As I reported yesterday, Texas Governor Rick Perry is the subject of a lot of conjecture, concerning whether of not he plans to mount a campaign for the Republican Presidential Nomination.

On April 9, 2009, Governor Perry issued the following statement:

I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state.

That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.

So, how do the citizens of the Republic of Texas feel about their Chief Executive and the job that he is doing?  And how is he handling the challenges of governing the largest state in our contiguous 48?

Last January, a consortium of Texas newspapers commissioned a poll which asked Texas their opinion of their politicians.

The poll showed Governor Rick Perry’s approval ratings among Texans coming in at over 50 percent, up from 46 percent in 2010.  52 percent said that they believed that Texas was heading in the right direction.

Jennifer Sauer, 32, of Elmendorf, Texas, said:

I’m not that political. I think things have been going great lately. That’s why I was saying for him not to run for president. He needs to stay in Texas.

Some “Distinguished Alumni” from Texas A & M beg to differ with Ms. Sauer.

Here’s an excerpt from a  post found on the May 3rd, 2011 on-line edition of the Houston Chronicle:

On Tuesday, 22 A&M graduates honored as “Distinguished Alumni” by the Association of Former Students warned that “an extraordinary level of political intervention in our university” could damage A&M’s reputation, particularly “proposals to fundamentally change how research universities in Texas fulfill their educational responsibilities.”

The signatories, most of them wealthy Texas businessmen who have contributed generously to their alma mater and have served in leadership positions at the university, ranged in graduation class from 1949 to 1967. Perry graduated from A&M in 1972.

“It is our opinion that several of these proposals will do significant damage,” the alumni wrote. “We encourage you to ask the Board of Regents to end their well-known support for the seven proposals. We call on you to ask the board of Regents to resist inappropriate political intervention …”

In response to one of the “seven solutions” promoted by Perry and Sandefer, Texas A&M published an online ranking of professors on their “productivity” based on the number of students they taught.

The ranking earned the university a rebuke from the prestigious Association of American Universities, an organization of the nation’s top research institutions.

This missive was titled “Open Letter to the Texas A&M University Community”. In it, the alumni criticized the proposals of Jeff Sandefer, an Austin businessman and architect of the “Seven Breakthrough Solutions.” Sandefer’s suggestions had been supported by Governor Perry as a way to make higher education more cost-effective.

Sandefer contributed nearly $450,000 to Perry’s campaigns.

And if you think that Governor Perry is engaged in a war with Texas Liberals over Education Reform.  You ain’t seen nothing, yet.

You remember, Gentle Reader, that Texas is a Border State, right?

Well, Governor Perry has championed an immigration bill that almost tore the Texas House of Representatives apart before it was passed.

The original bill would allow local police to question anyone they detain about their citizenship status.

However, it was derailed yesterday as a key Senate committee voted to take out the police enforcement measure that “concerned” citizens had packed a committee room to testify against.

The proposed legislation, nicknamed the “sanctuary cities” bill, had been declared an emergency by Gov. Rick Perry and had naturally been the center of a passionate and racially charged verbal donnybrook.

Leading up to the Texas House’s vote, there were a lot of differing opinions about the purpose of the bill.

The bill’s author, Republican Burt Solomons, said:

It simply prevents cities from telling officers to turn a blind eye to violators of federal law.

House Democrats disagreed.   State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer told reporters:

It’s the largest anti-Hispanic bill I’ve seen in Texas.

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo told a House committee in March:

At a time with dwindling resources, we’re very concerned with placing the job of the federal government in the hands of state and local” entities. Quite frankly, I’m not sure what we’re trying to fix.

When asked about some police chiefs opposing the measure, Perry referred reports back to the last Election.

My response is that I hope they were paying attention on the second day of November, 2010, when the people of the state of Texas said pretty clearly that they wanted to have a sanctuary city prohibition in our statute. I talked a lot about it during the campaign.

In conclusion, it appears that the majority of the citizens of Texas support their Governor and the things that he is trying to accomplish for them.  The problem is, Governor Perry has to work with his Legislative Branch.  He can’t just rule by diktat, as a certain resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. is attempting.

As the Moderate potential Republican Presidential Candidates, foisted upon America by the GOP Elite and the Main Stream Media seemingly commit mass seppuku in front of the national cameras, Americans are wondering when a truly Conservative candidate will announce their candidacy.

From deep in the heart of Texas come rumors that Governor Rick Perry may be considering throwing his ten gallon hat into the ring.

A state politician who is a friend of Gov. Perry’s told realclearpolitics.com that Perry has been talking to a few important political strategists and believes that there is a vacuum in the race for the Republican nominee that he can step in and fill.

With fellow Southerners Mike Huckabee and Haley Barbour out of the race, Perry is beginning to glimpse a view of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from his house.

One of Perry’s “buds” has been scouting the lay of the land in Iowa for him. Another told a small group in the primary state to:

Keep your powder dry.

Perry’s covert operation was not a shock to Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist and Bush administration veteran, who remarked:

I’m not aware of Perry making calls, although it wouldn’t surprise me.

According to an e-mail written by Dave Carney, a Perry political strategist who now works for Gingrich’s presidential effort, there’s nothing to see here. Move along:

The Governor has not called anyone about running for POTUS. I’d like to know of one person who says they received such a call. He is calling raising funds for the Republican Governors Association, of which he currently serves as chair.

Who is Rick Perry? According to the Texas Governor’s official biography:

Rick Perry’s political career started in 1985 as a representative for a rural West Texas district in the state House of Representatives. He was first elected to statewide office in 1990, and served as Texas Commissioner of Agriculture for two terms. Governor Perry hails from Paint Creek, a small farming community north of Abilene. His father, Ray Perry, served as a Haskell County Commissioner, school board member and a World War II tail gunner. Between 1972 and 1977, Governor Perry served in the United States Air Force, flying C-130 tactical airlift aircraft in the U.S., Europe and the Middle East.

He is a 1972 graduate of Texas A&M University where he was a member of the Corps of Cadets, a junior and senior yell leader and an animal science major. The younger of Ray and Amelia Perry’s two children, Governor Perry is an Eagle Scout and lifetime member of American Legion Post #75.

He first met Anita Thigpen at a piano recital during their elementary school years. They married in 1982 and are the proud parents of two grown children — Griffin and Sydney. Griffin married his wife, Meredith, in 2009.

Let’s see how he stacks up using my measuring rod of choice, the three-leggged stool of Reagan Conservatism:

1.  Fiscal Conservatism – Again, per his official website:

During his tenure, Governor Perry has maintained a strong focus on fiscal discipline, becoming only the only Texas governor since World War II to sign budgets that reduced general revenue spending. He has used his line item veto to scrub more than $3 billion in budgeted spending, while encouraging investments in the building blocks of a prosperous state: the economy, education and security.

The Texas economy is performing well in the current global economic crisis, thanks to a focused effort to keep taxes low, regulations predictable and legal system fair. Gov. Perry led the effort to reform the legal system, signing into law a series of lawsuit reforms designed to stem the flow of frivolous lawsuits through Texas courts. As a result, employers can devote their resources to creating jobs instead of defending against those frivolous lawsuits.

It comes as no surprise that Gov. Perry’s hard-line Fiscal Conservatism has made him a Tea Party Favorite.

2.  Social Conservatism – In 2005, Perry signed into law a moderate abortion bill that limits late term abortions and requiring girls under the age of 18 to have parental permission for an abortion. He actually signed the bill in the gymnasium of Calvary Christian Academy in Fort Worth, an evangelical Christian school. He came under fire from abortion advocates for his actions.

He is also known for his socially conservative views on homosexuality, publically condemning the United States Supreme Court decision in Lawrence vs. Texas striking down sodomy laws. According to the governor, Texas’s last such law was “appropriate.”

Perry is pro-death penalty, as are the overwhelming majority of Texans.

Per Texas law, the Board of Pardon and Parole must make a recommendation to commute a death sentence, which the Governor is free to ignore. However, if the Board does not make such a recommendation the Governor cannot then commute the sentence. The only power a Texas Governor has is to issue one 30-day reprieve.

Regarding Border Issues, Gov. Perry said:

We’re very concerned that the federal government is not funding border security adequately. We must be ready for any contingency.

3.  National Defense –

As the Governor of Texas, Perry has adopted the stance detailed in the National Governors Association position paper, which states:

The issue of terrorism will be of major focus for the 107th Congress. Governors have a critical interest in controlling domestic terrorism because they are responsible for ensuring that state and local authorities have the ability to deal with natural disasters and other types of major emergencies, including terrorist incidents.

NGA believes that any national strategy for dealing with terrorist incidents should include planning and training by state and local forces. The unique nature of terrorism coupled with national security implications requires the support and expertise of the federal government in working with state and local government in developing capabilities. A clear national strategy developed through a partnership among federal agencies and key state, local, and private sector stakeholders is essential to drive operational and programmatic planning, training, and service delivery in combating terrorism.

So, the Texas Governor’s political stances seem to line up within the established parameters of Reagan Conservatism.

Whether or not Texas Governor Rick Perry decides to enter the Rodeo known as the Republican Presidential Primary is anybody’s guess.  If he does saddle up, whether he can stay on that bucking bronco for the full eight seconds, is another thing indeed.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, in an appearance last Sunday morning on NBC’s Meet the Press with David Gregory, called his own political party’s plan for Medicare Reform”right-wing social engineering”.

Denouncing House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan’s plan to reform and restructure Medicare, Gingrich said:

I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.

In the same interview, the seemingly-oblivious, newly-announced presidential candidate voiced his support in requiring that all Americans be forced to buy health insurance, basically siding with fellow GOP Elitist Mitt Romney and throwing a money wrench in the Republican Party’s plan to attack Obamacare and the promise to repeal and replace the Unconstitutional law that the Republicans made before the 2010 Midterm Elections.

Doubling down on his cluelessness, Gingrich later told the Wall Street Journal Sunday that he knew that many Republicans are uncomfortable with requiring insurance coverage, but challenged them to offer an alternative solution:

Most Republican voters agree with the principle that people have some responsibility to pay for their costs.

The former speaker went on to say that he wants to see the mandate implemented at the state level, leaving it up to them to experiment with alternative approaches.

According to Gingrich, the individual mandate should apply to all Americans.

Monday, the GOP Elite were scrambling about, like clowns endlessly streaming out of a tiny car in the center ring of Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus, in a feverish attempt at damage control.

Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett, on his syndicated radio program Monday Morning, was torqued off.  Calling Gingrich’s Social Engineering comment, “an unforgivable mistake, in my judgment”, Bennett went on to pronounce judgement on Gingrich that the former Speaker “has taken himself out of serious consideration for the [2012] race.”

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) swung back at Gingrich while appearing on Laura Ingraham’s syndicated radio show with guest host Raymond Arroyo:

With allies like that, who needs the left?

Hardly is that social engineering and radical. What’s radical is kicking the can down the road.

Ryan is considering running for the Senate in Wisconsin. During the interview, he refused to say that Gingrich’s criticism should disqualify him for the GOP presidential nomination:

I’m not going to get into any of that.

Damage control.

Gingrich, a former college professor, was first elected to the House in 1978. In the 1994 midterm elections, he was a figurehead in a Republican campaign that resulted in the party’s first majority in the House in 40 years.

In January 1995, he became the first Republican House speaker since Representative Joe Martin of Massachusetts served in the post from 1953 to 1955.

Then, in 1997, Gingrich received a reprimand by the House and had to pay $300,000 in order to settle claims that he had used tax-exempt organizations for political purposes and had given misleading statements during an investigation.

He announced his resignation from Congress in November 1998 after the House Republicans saw their majority shrink in the second consecutive election.

While Speaker, he was at the forefront of the House’s impeachment hearings of Bill Clinton over the president’s relationship with White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, which resulted in Clinton being acquitted.

News later came out, that while promoting Clinton’s impeachment over marital unfaithfulness, Gingrich was in the middle of having an extramarital affair with a congressional staff member.

The woman in question, Callista Bisek, became his third wife in 2000.

Since then, the two have been inseparable, writing books, working with the Reagan Library, and making television appearances together, seemingly joined at the hip, except for this one memorable moment involving the present (at the time) Speaker of the House, the fraud known as Global Warming, and a couch:

On May 11th, 2011, Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House during the Reagan Revolution, announced that he was seeking the Republican nomination for Presidency:

I’m Newt Gingrich, and I’m announcing my candidacy for President of the United States because I believe we can return America to hope and opportunity, to full employment, to real security, to an American energy program, to a balanced budget.

…I worked with President Ronald Reagan in a very difficult period. We got jobs created again, Americans proud of America, and the Soviet Union disappeared. He then talks about his tenure as House speaker, pointing to his efforts on welfare, controlling spending, cutting taxes, reducing unemployment and balancing the budget.

…We’ve done it before, we can do it again.

There are some people who don’t mind if America becomes a wreck as long as they dominate the wreckage, but you and I know better.

Today, less than a week after it began, you can stick a fork in Newt Gingrich’s 2012 Presidential Campaign.  It’s done.

As I write this post on a  Monday morning, just across the state line, in my hometown of Memphis, Tennessee, municipal authorities, the Memphis City School Board, and the administrators of Booker T. Washington High School are preparing for a very special graduation speaker:  President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).

This is his first trip to Memphis as president.

Vice-President Joe Biden notified Principal Alisha Kiner of the news last Tuesday:

He first congratulated me. He called me by my first name, so I know we are friends.

She announced the news to the student body in the auditorium in a scene that quickly became reminiscent of a University of Memphis Tigers Basketball Game:

…When they ask you how it feels to be in the bottom three (of schools vying for a visit from Obama), tell them you have no idea, because you won!

Principal Kiner says that when she meets the president, she intends to thank him “for validating the work my kids have done.

U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., said minutes after it became official:

I’m ecstatic. I almost came to tears. Booker T. Washington students will have the memory of a lifetime.

According to Cohen, the decisive factor was “not a red-state, blue-state thing,” but the presentation the students made with their video.

The president’s visit is a result of Booker T.’s win in the White House’s Race to the Top Commencement Challenge, in which students were asked to submit an essay and optional video of why the president should choose them.

BTW was one among hundreds of entries.

Quite remarkable in any circumstance, but astronomical considering the condition of the school’s neighborhood and the school system that they are a part of.

The Memphis Housing Authority announced last year that it was demolishing 650-unit Cleaborn Homes last year, putting BTW in danger of losing half its student body overnight.

The Memphis City School Board no longer legally exists.  As I reported on February 13th, in my post, A Scholastic Soap Opera in Memphis:

After over 30 years of mismanagement, poor stewardship, and the downright dumbing-down of an excellent school system, the politicians of the city of Memphis, including the School Board, the City Council, and the Mayor, himself, have decided that they will surrender the charter of the Memphis City Schools System in order to merge with the Shelby County School System…by any means necessary.

After the citizens voted down consolidation of city and county services last November, the Memphis City School Board , in an attempt to save their failing school system and their phony baloney jobs, came up with the plan to surrender their charter, thereby forcing consolidation with the Shelby County Schools.

In the last few days, things have really come to a head in this scholastic soap opera:

• The Memphis City School Board voted Monday night, December 20th, 2010 to let City voters decide on March 8th whether to surrender its charter. (UPDATE:  Memphis City Voters cast their vote in favor of surrendering the charter.)
• On Thursday, February 10th, 2011, the Memphis City Council voted 10 – 0 to accept the decision by the Memphis City Schools Board of Education to surrender its charter, wiping out the city school board in one vote.
• On Friday, February 11th, 2011, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslan signed into law a measure designed to delay any merger between the two systems.

And, through all of this, the wishes of the Shelby County School Board and the citizens that it represents have been tossed aside, because…wait for it…it’s for the children.

So, Friday night, February 11th, 2011, Shelby County School District leaders filed a federal lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the city school board’s “irrational” charter surrender deprives Memphis students of their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit also attacks the city of Memphis and the Memphis City Council for supporting “the (MCS) board’s unplanned and un-thoughtful effort to abandon its obligations to the children of Memphis.”

According to the lawsuit:

It is legally and factually impossible for the Shelby County Schools to immediately begin to operate the City of Memphis public school system without the employment of a thoughtful plan of transition.

…The Memphis City Schools and the Memphis City Council have failed and refused to follow any such procedures and have created, thereby, a chaotic and dangerous vacuum by ending the legal foundation for the operation of the public schools of the City of Memphis.

Martavius Jones, the city school board member who sponsored the resolution surrendering the charter, was just a wee bit upset:

The outrageousness of all of this is that Memphis is part of Shelby County.

We’re using Memphis tax dollars to sue Memphis out of its right and the obligation Shelby County Schools has to educate all children in Shelby County.

What about your obligation to clean up your own house, Martavius?

The County School Boards asks in the lawsuit for a speedy hearing in federal court. They also ask that for a judge to either strike down the MCS charter surrender or set a date when a transfer of MCS to SCS would take effect.

SCS board chairman David Pickler said:

We’re looking at the threat of real, irreparable harm to the children of Memphis and Shelby County Schools.

Multiple defendants have been named in the lawsuit, including the MCS Board of Education, the City Council, the City of Memphis, the U.S. Department of Education, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder, the Tennessee Department of Education and Acting Education Commissioner Patrick Smith.

Memphis Mayor A C Wharton and Council Chairman Myron Lowery announced at a press conference earlier Friday that the city had already begun contemplating how it would proceed with its own legal actions.

According to Mayor Wharton, the Council was forced to act when Norris and suburban Republican state legislators “changed the rules midstream” by passing legislation to affect the charter surrender process that started last year.

Nobody on the Council was picking a fight on this. The only time the Council got going was when the legislature got going.

Not responding specifically to the Shelby County Board’s lawsuit, Wharton said Memphis City Schools acted in accordance with those procedures set out “in this nation of laws.”

According to Wharton, state law and the Shelby County charter require the county school board to be responsible for “every child in Shelby County, Tennessee”.   He went on, comparing the city school system “to a babysitter who babysat those kids for a couple of decades and they are now saying we are bringing your children back to you.”

The students of Booker T. Washington have overcome the odds.
Last year, BTW outdid state requirements in Algebra I by 27 percentage points. Its graduation rate climbed from 55 percent in 2007 to 81.6 percent in 2010.

In spite of parents, politicians, and school administrators who have eschewed personal responsibility, earning Memphis the nickname of “Detroit South” and creating a school system reminiscent of Lean on Me or Jim Belushi’s movie The Principal, the students at Booker T. have not only perservered, they’ve thrived.

This is their day.  Congratulations, Warriors (their school mascot).  You’ve earned it.

Saturday night, 2008 candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Baptist Preacher, former Governor of Arkansas, and erstwhile talk show host Mike Huckabee made the following announcement, concerning a possible bid to seek the Republican Presidential Nomination for the 2012 Elections:

All the factors say go, but my heart says no.

The past few months have been times of deep personal reflection. Even though I wasn’t actively establishing a campaign organization or seeking financial support to run again, polls have consistently put me at or near the top to be the Republican nominee.

But I know that under the best of circumstances, being President is a job that takes one to the limit of his or her human capacity. I can’t know or predict the future, but I know for now my answer is clear and firm: I will not seek the Republican nomination for President this year.

I had not done much toward a race because my life was filled with work that I truly love here at Fox News, doing radio commentaries on my daily Huckabee Report on 600 radio stations, traveling the country for speaking engagements, and helping good conservative, pro-life candidates who were running for office.

To which the majority of Conservatives replied:

Whew!

Why, you ask?

As I did with GOP Elite front-runner du jour, Mitch Daniels, let’s look at Governor Huckabee’s record as Governor of Arkansas (1996-2007) through the measurement of the three-legged stool of  Reagan Conservatism:

Fiscal Conservatism – From an article  published at washingtonpost.com, on January 1, 2008, Huckee’s fiscal record as Governor of Arkansas leaves a lot to be desired:

According to the Tax Foundation, the state and local tax burden on the average Arkansan increased from 10.1 per cent to 11.3 per cent under Huckabee. When he came into office in 1996, Arkansas ranked 30th in the nation as the state with the highest taxes. When he left at the beginning of this year, it had risen to 13th.

Overall tax revenues in Arkansas rose by some $500 million under Huckabee, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. In Huckabee’s defense, $400 million of this increased revenue went to pay for improvements in the state’s educational system mandated in 2002 by the Arkansas Supreme Court, to correct inequalities in education spending. The biggest tax increases came in 2003 and 2004, after the Supreme Court decision.

…The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration has confirmed that there were 90 tax cuts in the period 1995 to 2005, reducing revenues by $378 million. But many of these tax cuts were very narrowly tailored. A list assembled by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette included the following:

Exempting Arkansas Symphony Orchestra from sales tax. Total revenues foregone: $20,000

An income tax deduction for organ donation: $76,000

Exempting county fairs from special events tax: $15,000.

Offsetting these tax cuts were at least 21 tax increases, including repeated tax hikes on tobacco, alcohol, increases in the sales tax, and a 3 per cent “income tax surcharge.” The tax hikes brought in a total of $883 million between 1995 and 2003.

 Social Conservatism – Per an article posted on foxnews.com on December 10, 2007:

As governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee had a hand in twice as many pardons and commutations as his three predecessors combined.

…Although the Republican presidential contender and Southern Baptist preacher plays down any personal involvement in that release, Huckabee granted 1,033 pardons and commutations in his 10 1/2 years as governor of Arkansas. The acts of clemency benefited the stepson of a staff member, murderers who worked at the governor’s mansion, a rock star and inmates who received good words from their pastors.

…Whitewater figure David Hale, a government witness in the trial that forced Gov. Jim Guy Tucker’s resignation and let Huckabee ascend to the office, was pardoned after being sentenced to 21 days in a state insurance case. Huckabee complained it would cost too much to hold him. The price tag: $1,200.

Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards received a gubernatorial pardon for a 1975 traffic offense. Huckabee prepared the paperwork to clear the rock star’s good name after he met him at a North Little Rock concert.

During his years as governor, Huckabee granted clemency an average of about once every four days. Huckabee’s successor, Mike Beebe, has issued 40 so far this year, fewer than one a week. Bill Clinton, Frank White and Tucker granted 507 clemencies in the 17 1/2 years they served as governor.

The most-discussed clemency case during Huckabee’s tenure involved Wayne DuMond, who was castrated — he said by masked men who attacked him at home — while awaiting trial on charges he raped a teenager in 1984. Though Huckabee did not pardon DuMond nor commute his sentence, two members of a state parole board maintain that he pressured them to make a decision in the case.

National Defense – In an opinion piece titled America’s Priorities in the War on Terror, posted in the January/February 2008 edition of the Council on Foreign Relations’ site, foreign affairs.com, Huckabee wrote:

The United States, as the world’s only superpower, is less vulnerable to military defeat. But it is more vulnerable to the animosity of other countries. Much like a top high school student, if it is modest about its abilities and achievements, if it is generous in helping others, it is loved. But if it attempts to dominate others, it is despised.

American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States’ main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists. At the same time, my administration will never surrender any of our sovereignty, which is why I was the first presidential candidate to oppose ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty, which would endanger both our national security and our economic interests.

…The Bush administration plans to increase the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps by about 92,000 troops over the next five years. We can and must do this in two to three years. I recognize the challenges of increasing our enlistments without lowering standards and of expanding training facilities and personnel, and that is one of the reasons why we must increase our military budget. Right now, we spend about 3.9 percent of our GDP on defense, compared with about six percent in 1986, under President Ronald Reagan. We need to return to that six percent level.

While a strong National Defense Budget is a good thing, the naivete of the statement if it is generous in helping others, it is loved is bothersome.

America is already the most generous nation on the face of the Earth.  In fact, some of the very nations we funnel money into, are those who are secretly plotting against us.

In conclusion, while Gov. Huckabee has some Conservative qualities, and is quite affable, as a Presidential Candidate, he makes a fine talk show host.

Have you ever been set up for a blind date by people who claimed to care about you and were sure that they knew what was best for you?

When you asked them what this individual looked like, they said:

Oh, they’ve got a great personality.

Then, you probably asked:

Okay.  So, what’s their personality like?

Scrambling for an answer, your friend or family member responded:

Hey, don’t worry about it.  You’ll get along fine.  After all, beggars can’t be choosers.

The Republican Elite, aided and abetted by the Main Stream Media, is attempting to set Americans up with a blind date.

His name is Mitch Daniels.

If you are like I used to be, until recently, you had a vague idea of who Mitch Daniels was, but that’s about it.

Allow me to introduce you.

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. was elected as the 49th Governor of the State of Indiana in 2004, in his first bid for any elected office.

Governor Daniels came from a successful career in business and government, holding numerous top management positions in both the private and public sectors. His work as CEO of the Hudson Institute and President of Eli Lilly and Company’s North American Pharmaceutical Operations taught him the business skills he brought to state government. He also has served as Chief of Staff to Senator Richard Lugar, Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush.

Daniels’ first legislative success created the public-private Indiana Economic Development Corporation to replace a failing state bureaucracy in the mission of attracting new jobs. In each of its first four years of existence, the agency broke all previous records for new jobs in the state, and was associated with more than $18 billion of new investment. In 2008, Site Selection magazine and CNBC both named Indiana as the Most Improved State for Business in the country, and the state is now near the top of every national ranking of business attractiveness.

On his first day in office, Governor Daniels created the first Office of Management and Budget to look for efficiencies and cost savings across state government. In 2005, he led the state to its first balanced budget in eight years and, without a tax increase, transformed the $600 million deficit he inherited into an annual surplus of $370 million within a year.

Sounds pretty good, huh?  Just like the description of a blind date.

Also, if you’re like me, you never really paid any attention to the diminutive (5’4″) Daniels, until he uttered this now-famous gaffe, as related  and followed up on by John McCormack at  weeklystandard.com on June 8, 2010:

Mitch Daniels told THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s Andy Ferguson that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until economic issues are resolved.

This morning, at the Heritage Foundation, I asked Daniels if that meant the next president shouldn’t push issues like stopping taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare or reinstating the Mexico City Policy banning federal funds to overseas groups that perform abortions. Daniels replied that we face a “genuine national emergency” regarding the budget and that “maybe these things could be set aside for a while. But this doesn’t mean anybody abandons their position at all. Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic.”

To clarify whether Daniels simply wants to de-emphasize these issues or actually not act on them, I asked if, as president, he would issue an executive order to reinstate Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy” his first week in office. (Obama revoked the policy during his first week in office.) Daniels replied, “I don’t know.“

Then, in an interview with nationalreview.com’s Michael Barone, posted October 11, 2010, Daniels came out in favor cutting our National Defense Budget:

As OMB director, Daniels was on the National Security Council, and as governor he’s visited Indiana troops around the world. He says, “It’s important to support the commander in chief” on Afghanistan. But he’s open to cuts in defense spending beyond those Defense Secretary Robert Gates has imposed. “No question that the system is rigged to overspend,” he says, “like health care. No question that defense dollars could be spent better.”

Finally, on October 15, 2010, politico.com reported the following:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels opened the door Thursday to supporting both a value added tax [VAT] and a tariff on imported oil, bold proposals that could cause trouble for him with conservatives as he flirts with a long-shot bid for the presidency.

As we get closer to the 2012 Presidential Elections, and the GOP Elite and Main Stream Media get more desperate to maintain the status quo, Mitch Daniels is being singled out as their candidate of choice.

Just this week, while Mitt Romney doused himself with the gasoline known as Romneycare and lit a match, Daniels informed America that he was considering a Presidential run, but, first,  he had to get his wife’s permission.

Also, this week, Daniels picked up an endorsement from Speaker of the House, Cryin’ John Boehner.  Governors Chris Christie and Scott Walker  also quietly snuck upon the bandwagon,  privately pledging to lend their support, should Daniels decide to run.

Just as one evaluates accepting a blind date, so should one evaluate a potential presidential candidate.

Speaking for myself, the measurement of a presidential candidate  will always be the three-legged stool of Reagan Conservatism:  Fiscal Conservatism, Social Conservatism, and National Defense.

As exemplified by the three quotes in today’s post, Mitch Daniels doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

The accused stands before the Tribunal as the Chief Inquisitor reads the charges against him.  Finally, the Chief Inquisitor asks:

How you plead in this matter?  Where does your loyalty lie?  With us or our enemy?

The accused stands there, quivering, wondering what his fate will be…

No, gentle reader, I have not been describing a scene from the Spanish Inquisition, led by Friar Tomás de Torquemada in the 1400s.

Rather, I have been painting a scene of a possible future where the United States Government, led by President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm), makes federal contractors disclose their political contributions.

The White House has already submitted a draft proposal suggesting this.

According to Federal Procurement Director Daniel Gordon, the proposal isn’t final. He also added that contractors will be protected, regardless of their political preferences:

Agencies may consider only the factors that are set out in the solicitation – nothing more, nothing less.

And if you believe that, I have a flooded-out bridge over the Mississippi River to sell you.

The president’s proposal is not sitting will with either side of the aisle.

Democratic Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill joined Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an independent, in sending a cautionary letter to President Obama.

In the letter, Lieberman wrote:

[R]equiring businesses to disclose their political activity when making an offer risks injecting politics into the contracting process.

Per Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who as chairman of the House Oversight committee, has promised to look into a lot of the Obama administration policies this year, hit the president square between the eyes, when he said that contractors are afraid of

…a corrupt Chicago-style spoils system where contracts are tied to partisan political affiliations.

Obama’s newest mouthpiece, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, defended the proposed Inquisition at yesterday’s White House Press Briefing, saying:

Disclosure is a good thing. And I’m not sure when it became a bad word or a bad idea. Disclosure used to be something that Republicans supported very much.

Disclosure, yes. Coercion and Blackmail, no.

According to his minions in the White House, Obama feels as if this abrogation of freedom is warranted because of the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case. This ruling took away limits on corporate political spending more than a year ago.

However, because of the chasm of disagreement which exists between Republicans and Democrats on what exactly the Supreme Court ruling means, the federal election commission hasn’t been unable to create the rules governing its implementation.

The Obama Administration insists that the proposal is in draft form and the president is still looking it over.

According to them, the proposal is all about transparency and openness.

Uh huh. Then why doesn’t it apply to unions?

Per Rep. Darrell Issa:

It exempts unions which do have a limited amount of contracts and a great many grants to the federal government.

In an article written by Michelle Malkin, posted on realclearpolitics.com, 2 years ago today, May 13th, 2009, the Conservative author wrote that:

“We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we’re proud of it,” boasted Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, to the Las Vegas Sun this week. The behemoth labor organization’s leadership is getting its money’s worth. Whether rank-and-file workers and ordinary taxpayers are profiting from this ultimate campaign pay-for-play scheme is another matter entirely.

The two-million-member union, which represents both government and private service employees, proudly claimed that its workers “knocked on 1.87 million doors, made 4.4 million phone calls and sent more than 2.5 million pieces of mail in support of Obama.” It dispatched SEIU leaders to seven states in the final weekend before the election to get out the vote for Obama and other Democrats.

Through a series of local chapter takeovers and bully campaigns to destroy the reputation of executives who refuse to submit to their will, Stern and his scandal-plagued lieutenants have consolidated low-skill service workers to create a 21st century labor empire. The ubiquitous Stern now enjoys a prominent seat at the table of every major policy discussion at the White House, including economic recovery and health care radicalization.

That proved to be the tip of the iceberg.  Employees of federal and trade unions gave extraordinary amounts to Obama’s election, as well as to the campaigns of Democats running in the 2010 Midterms.

And, now that Obama has announced his campaign for re-election, union members will be required to give again.

For example, from thehill.com:

The National Education Association (NEA) has asked its members to support President Obama’s bid for a second term in the White House.

The move by the NEA — the country’s largest union, with more than 3 million members — shows that labor, a traditional ally of Democrats, is gearing up for the 2012 election.

Labor support will be critical for Obama and for several Senate Democrats who are expected to face tough reelection campaigns.

NEA’s political action committee approved a recommendation Thursday to support Obama’s reelection bid. The union’s representative assembly will meet in Chicago in July to vote on the PAC’s recommendation.

After all they’ve done and are doing for Obama, we surely can’t expect him to put the unions through the same Inquisition that he will other federal contractors, can we?

Some days, my posts just seem to write themselves.

Approximately 16 hours ago,  USA Today published an opinion piece by former Massachusetts Governor, and favorite of the GOP Elite, Mitt Romney.

Entitled Romney: As first act, out with ObamaCare, the editorial begins with the following:

Health care is more than just one-sixth of the American economy. It is a source of well-being for individuals and families. We are blessed with much that is good in American health care. But we have taken a turn for the worse with ObamaCare, with its high taxes and vastly expanded federal control over our lives. I believe the better course is to empower the states to determine their own health care futures.

First, the good news: Health care in the United States has made remarkable advances in our lifetimes. Dramatic improvements in medical technology have expanded both the length and quality of life. And the U.S. health care system continues to provide consumers with many choices.

But our health care system has several well-known problems: high and rising costs, significant numbers of Americans without insurance, and glaring gaps in quality and efficiency.

We can fix these problems. Unfortunately, with the passage of ObamaCare last year, the president and the Congress took a wrong turn. ObamaCare will lead to more spending, greater federal involvement in health care and negative effects on U.S. economic activity. The president definitely forgot the admonition to “do no harm.”

My plan is to harness the power of markets to drive positive change in health insurance and health care. And we can do so with state flexibility (unlike ObamaCare’s top-down federal approach), no new taxes (as opposed to hundreds of billions of dollars of new taxes under ObamaCare), and better consumer choice (as opposed to bureaucratic, government choice under ObamaCare). This change of direction offers our best hope of preserving both innovation and value.

If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.

The needle on my Irony Meter just pegged so hard it snapped in two.

Back in 2006, Romney was singing a different tune as he signed a massive health-insurance overhaul into law as Governor of Massachusetts. “Romneycare” was packed with subsidies, exchanges, and mandates to extend coverage to the uninsured. Four years later, it became the model for the national nightmare known as Obamacare, the very National Healthcare Law that he now promises to eliminate.

During a New Hampshire Presidential Campaign Debate on Jan. 6, 2008, the following revealing moment transpired:

Debate moderator Charles Gibson of ABC News: “But Gov. Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.”

Romney: “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.”

GOP contender Fred Thompson: “I beg your pardon? I didn’t know you were going to admit that. You like mandates.”

Romney: “Oh, absolutely. Let me tell you what kind of mandates I like, Fred, which is this. If it weren’t –“

Thompson: “The ones you come up with. Bingo”

Later, during an April 19, 2010 interview with Newsweek’s Andrew Romano, Governor Romney added the following:

I’d like to clear something up about that federalist argument. During one of the 2008 debates, Charles Gibson said, “You seem to have backed away from mandates on a national basis.” And your response was, “No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.” Were you saying that you supported federal mandates then, even though you say you don’t now?

No. We created an incentive for people to get insurance at the state level. Our plan is a state plan. I oppose a federal plan for purposes of federalism. It would be like saying, a father has spanked his son. Do you think that the federal government should be allowed to spank children?

So people are misinterpreting that quote?

I do not favor the federal mandates that are part of Obamacare.

Back in February 2007, you said you hoped the Massachusetts plan would “become a model for the nation.” Would you agree that it has?

I don’t … You’re going to have to get that quote. That’s not exactly accurate, I don’t believe.

I can tell you exactly what it says: “I’m proud of what we’ve done. If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”

It is a model for the states to be able to learn from. During the campaign, I was asked if I was proposing that what I did in Massachusetts I would do for the nation. And the answer was absolutely not. Our plan is a state plan. It is a model for other states—if you will, the nation—it is a model for them to look at what we’ve accomplished and to better it or to create their own plans.

There are obvious similarities between Obamacare and what you did in Massachusetts. Do you acknowledge that what you did in Massachusetts has become a model for nation under Obama, whether you wanted it to or not?

I can’t speak for what the president has done. I don’t know what he looks at. He never gave me a call. Neither he nor any of his colleagues [gave me] a call to ask what worked and did not work, and how would they improve upon it and so forth. If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.

The lesson for today, boys and girls? 

When is a mandate not a mandate?

When Mitt Romney signs it into law, or course.

President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm) made a re-election campaign stop along our border with Mexico, yesterday.

Speaking in El Paso, Texas, Obama, using the ghost of Osama bin Laden as a campaign prop, once again made the false analogy of those who have entered our country illegally, to our immigrants of previous generations who did not:

We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants — a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s precepts.

It doesn’t matter where you come from. What matters is that you believe in the ideals on which we were founded, that you believe all of us are equal. In embracing America, you can become American. That is what makes this country great.

That’s the problem, Mr. President. These illegal immigrants love the land that they come from, more than they love the country they broke into.

Speaking in his usual I’m-smarter-than-you tones, Obama attacked Republican leaders for their unwavering stance on border issues:

All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. I suspect there will be those who will try to move the goalposts one more time. … Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat.

No moat, Mr. President. Nor alligators. America simply wants you to secure our border.  Now.

Obama continued:

They’ll never be satisfied. But that’s politics.

The most significant step we can take now to secure the borders is to fix the system as a whole so that fewer people have incentive to enter illegally in search of work in the first place. This would allow agents to focus on the worst threats on both of our borders — from drug traffickers to those who would come here to commit acts of violence or terror.

The system does not need fixing, Mr. President. The border fence needs building.

Covering himself, as to not seem too blatant in his recruitment of new Democratic voters, the president went on to say that Washington has to “secure the borders and enforce the law.” and business owners need to be punished for exploiting undocumented workers.

Regarding those who are illegally entering our country, Obama said that they have to admit they broke the law (Don’t hold your breath, Scooter.), pay taxes and a fine, learn English and be willing to undergo background checks before starting the legalization process.

The problem is, that would require an outbreak of personal responsibility. Again, don’t hold your breath waiting on that to happen, Mr. President.

The issue of illegal immigration remains a political hot potato, as evidenced by the Democratically-controlled Congress’ failure to pass the Dream Act when they had the opportunity to, at the end of last year.

Obama realizes the potential of the Latino population.  He was victorious in several Western states in 2008, such as Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, partly on the emerging strength of the Latino vote. Democrats are hoping that Hispanic voters might swing traditionally Republican Arizona toward their side next year.

Which helps to explain why Obama’s Administration  is suing Arizona.

Obama received more than two-thirds of America’s Hispanic vote in 2008 with an approval rating among Hispanics holding around 68% during the first three months of this year, per polls commissioned by CNN.

How do average Americans feel about this Hot Button Issue?  Here are some headlines from RasmussenReports.com:

• 59% Favor Cutoff of Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities
• 63% Still Believe Border Control Is Top Immigration Priority
• 61% Oppose U.S. Citizenship for Children Born to Illegal Immigrants
• 67% Favor Automatic Police Immigration Checks, Most Support Sanctions on Employers and Landlords
• More Voters Still Think Federal Government Encourages Illegal Immigration
• Voters Still Put Border Control Well Ahead of Legalizing Those Here Illegally
• Voters still strongly believe that gaining control of the border should be the legislative priority.
• 52% in California Say Current Policies of Federal Government Encourage Illegal Immigration
• 60% in Colorado Say Policies of Federal Government Encourage People to Enter the United States Illegally

A cursory glance at these headlines shows that the majority of Americas are absolutely not in agreement with the president on this issue.

So, why is he pushing it?

Simple.  The president needs voters. 

There are almost 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States of America.  They total  five per cent of our country’s workforce.

By granting amnesty to these people who have broken into our country, as a burglar breaks into a home, as well as to their offspring, Obama and those who handle him, believe that they are strengthening the Democrat voter base, replenishing those ex-sycophants who figured out for themselves that Obama’s promise of Hope and Change, was not one of personal prosperity.

Hence, the illogical statement, heard time and again from Obama, that:

The most significant step we can take now to secure the borders is to fix the system as a whole so that fewer people have incentive to enter illegally in search of work in the first place.

Arizona rancher Robert Krentz, murdered on his own property by an illegal immigrant, would disagree.