Ted Cruz and Mark Steyn Crush Global Warming Lunatics

Mark Steyn and Sen. Cruz Respond to Sen. Schatz and Admiral Titley at Climate Science Hearing!

The Watermelon People (green on the outside and RED on the inside) have been pushing these global warming lies far too long. Now some of these Marxists want to "lock up" people who will not believe the lies.

Also see:

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'

What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?
By Joseph Bast And Roy Spencer
May 26, 2014

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.


One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.


See the Full Article at The Wall Street Journal Here

Al Gore's Greed and Hypocrisy

The Leader of the Free World Lies With Such Impunity

No wonder there are so many disgruntled Americans when we see all the lies and impeachable offenses from barrack Hussein Obama. Barry Obama, The most racist president since Woodrow Wilson, continues to dismantle the United States financially and only a few speak up.

Below is a terrific article from James Delingpole. James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

If the leader of the free world can lie with such impunity we are doomed


Earlier this week in his State of the Union address President Obama made some observations on climate change so brimming with falsehoods I'm surprised his nose didn't fall off.

It really doesn't matter where he himself was deliberately lying or whether he was merely lending the gravitas of his office to the deliberate lies of others. The point is that the President of the USA has access to any number of fact checkers and advisers and if he stands up and addresses the nation with a farrago of complete untruths then the buck stops with him. This dissembling and mendacity becomes all the more culpable when it forms the basis of major public policy decisions which will have a serious impact on people's lives in the US and beyond.

So why this snake-oil salesman being allowed to get away with it?

Here's the offending part of Obama's speech.

Now, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science and act before it’s too late.

And here's Marc Morano's unanswerable point by point rebuttal. Obama's war on climate change is a war against a chimera. He is enlarging the state, holding back the economic recovery, restricting freedoms, driving up the price of energy and killing jobs in order to deal with a problem which only exists in the discredited computer projections of a shameless cabal of grant-troughing activist scientists increasingly out of touch with real world data.

So why, outside the internet, has no one called him on it?

The answer, I think, lies partly within the question. The internet, it seems to me, is the last bastion of truth in a world corrupted beyond measure.

Who is standing up for Rachel Frosch? Just a bunch of political bloggers and Tweeters.

Who is exposing the lies of the climate change industry? Bloggers, mostly.

Who kept the story of the Obama administration's shameful betrayal of the embassy staff it allowed to be murdered in Benghazi? Conservative bloggers, again – though with support from conservative journals like the American Spectator, which has a must-read piece on the subject here.

I'll tell you what I fear. I think we have now reached that stage of last-days-of-the-Roman-Empire intellectual and moral depravity where almost no one in our dominant corporate/political/financier/lawyer class believes it's worthwhile or even possible to do the right thing any more. Some of them may be vaguely aware that, yes, the only way the world is ever going to recover from the economic mess we're in is through a radical agenda of cost-cutting, contraction of the state, sound money, and lower taxes. But they've made up their minds that none of this is a votewinner in our heavily socialised Western economies and that therefore the only hope is simply to grab what you can while you still can – and forget any fancy, idealistic notions you may have had about making the world a better place.

It disgusts me so much I wonder why I bother. Indeed, if I had my life over again, I don't think I would. I'd train as a lawyer. I'd be running an energy fund with close links to government. I'd be Al Gore or Dale Vince.

Seriously, does anyone have an answer to what I've written here?

Fat Albert and Global Harming

The once handsome but now, grotesquely obese+ugly Al Gore has added yet another iconic ‘charm’’ to his charm bracelet of stupid actions. Actions that have been toxic to humans and harmful to the globe at large. He has sold his soul once again, this time – to Al Jazeera, that paragon publisher of truth, virtue & utter Islamic bullshit.

It seems that Fat Albert Bore (Gore) is currently rollicking in self-gratification at his most recent reincarnation. Who knows what he thinks he is doing this time or who he thinks he is?

He has just sold his share of a failing media mess to Al Jazeera, touting the total compatibility of both their philosophies. Now, isn’t that just too sweet for words?

No need to recount here, all the ways this non-entity has covered himself with a combination of nincompoop and rubber cement. Terribly smelly and quite sticky, I must say. But, for several decades, we’ve all been witness to the many public displays of his prowess as a Kabuki dancer, whose colorful flourishes are painfully symbolic evidence of his wide variety of psychological disorders.

While most of his antics were transparently stupid and likely to merely affect our health and sanity in a bad way, this ‘antic’ is overtly traitorous. It is diabolically calculated to open the door wide to a violently hostile, anti-American purveyor of Islamist-oriented disinformation. And in the process, to provide a national stage for more encroachment and more toxic pollution of our universal information sources. The obvious intent is to do real harm to our national security. Thanks a lot Al, old boy.

This time, ALGORE has crossed the line from being stupidly insipid to being an actual, treasonous tool for use by a sworn enemy of the United States of America. Even though he has sold his interest in this newly enhanced loud-speaker for evil, he says that he will sit on the Board of Al Jazeera. Might we presume that he is remaining available to add to his litany of prostitutions, while still retaining the honor and mantle of a former Vice President of the United States? How cute.

He must be held accountable and made to feel the consequences of his traitorous action. Whatever it takes.

MORT KUFF

More MORT’s meanderings HERE

The Bush Inheritance? - Get Real Barry!

Hat Tip to Mr. I

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(By the way: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

Lowlife BARRY OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress

since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, disgusting Democrats in Congress took control of spending. Barack Obama loved these big spending bills which were nothing compared to his catastrophe.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from vile Democrats like himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

Climategate and Fakegate

The promoters of the global warming hysteria never really recovered from Climategate, the release of e-mails and data which demonstrated that climate insiders were using questionable data, promoting misleading arguments, and conspiring to block dissenting views from the scientific literature. It was a fatal blow to the credibility of the warmists, and it has been followed by a steady stream of distinguished scientists standing up publicly to withdraw their backing from the global warming "consensus." The latest example is an op-ed by sixteen such scientists in the Wall Street Journal, followed up by a devastating response to their critics.

The global warming alarmists are losing the argument, and the latest scandal—James Delingpole calls it Fakegate—shows just how desperate they have become.

7th International Conference on Climate Change

What: Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7)

Theme: Real Science, Real Choices

Where: Hilton Chicago, 720 South Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL

When: Monday, May 21 – Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Real Science, Real Choices

This year's conference theme is "Real Science, Real Choices." The program features approxiamtely 60 scientists and policy experts speaking at plenary sessions and on three tracks of concurrent panel sessions exploring what real climate science is telling us about the causes and consquences of climate change, and the real consequences of choices being made based on the current perceptions of the state of climate science.

Major developments on the science front since the last ICCC took place last summer in Washington, DC include publication of a new report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) updating its 2009 report, Climate Change Reconsidered, and a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on extreme weather events and climate change.

The past year was marked by major retreats in the U.S. and other developing nations from government subsidies and investments in solar and wind power. The widely publicized bankruptcies of renewable energy firms such as Solar Trust of America and Solyndra, and slow economic growth and fiscal crises afflicting many European countries, have forced many policymakers around the world to reconsider the costs and consequences of basing energy choices on fear of man-made global warming.

Climategate and Fakegate

On November 22, 2001, a second batch of emails among scientists working at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was released by an unknown whistle-blower. "Cimategate II" revealed prominent scientists concealing data, discussing global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry, and admitting to scientific uncertainties that they denied in their public statements.

Like an earlier release of emails on November 19, 2009, on the eve of the 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Climategate II caused an uproar in the scientific community and a further drop in public belief in man-made global warming. But a series of friendly investigations of the Climategate affair, along with the timely expiration of the statute of limitations for the offense of failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, spared the scientists involved from any legal penalties.

On February 20, 2012, another global warming scandal broke, this one involving criminal behavior that is likely to be much more difficult to cover up. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, confessed to using fraud to obtain confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute and arranging for them to be posted online. The scandal became known as Fakegate because Gleick also circulated a fake memo he claimed outlined Heartland's "climate strategy."

In his confession, Gleick said "a rational public debate is desperately needed." We agree, which is why we have repeatedly invited scientists with wide-ranging views to speak at these conferences. Indeed, we invited Peter Gleick to speak at a Heartland event, an invitation he turned down on the very day he began his fraud.

ICCC History

Past conferences have taken place in New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and Sydney, Australia and have attracted nearly 3,000 participants from 20 countries. The proceedings have been covered by ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX News, the BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Le Monde, and most other leading media outlets.



Past ICCCs have featured presentations by members of Congress, the president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, and scientists who view themselves as "skeptics" as well as "alarmists." Atmospheric scientist Scott Denning, who believes in man-made global warming, spoke at ICCC-4 in 2010 and ICCC-6 in 2011. Hear his remarks here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkL6TDIaCVw

Attendance Information

ICCC-7 is open to the public. Registration is required. More information is available at the conference Web site. For media credentials, register here or contact Tammy Nash at tnash@heartland.org or 312/377-4000. For more information about The Heartland Institute, visit our Web site or contact Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org or 312/377-4000.

Get Twitter updates of the conference by following @HeartlandInst and the hashtag #ICCC7

Want America to Fail? Vote for Barry

If I Wanted America to Fail

Barry Soetoro is running up crushing federal debt at a level unprecedented in American history. The Muslim Miscreant (Hat Tip to MORT KUFF) has up trillions upon trillions in debt. Barry has endorsed and benefitted from systematic violation of election and campaign funding laws. His election saw widespread voter registration fraud from his bed buddies in his Group, ACORN and systematic acceptance of dubious campaign donations by disabling normal credit card verification procedures for online donations, allowing donations to be made from foreign donors and from donors using fictitious names.

Barrack Hussein Obama is trashing America’s Christian and Judeo-Christian culture. He is constantly treating Christianity as the moral equivalent of atheism and Islam in his public pronouncements — and by proclaiming that America is no longer a Christian nation. He and Hillary raise funds for the Muslim Brotherhood no matter how many American Troops are killed or Women raped by the Muslim radicals.

Job-Killing Cap-and-Trade Schemes

Americans for Prosperity: Environment New Jersey Spews More RGGI Lies into Atmosphere

Another Bogus “Study” Belies the Facts about Job-Killing Cap-and-Trade Scheme

BOGOTA, NJ – Americans for Prosperity, the state’s leading grassroots, free-market organization, is blasting the radical environmental group Environment New Jersey for blatant lies and misleading statements about the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Cap-and-Trade scheme.

In response, AFP state director Steve Lonegan issued the following statement:

“The eco-zealots at Environment New Jersey continue to repeat a number of debunked claims about the failed RGGI scheme, including the absurd notion that this hidden tax on electricity somehow fuels economic growth.

“Given that RGGI’s emissions targets have already been met, one can only conclude that the only ‘green’ the radical environmentalists at Environment New Jersey care about is the green in our wallets and pocketbooks.

“Environment New Jersey’s real desire is to keep in place a slush fund that will use ratepayer dollars to fund their pet projects and other ‘green’ rip-offs in order to keep alive their utopian environmental dreams. Meanwhile the rest of us are left to suffer the consequences in the way of lost jobs and by being socked with higher rates.

“No amount of bogus studies they foist upon is will alter this reality.” ENVIRONMENT NJ CLAIM:

“According to ‘A Record of Leadership: How Northeastern States are Cutting Global Warming Pollution and Building a Clean Economy,’

New Jersey and the 9 other states that participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have cut per capita carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent faster than the rest of the nation, even as the region’s gross product per capita grew 87 percent faster than the rest of the United States.”

FACT: According to RGGI’s own consultants, the cap-and-trade program is unlikely to have any impact on reducing carbon emissions until the Year 2030 (Source: New Jersey Watchdog)

FACT: Falling natural gas prices and reduced demand have been the primary factors in reduced carbon emissions; not RGGI (Source: New Jersey Watchdog)

FACT: There is no proof that RGGI has created net jobs or increased economic growth; such claims are based on a ‘hypothetical simulation’ and “modeling’ forecast with no basis in reality (Source: Institute for Energy Research)

Americans for Prosperity (AFP) is a nationwide organization of citizen-leaders committed to advancing every individual’s right to economic freedom and opportunity.

Green Effort Failures Cost Taxpayers Millions

State Audit Shows Most "Green" Schools Cost More and Are Less Efficient Than Average School

Recently the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Committee (JLARC) released its report on the state's green buildings requirements. The title of the report indicates that the "Impact on Energy Use is Mixed." A casual look at the report shows that the word "mixed" is a generous assessment.

The evidence in the report shows the buildings add millions in costs but deliver little in the way of energy savings or environmental improvement. Here are a few of the conclusions.

•For 14 schools studied in the report, the state and districts paid an additional $10 million to comply with the rules, an average of 2.6 percent more than buildings built before the regulations were imposed.

•Energy savings projections for the buildings are wildly inaccurate. Green building advocates often point to projected energy use to argue the buildings will be more efficient. JLARC found that energy projections for the nine buildings it examined were 52 percent lower than the actual use once buildings opened.

•Of nine "green" schools examined, only one was the most efficient in its school district. Five of the nine schools were actually less efficient than the average school of any age in the district. Most of the new "green" schools are less efficient than buildings that are decades old.

•Most "green" schools improved their energy efficiency over time. The data demonstrate, however, this is primarily because the schools were so inefficient in their first year. For example, Grove Elementary in Marysville ranked in the 26th percentile in energy efficiency of all similar buildings according to the Energy Star rating. The subsequent 19 percent improvement in efficiency was primarily a result of it starting out from such a low point.

•Most "green" schools do not meet Energy Star standards. Eight of 13 "green" schools would not achieve Energy Star rating, awarded to those buildings in the top 25 percent of "similar buildings." This is especially noteworthy because many "similar buildings" are much older. Even those that do meet the standards are still poor when compared to other local schools. Sherwood Forest Elementary school in Bellevue is the 12th most efficient of 16 elementary schools in Bellevue. Rachel Carson Elementary in the Lake Washington School District is 8th of 27. This indicates both that the Energy Star rating is a questionable measure of performance for these buildings and that district officials were building efficient buildings long before the new regulations took effect.

•JLARC's study notes that of $455,826 spent by the Spokane School District to bring Lincoln Heights Elementary up to the "green" requirements, only $81,000, about 18%, was spent on the energy efficiency elements. The other 82 percent was spent to meet other elements of the standard that did not yield savings. Put simply, the mandates required the district to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars simply to meet the law's guidelines.

Most importantly, the report shows the "green" building standards do not pay for themselves in any reasonable time frame. Examining two "green" schools, JLARC notes the payback time ranged from 27 to 30 years. Even this is generous for two reasons.

First, these don't include a discount rate. They assume that paying a dollar today to save a dollar in thirty years makes sense, when clearly it does not. When adjusting for rising energy costs (which makes the payback time shorter) and the discounted value of money (which increases payback time), the time to recover the costs increases to 43 years. Since no school building goes 43 years without changes and improvements, the "green" requirements will never pay for themselves.

Second, the study looks at only two schools. One of them, Lincoln Heights elementary in Spokane, is the best performing "green" school in that district. If the study had examined Lidgerwood or Ridgeview, two "green" schools which perform worse than Lincoln Heights, the payback time might have been even longer. It is unclear, however, because the JLARC study does not report the additional construction costs for those schools.

When the green schools legislation was passed in 2005, the Washington Conservation Voters and other advocates promised the schools would cut energy use by about 30 percent and the buildings would quickly pay for themselves. JLARC has now confirmed that this is false, backing up the analysis we have been providing for the past six years.

Given this failure, what will the legislature do? If the goal is to improve energy efficiency and put funding where it will make the best impact on the environment, the legislature will remove these failed regulations. If, however, adopting "green" building legislation is primarily about cultivating a "green" political image, little will be done because changing the rules will risk the political benefits candidates received by supporting the legislation. Time will tell which is more important to legislators.

By Todd Myers
Director, Center for the Environment


Read More at Washington Policy Center

RICK SANTORUM SCHOOLS INCOHERENT BOB SCHIEFFER

The Lamestream Media or Main Stream Media as they wish to be called when they take off their BROWN SHIRTS have spun more dribble on about Rick Santorum. Santorum points out facts about Barry Soetoro supporting and ideology that is based on lies. The ideology that Gore and Obama and the Brown Shirts try and shove down our throats is ludicrous. Many Senior Citizens are dying in Europe the past two years due to the cold weather. The Green Movement started by Commies is just a means to control the masses further while eliminating the Old and the Poor.

Inhumane Treatment of Elderly Patients on UK Healthcare INFO HERE


Below is a rush transcript of "Face the Nation" on February 19, 2012, hosted by CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. Guest is Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Today on FACE THE NATION, did you hear what Rick Santorum said. He's the man of the hour in Republican politics and he's with us this morning. The latest leader in the Republican race at the top of the national polls and even in Michigan where Mitt Romney grew up. Yesterday, he was feeling his oats. In one twenty-four-hour-period he questioned the President's religious beliefs.


RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology, oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology, but none-- no-- no less a theology.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Said prenatal testing is really just the President's way to reduce costs in taking care of the disabled.


RICK SANTORUM: Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And questioned the value of public schools.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea that the federal government should be running schools frankly much less that the state government should be running schools is anachronistic.


BOB SCHIEFFER: We'll ask him about all of it this morning, then check in with our round table of Norah O'Donnell and John Dickerson, plus Karen Tumulty of The Washington Post and Todd Spangler of The Detroit Free Press.


This is FACE THE NATION.


ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington FACE THE NATION with Bob Schieffer.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And good morning. Welcome, Senator.


You are the leader in the polls this morning. And I have to say you were very busy yesterday. The Associated Press led its story of your appearance in Columbus, Ohio, by saying, quote, "Rick Santorum questioned Barack Obama's Christian values." That was after you lashed out at the President's proposal on energy of all things when you said this.


RICK SANTORUM (Republican Presidential Candidate/Former Pennsylvania Senator): It's not about you. It's not about you. It's not about your quality of life. It's not about your jobs.


MAN: Right.


RICK SANTORUM: It's about some phony ideal, some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology.


(Crowd applauding)


BOB SCHIEFFER: So, Senator, I've got to ask you. What-- what in the world were you talking about, Sir?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, I was talking about the-- the radical environmentalists. That's why I was talking about energy, this-- this idea that-- that man is-- is not-- is here to serve the Earth as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a-- a-- is a phony ideal. I don't believe that that's what-- that's what we're here to do. That-- we-- that-- that man is here to-- to use the resources and use them wisely, to care for the Earth, to be a steward of the Earth. But we're not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective. And-- and I think a lot of radical-- a-- a-- a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside down.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, how does that translate into some sort of theology that the President's theology--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): Well, it's-- it's a world view.


BOB SCHIEFFER: --is not based on the Bible. I mean that suggests that he's not a Christian.


RICK SANTORUM: No, I wasn't suggesting that President's not a Christian. I accept the fact that the President is a Christian. I-- I just said that when you have a-- a-- a world view that-- that elevates the Earth above man and-- and-- and says that, you know, we can't take those resources because we're going to harm the Earth by-- by things that are-- that-- that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, that politicization of the whole global warming debate, I mean, this is just all-- all-- all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government. And-- and it's not questioning the President's beliefs in-- in Christianity. I'm talking about, you know, his-- the-- the belief that-- that man is-- should be in charge of the earth and should have--


BOB SCHIEFFER (voice overlapping): No, but once--


RICK SANTORUM: --dominion over it and should be good stewards of it.


BOB SCHIEFFER: I-- I don't want to just spend the whole program on this, but was your--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): Good.


BOB SCHIEFFER: --use of the word theology, perhaps, you could have had a better word than that? I mean, don't you know that-- that--


RICK SANTORUM (voice overlapping): It--


BOB SCHIEFFER: --or do you wonder that-- that might lead some people to suggest that you were questioning the President's faith?


RICK SANTORUM: Well-- no, because I've repeatedly said I don't question the President's faith. I've-- I've repeatedly said that I believe the President is a Christian. He says he is a Christian. But I'm talking about his world view or his-- the-- the way he approaches problems in this country and I think they're-- they're different than how most people do in America.


BOB SCHIEFFER: At another stop in Columbus, you took on the Pres-- President on prenatal care for expectant mothers. Here's what you said at this-- in this passage.


RICK SANTORUM: One of the things that you don't know about Obamacare and one of the mandates is they require free prenatal testing in every insurance policy in America. Why? Because it saves money in health care. Why? Because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I-- I have to ask you to-- to give some explanation of that. You sound like you're saying that the purpose of prenatal care is to cause people to-- to have abortions, to get more abortions in this country. I think there are any number testing, I think any number of people would-- would say that's not the purpose at all.


RICK SANTORUM: Well, Bob, that's simply not true. The-- the bottom line is that a lot of prenatal tests are done to identify deformities in-- in utero and the customary procedure is to encourage abortions and in fact, prenatal testing that-- that particularly amniocentesis. I'm not talking about general prenatal care. You said prenatal care. I-- I didn't say prenatal care shouldn't be covered. We're talking about specifically prenatal testing and specifically amniocentesis, which is a-- which is a procedure that actually creates a risk of having a miscarriage when you have it and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb. In-- in which in many cases and in fact most cases a physicians recommend, particularly if there's a problem, recommend abortion. We know, Bob, that ninety percent of Down syndrome children in America are aborted. So to suggest where does that come from? I have a child who has trisomy 18. Almost a hundred percent of trisomy 18 children are encouraged to be aborted. So, I know what I'm talking about here.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, I-- I know you know what you're talking about. I know that well. I know you also had another child that was stillborn. But--


RICK SANTORUM (overlapping): And I was--


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): Didn't you want to know about that, just a minute.


(Cross talking)


BOB SCHIEFFER: Just hold on.


RICK SANTORUM: But what my-- my child was not stillborn. My child was born alive.


BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.


RICK SANTORUM: --and he lived two hours.


BOB SCHIEFFER: All right.


RICK SANTORUM: And by the way, prenatal testing was-- we had a-- we had a sonogram done there and they detected a problem. And, yes, the doctor said, you know, you-- you should consider an abortion. This is typical, Bob. This is what goes on and in-- in medical rooms around the country. And yes, prenatal testing, amniocentesis does, in fact, result more often than not in this country in abortions. That is-- that is a fact.


BOB SCHIEFFER: I stand corrected on the stillborn. You're absolutely right. I simply misspoke. But, Senator, do you not want any kind of prenatal testing? I mean would we just turn our back on science that this is something that expectant mothers should not go through, that it's best not to know about these things ahead of time? I mean is that what you're saying here?


RICK SANTORUM: No, I'm not saying. Look, people have the right to do it but to have the government force people to provide it free, just as to me, has a has is-- is a bit loaded. There are all sorts of prenatal testing which should be provided free. I have no problem with that if the-- if the insurance companies want to. I'm not for any of these things to be forced. Just let me-- just step back and say I don't believe any of these procedures, anything in insurance should be forced. So let me-- let me just start from there.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea of having, for example, sonograms and other types of prenatal care, absolutely, if-- if I think that is-- that is a wise thing to do. And If I was an employer, I would certainly encourage that. But not all prenatal testing, amniocenteses basically are used for the purposes of identifying children who are disabled and in most cases end up as a result with abortions. It's the bottom line.


BOB SCHIEFFER (overlapping): You're not saying. Let me just ask you, you're not saying that the cause of this, that the President looks down on disabled people, are you? You're not accusing him of that?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, the President supported partial birth abortion and partial birth abortion is a procedure used almost exclusively to-- to kill children late in pregnancy when they've been found out to be disabled. The President voted for a provision that-- that said that children born alive as a result of abortions late in pregnancy who were-- who were otherwise viable should be allowed to be killed by the doctor. I think the President has a very bad record on-- on-- on the issue of abortion and children who are disabled who are in the womb. And I think this simply is a continuation of that idea.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, since you brought all this up, I just wanted to make sure that everybody had a clear understanding of exactly what you meant--


RICK SANTORUM: Yeah.


BOB SCHIEFFER: And-- and how you feel about this. Another thing that raised a few eyebrows yesterday, Senator, you questioned the value of all things at the public school system. Now here's what you said about that.


RICK SANTORUM: But the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly, much less that the state government should be running schools is anachronistic. It goes back to the time of industrialization of America when people came off the farms where they did home school or have the little neighborhood school and into these big factories. So we built equal factories called public schools.


BOB SCHIEFFER: So, there you are, Senator. I mean, are you saying that we shouldn't have public schools now? I mean I thought public schools were the foundation of American democracy.


RICK SANTORUM: Yeah, I think, I'm saying that-- that local communities and-- and parents should be the ones who are in control of public education, not the-- certainly not the federal government and to as I said before, as I said in that clip I think the state governments have not done a particularly good job in public education. I think public education should be a dynamic process that's locally run, that works with parents to provide the optimal opportunity for each child in America to get the education that they need, not what the federal government or the state government says that you should have. That's why I refer to it as, you know, going back to the industrialization of America when we had a-- we had a system in-- in this country with industrialization where, you know, you had one car produced. And, you know, you maybe got it in two colors. And-- and we haven't changed public education significantly since then. Every single car on a Detroit line is custom ordered. Why? Because it's designed to meet the needs of the customer. The education system, federally run, state run, is not designed to meet the-- meet the needs of the customer. It's designed for the purposes of the school not the children and the parents who are the customers of that system. And I think we need a dramatic change in that system.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, Senator, if everybody could afford to home school their children that would be one thing but--


RICK SANTORUM: I'm not talking about home schooling. I'm talking about public education, Bob.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, you know, there are little communities where the people couldn't afford to have a public school. And that's why you have states involved in the schools. And there-- there--


RICK SANTORUM: Well, there's one thing the state-- there's one thing for states to-- to help fund public education. It's another thing to dictate and micromanage and-- and create a "one size fits all education" system in states and certainly in the federal government what President Obama is trying to do. What we need is to have the same kind of change and dynamic change in the public school system as we've seen in the economy of this country. Customized. Everybody gets what they need. I have seven children. I can tell you each one of them learn differently. All of them can excel in different settings. And that goes with every-- every American child. And we can do better than a system that one in three children drop out of school. If that is the hallmark, Bob, that you talk about as a-- as a great society, when one of three children drop out of school and a lot of the folks who don't drop out of school still can't read at grade level, that to me is a failure and defending that failure is not something I'm planning on doing which is what the President does.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Well, what-- what do you do to-- what would you do to fix it, Senator?


RICK SANTORUM: Well, as I said before, first I'd get the federal government out. I would, to the extent possible with res-- with respect to mandates and-- and designing curriculum and the like, I would get the state government out. I think that-- that the parents should be in charge working with the local school district to try to design an educational environment for each child that optimizes their potential. And whether it's in a public school or a private school or a Christian school or whatever kind of-- and whatever kind of setting that is best that the people at the local level can determine, I think that's where we need to go in education. It's got to be a much more dynamic process. We are failing American children. We're failing our society with having these high rates of dropouts and the people graduating without the skills or frankly without the value structure that's necessary to be able to go out and work hard and to be able to-- to produce in our society and to build strong communities. And I think we need some really dramatic changes. And we're not getting that.


BOB SCHIEFFER: Senator, I want to thank you very much for being with us this morning. I had hoped to ask you about some questions about the economy. But, frankly, you made so much news yesterday, out there on the campaign trail, I felt compelled to ask you about that. Thank you so much for being with us.


RICK SANTORUM: Well, I'm-- I'm happy to make news about-- about important issues of the day that obviously don't get talked about a lot.

Convenient Lies from Al Gore

Dear Editor of the Sin Sentinel,

Your front page headline article (Sun. Nov. 20), "The Signs of Global
Warming", touting the signs of man-made global warming, is totally
slanted toward the "environmental whacko" projection of fraudulent
man-made global warming.

A perfect example of this fraud can be illustrated by that global warming
guru, Al Gore, who proclaimed that due to the the melting of the polar
ice-caps, most all cities abutting the oceans, will be flooded out due
to the oceans reaching 20 ft. above the present sea levels.

So what does the pseudo-scientist, Al Gore do, he buys property along
the California coastline. Maybe he knows something we don't know or
that he won't tell us the truth?

That must be his "Inconvenient Truth" or is it a "Convenient Lie".
Let's have an article, in the future, by some reputable global warming
"deniers", of which there are thousands. The Sun-Sentinel always
tries to be fair and balanced, right?

Sincerely,

Chuck on the Right Side

STIMULUS CHECK

Sometime this year, we taxpayers will again may receive another 'Economic Stimulus' payment.

This is indeed a very exciting program, and I'll explain it by using a Q & A format:


Q. What is an 'Economic Stimulus' payment?

A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.


Q.. Where will the government get this money?

A. From taxpayers.


Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?

A. Only a smidgen of it.


Q. What is the purpose of this payment?

A. The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.


Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China?

A. Shut up.


Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.S. economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:

* If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China or Sri Lanka.

* If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.

* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India, Taiwan or China .

* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.

* If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea.

* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan.

* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.


Instead, keep the money in America by:


1) Spending it at yard sales, or

2) Going to ball games, or

3) Spending it on prostitutes, or

4) Beer or

5) Tattoos.


(These are the only American businesses still operating in the U.S.)

Conclusion:

Go to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink beer all day!

No need to thank me, I'm just glad I could be of help


Hat Tip to George Giftos writer of Faulty Material

Faulty Material

President Obama decided to cease operations in Iraq by the end
of the year even though our mission has not been completed there.
He added, "it will enable us to build up our country again", not
acknowledging his responsibility for having torn it down in the first
place, by his inept policies for which he blames others for.

Negative statistics have increased significantly since his tenure,
and positive progress has become stagnant or diminishing under
his administration's Chicago style political guidance; not Iraq,
not Afghanistan, not Bush!

Another four years of him will get us to a point of no return and
a hole we will never be able to dig ourselves out of.

Idiots voted him into office, and you know the old saying,
"Birds of a Feather Flock Together," because they understand
him and he speaks their language.

From the beginning his plan for our country has always been to
tear America down so that he can rebuild it with his own ideological
lumber and bricks; but it turns out the material and construction
methods he wants to incorporate are inferior and unreliable.

Europe's socialist nations, primarily Greece, are structured with the
same philosophical material and they are crumbling under economic
stress. We borrowed the theme of democracy from Greece. Let us not
borrow its destructive ways.

By abandoning Iraq now, we will be leaving an ember waiting to ignite
into a much larger problem to cope with in the future.

Conservative Commentary by George Giftos

MORT’s Meanderings

WANTED:
A few good men and women who wore the uniform

Here is a ‘JOBS PLAN’ that as I see it, makes sense.

I believe the time is now, to repopulate the halls of Congress with dozens of former members of the U.S. Military. The men and women who have completed successful careers in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard, possess precisely the qualities needed in those who deserve to be elected to represent and protect the legal citizens of the United States.

They understand the meaning of the words ‘honor, duty and commitment’. And too, they thoroughly understand the implications of swearing a sacred oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States of America. They have no illusions regarding what it takes to live up to that oath, 24/7.

They’ve proven by their dedicated service to our nation, that they readily accept the burdens of ‘honor, duty and commitment’. I would love to see a requirement for a Congressional candidate to have served at least one regular hitch in a branch of the U. S. Armed Forces and received an Honorable Discharge, added to the criteria for qualification to run for office. To have a substantial number of veterans of our military serving in the Congress, would be in my opinion, a tremendous boost in the level of character, commitment and leadership in the Congress.

Who better to fill these jobs than men and women who have been highly trained in the disciplines of preserving the principles upon which this nation was founded and who have actually spent years guarding the virtue and freedoms we cherish above all else? Who better to serve as civilian guardians of the Constitution than those who have spent so much of their careers doing that job as military guardians? They don’t have to be taught American history - they’ve lived it, they’ve written it. Back in their early days as raw recruits, they learned to be self-reliant and yet, be part of a tightly-knit unit – to function as a team – and when the situation called for it, to quickly step forward into a leadership role. Only as a member of our military can this kind of individual development be experienced. Only as a member of our Armed Forces can these valuable lessons-learned and skills acquired, be imprinted indelibly onto the very DNA of ordinary citizens. Thus, these ‘ordinary’ citizens who’ve served our nation and worn the uniform, comprise an invaluable resource from which to draw truly exceptional candidates for elected office.

And, because they have become extraordinarily adept at recognizing and evaluating emergencies and have been so thoroughly schooled and practiced at prioritizing, planning and implementation, they are well positioned to function effectively in elected office – with a minimum of wasted effort and a maximum of on-target results. They expect to hit the bullseye.

Even though they might have spent several decades in uniform and earned the perks of retirement, many will still heed the call to extend their service to our nation by devoting another six or eight productive years as a Member of the United States Congress. We should only be so lucky.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

Democrat Party Crushes America

January 3, 2007---Time for a reminder.

Don’t just skim over this, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out.


The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.

The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day...

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

THANK YOU DEMOCRATS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?

OBAMA and the Democrat Congress

So when someone tries to blame Bush...

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress

since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.

If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

Democrats Brought About the Financial Crisis

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for
and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!

Hat Tip to George Giftos

MORT’s Meanderings

Objective reporting: A thing of the past

After reading a recent report in the SunSentinel by their political writer, Anthony Man, about Florida Congressman West’s role in an upcoming Chamber of Commerce event to be held in Washington, I was left with a distinct sense of a palpable urge on the part of Mr. Man, to ferret out and report ‘something untoward’ in West’s participation. While Man never actually articulated such a concern, he left no doubt that he has unexpressed reservations about Cong. West.

Call me crazy but ever since he began to cover candidate Allen West, it has been obvious to interested observers, myself included, that Anthony Man has harbored an antipathy with regard to retired U. S. Army Ltc. West, now a duly-elected Congressman. I do admit to a bias; I am an avid supporter of Allen West. Anthony Man however, would certainly deny his bias all day long, as he projects his aforementioned antipathy from behind the curtain around his computer keyboard that obscures his real mindset.

Once again, we are confronted with a biased journalist masquerading as an honest-unbiased reporter of, ‘who-what-where-and-when’.
And my friends, that is an uncontestable fact.

Whose word are you going to take - mine or Snopes?
Ha, I thought so.

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

MORT’s Meanderings

GLOBAL WORMING:

The science is unsettled but, the intent is clear.

Ever since the blasts of hot air first began to blow from that ill wind who blows no good, AL ‘Numbnutz’ GORE, the looney-tunes who bought into his nonsense have somehow, managed to become the tail that wags the dog.

For reasons of pure greed and personal aggrandizement, Gore and his army of loose-hinged followers have managed to throw every department of our Federal Government into a tizzy of stumbling over themselves trying to make every issue that should be red, white & blue – into a bilious shade of green. Meaning that no matter the issue, a pall of fault, guilt and blame has been cast over it in order to torture it into some form of green issue. That’s where the Global WORMing comes in. The ’green’ of course, translates into the great gobs of tax dollars the EPA is legally ‘worming’ (extorting) from the hapless citizenry of these United States, regardless of the ludicrous and illogical fake-science put forth by that agency in order to justify its case.

It stinks. Al Gore stinks. The EPA stinks. The Administration that is so complicit in this Federal hustle, stinks.It is a false, phony, illegitimate and corrupt issue. My scientific case for justification of this viewpoint? How about a few million years of history of this globe heating and cooling as it damned well pleased, without the benefit or Al Gore’s stupid, half-witted scientific opinion? And somehow, the human race is still roaming over the surface, bravely but breathlessly, waiting for the Arctic Ocean to flood Florida’s shoreline. Oy vay!

Conservative Commentary by MORT KUFF © 2011

The Demise of One Time Icons

It is quite troubling for me to understand why so many editorial
boards of leading newspapers and other journalist media outlets follow the
liberal line. It's a dangerous road to take because through history, I have
learned their influence sways disgruntled masses into mobs giving rise
to totalitarian governments that take advantage of the turmoil to make
changes detrimental to our freedoms. Using the first amendment irresponsibly
will lose it for all of us.

It doesn't take long for the press to lose independence and become a tool
of government. Maybe a few proponents of drastic liberalism might retain
their positions because they tow the line of state run media. Patsies for
tyrants.

We know who the very liberal main stream media and publications patsies
are in this country, because their views are one sided biased commentaries
that won't allow fair and balanced disagreement. I tried many times to have
my letters to the editor accepted for publication, including this one, to no avail.

My right to express freedom of speech is unacceptable, because it is contrary to
what they preach; therefore I am denied access to contrast my views against
theirs so that their readers and listeners can have a broader opinion view to
judge for themselves. An occasional conservative commentary is sometimes thrown
in to obviously quell criticism.

Publishers and producers do not realize the implication this one sided,
liberal left position can take for their very existence. They are
shooting themselves in the foot. As it is, dwindling circulations
and audiences are taking their toll on these left of center vehicles.

In a similar state is the mainstream broadcasters, CNN and MSNBC. Combined,
they do not enjoy the audience Fox News commands. What do some of these names
have in common? Leslie Marshall, Steve Murphy, Mo Elliethee, Doug Schoen, Lanny
Davis, Alan Colmes, Kristen Powers. Bob Beckel, Michael Brown, Penny Lee, Charlie
Rangel, Al Sharpton and Tamara Holder. They are just a small list of Liberal
Democrats that have appeared on Fox to defend their position. Also employed
by Fox are Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera and Greta Van Susteren. The full
list would be impossible to fit in these pages. No member of congress is
denied access to Fox and many have taken advantage of it.

Some members of congress are fighting to pass a fairness act;
George Soros and a tax exempt organization Media Matters, funded
by him and the broadcasters mentioned above all want to destroy
Fox News for broadcasting what they choose to ignore because it
is contrary to their agendas and exposes the flaws of the
current administration.

Conservative Commentary by George Giftos

Texas Governor Rick Perry's Speech in New Orleans

Texas Governor Rick Perry fired up the Conservatives at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. We have the C-SPAN video of his hard hitting speech, and it clearly shows Rick Perry can captivate a national audience.

"I gotta brag on Texas values for a bit," Rick Perry mentioned, before citing the state of Texas job growth numbers. He also made an unabashed appeal for social-conservative values and warned the GOP to not cave in to the "left."

Texas Governor Rick Perry received standing ovations and when he exited the room the frenzied crowd screamed for him to run for President. Can Texas Governor Rick Perry kick the tar out of the ACORN Community Organizer? We think so and our Country needs Rick Perry Economics.

Help Wanted - We Need Rick Perry Economics

Texas has over the past two years, added more than 200,000 jobs. Without any help from Barry Soetoro and his Marxist Regime. These jobs have came under one Governor Rick Perry’s watch. That is more than any other state, as companies flee high-tax states to get to Texas. Screw Sharia Law Soetoro, screw Socialism, screw affirmative action and STOP Marxism!

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/your-world-cavuto/transcript/help-wanted-rick-perry-economy-2012#ixzz1PmH6LHzM

Rick Perry: Republicans should "stop apologizing"
NEW ORLEANS, LA - JUNE 18: Texas governor Rick Perry speaks during the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference on June 18, 2011 in New Orleans, Louisiana.

(Credit: Justin Sullivan)
NEW ORLEANS - Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry - a highly-buzzed-about potential GOP presidential candidate - said at the Republican Leadership Conference Saturday that Republicans should "stop apologizing" for taking conservative positions on social and fiscal issues.

"It saddens me when sometimes my fellow Republicans duck and cover in the face of pressure from the left," said Perry, referencing calls for a "truce" on social issues. He added: "Our party cannot be all things to all people."

"Our opponents on the left are never going to like us, so let's quit trying to curry favor with them," continued Perry.

He called on the party activists present to "stand up" and "speak with pride about our morals and our values ... let's stop this American downward spiral."