calling Ben Bernanke's money printing schemes "treasonous".  

Perry's book, "Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington", bluntly written (considerably before he considered running for president) in a non-politically-correct fashion, reads like a Tea Party manifesto.  A partial list of Perry's grievances:

"We are fed up with being overtaxed and overregulated.  We are tired of being told how much salt we can put on our food, what windows we can buy for our house, what kind of cars we can drive, what kinds of guns we can own, what kind of prayers we are allowed to say, what political speech we are allowed to use to elect candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what kind of food we can grow, what doctor we can see, and countless other restrictions on our right to live as we see fit."

Perry continues:

"We are fed up with bailout after bailout and stimulus plan after stimulus plan, each one of which tosses principle out the window along with taxpayer money.  We can't even keep up with all the spending, be it the $700 bill Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the auto industry bailout, the AIG bailout, or President Obama's failed $787 billion 'Recovery Act.'  We are fed up with a federal government that pledged $200 billion (now more that double that!) to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when their mismanagement, coupled with ridiculous federal regulations, led to the inappropriate lending policies underlying the financial crisis in the first place.  And we are fed up with tax credits that amount to pure giveaways to certain citizens at the expense of others--the government picking winners and losers based on circumstance and luck with no real benefit to the economy."

Rick Perry, a huge proponent of the tenth amendment and constitutionally limited government, clearly is the candidate who most closely aligns with the values and concerns of the Tea Party movement.  "Taking a wrecking ball to Washington," as Perry puts it, is what's needed to downsize the leviathan that threatens our liberty and prosperity like never before.  

"Others talk about trimming the bureaucracy; I will eliminate the Departments of Commerce, Energy and Education, gut the activist EPA, freeze bureaucrat salaries and make Congress part-time. Others talk about cleaning up the tax code; I say let Americans throw the whole thing out and pay a simple flat tax instead." -- Rick Perry

Unfortunately, Perry's negatives (occasional mild, harmless gaffes and not the best debater in the world), which pale in comparison to his strong leadership and proven track record, have been overblown by the mainstream media and the political establishment.  Whisper campaigns of "he's stupid" remind me of similar charges against another strong conservative who turned out to be the best president of our lifetimes, Ronald Reagan, who didn't stand a chance against the "intellectually superior", Jimmy Carter.  Sadly, Perry's "Palinization" has been effective in reducing his stature in the race that a near miraculous, although not unprecedented or impossible (remember how fast Santorum rose from 2% to near victory in Iowa) turnaround would be necessary.


I don't know about you, but I'm tired of letting the lefties in the media and the RINO establishment telling me who's most "electable".  The same people who've given us Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and John McCain, all sold to us as the "most electable", turned out to be losers.  Regrettably, it appears that we're going down this road again unless Rick Perry pulls out respectable performances in South Carolina and Florida.  


Both Perry and Gingrich have received considerable heat over their harsh attacks against specific parts of Romney's business background at private equity firm, Bain Capital.  Romney cannot run on his liberal record of governor of Massachusetts, therefore he puts his business experience as his main presidential qualifier.  Since this is what Romney is primarily running on, should his business track record be the "holy grail" of politics and untouchable?  Should it not be scrutinized and properly vetted or is any criticism considered a denouncement on free-market capitalism as a whole, as many Romney defenders have espoused?  I can guarantee you that, should Romney be the eventual nominee, Perry's and Gingrich's shots are mild compared to what he'll face when the liberal media and the Obama team unload their guns.  Romney will look like Gordon Gecko on a good day when they're done with him.  


Tea Partiers, more than any other group, should know the dire situation our country is in.  They should also be the most informed when it comes to understanding the issues, where the candidates stand on them, what their track records are, and which one(s) come closest to mirroring Tea Party principles.  Our country will not financially survive more liberal-lites or "compassionate" conservatives.  Only Governor Rick Perry has the consistent principles, dedication, track record, and solutions to restore limited, constitutional government, protect our borders, balance our budget, protect us militarily, and return America to greatness. 


Cross-posted on RedCounty.com


See: "Club for Growth Rates GOP Candidates Economic Plans"


       "Perry Trumps Gingrich, Santorum as Top Conservative Standing"


       "The Choice"

  

U.S.' Ongoing Decline In Ranking Of Free Economies Endangers Our Standard Of Living

U.S.' Ongoing Decline In Ranking Of Free Economies Endangers Our Standard Of Living - Investors.com: "On the overall index, we slipped from an all-time high of 81.2 in 2007 to 76.3 last year — four years of decline, paralleling a similar slide in quasi-socialist Europe.

Now we're considered only mostly free, ranking just behind the island nations of Mauritius and Ireland, but just ahead of Denmark and Bahrain. Canada is now the freest economy in the Northern Hemisphere.

How did we get here? According to the compilers of the data, the U.S. is a lot less free in a number of areas — including monetary policy, finance, property rights and especially corruption and government spending."