The American Spectator : Open Season

Text Size

Open Season

By George Neumayr on 9.1.11 @ 6:09AM

“Saving America from Rick Perry” is now the media’s mission.

The flailing attacks on Rick Perry multiply as he pulls easily ahead of the Republican field. Journalists had rooted for an exciting figure to parachute into the lackluster race but now probably regret that hope. Perry scares them. He is, by their lights, a “terrifying” critic of the New Deal and Great Society, a “theocrat,” a hater of “science,” and no “compassionate” conservative.

The same media that portrayed George W. Bush as ideologically dangerous now hold him up as the measure of an acceptable Republican. Rick Perry has managed to make journalists nostalgic for the Bush years. A Perry victory, the Washington Post reports with concern, would “cement the Republican Party’s shift away from Bush’s approach to a more libertarian, anti-government GOP.”

In other words, another “compassionate” conservative from Texas would be tolerable to the chattering class after all, but not a Tea Partier from Texas.

Mitt Romney can count on favorable coverage in the coming months from a media that now sees its mission as “saving America from Rick Perry.” Those words come from Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, who calls that an “urgent fight.” Perry represents to this media the dreaded continuation and expansion of 2010 Tea Party success, whereas Romney represents a reassuring step back to the safety of establishment Republicanism.

The rumored strategy of Romney against Perry will apparently feed off these media fears. According to Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, “Romney’s campaign will argue that Perry is against the very idea of Social Security and Medicare,” and it will use his book Fed Up! to “scare seniors in early-primary states with large retiree populations, such as Florida and South Carolina.” Also: “The Romney campaign will argue that Perry repels independents and can’t win in key swing states such as Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan — while Romney can.”

And yet if Perry is too conservative for Romney’s taste, he is also, on at least one issue, too liberal. Thiessen reports that the Romney campaign “plans to use immigration to drive a wedge between Perry and his conservative base by highlighting Perry’s opposition to a border fence and legislation he signed in 2001 allowing the children of illegal immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition…. Romney strategists believe immigration will be a devastating issue for Perry with Tea Party Republicans across the country — especially in important primary states such as Arizona.”

Another line of attack will be that Perry is the “anti-government candidate who has spent most of his life in government,” says Thiessen. Romney has already rehearsed this one, saying in a speech on Tuesday that “career politicians got us into this mess and they simply don’t know how to get us out.”

Much of this is likely to fall flat. A scenario in which the Tea Party rushes into Romney’s arms over immigration is improbable, particularly if he is at the same time knocking Perry for a dim view of Social Security and Medicare and saying that Perry is unacceptable to independents. The two lines of attack will cancel each other out. Lumping Perry in with career politicians that “got us into this mess” also seems odd, since most Tea Partiers don’t associate Perry with the national political class and consider jobs-rich Texas under Perry a contrast to the mess.

Unmentioned in the Thiessen piece is whether Romney will engage Perry on any cultural issues. Perhaps this is an area best avoided by Romney, though one can imagine the media helping him in this regard, casting the formerly pro-choice Mormon as more “mainstream” than the “theocrat” Perry.

The media is certainly itching to address these issues. In a preview of things to come, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller demands to know if a candidate places “fealty” to religion over the “Constitution.” What touching concern from Keller for a document liberals have shredded through fealty to secularism.

Most of the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have passed Keller’s vetting. If Perry is a “theocrat” for thinking that America is one nation under God, so were they. If Perry is “anti-science” for thinking that the world didn’t create itself through random processes, so were they. As usual, the media intends to use politically correct name-calling and mau-mauing as its chief mode of covering a conservative candidate. Any stick will do in its quest to save liberal America from Rick Perry.

About the Author

George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (349) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Michael Tomlinson| 9.1.11 @ 6:42AM

Don't forget Chuck Schumer when attacking Bush as intransigent and hard to work with bragged on Reagan being the model “of a conservative Democrats could make a deal with.” This is just SOP for Democrats afraid of competent Republican leaders who make the tough choices required of real leaders.

I’m curious has anyone seen the college or law school transcripts of the poster boy for failed affirmative action? We know he’s a failure as president, but what about as a student? Since he couldn’t get tenure as a law school professor it’s pretty clear he wasn’t an impressive teacher, but what kind of student was he? Has Obama ever found himself or is he still locked in the closet?
Did the drug experimentation he brags about as a 20 something burnout what brain he had (what he claimed to be doing while Rick Perry was a decorated USAF pilot)?

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 9:06AM

MT, I believe most conservatives agree that even a ham sandwich is preferable to Obama at this point. If Perry becomes the nominee, he will receive my vote.

Vetting the eventual Republican nominee should be the focus at this point.

I am luke warm on Perry at this point for several reasons, and I am not convinced that he understands the fundamental principals of the US Constitution. Being a state executive is very different from being a constrained federal executive.

His support for wind power, although saying that he does not believe in AGW, is completely incongruous. Why mandate And subsidize expensive and unreliable green energy if you don't believe? Who benefits here? Certainly not the rate and tax payers.

Texas did not borrow money until Perry became governor, now they are 33Bil in debt.

His LaRaza pandering and the Texas Dream Act is not a position I can support.

And yes Drunken Sailor, I am opposed to his using executive authority to mandate Gardasil. I'm curious to know if you now are upset that Perry has recanted?

The connections between Merck and BOTH his of his chiefs of staff, is unsettling to me. I find this type of behavior unsavory in Any government official. I was unable to find any disclosure regarding the extent of lobbying money deployed in Texas by Merck, but the fact that Merck stands to make Huge profits from its mandated use is undeniable.

That he mandated a drug that had only received FDA approval Less Than A Year prior to his mandate is also troubling. That the testing conducted by Merck included only a small number of teen and pre-teens is also problematic. Also, I read that most private insurance already extended coverage to this vaccine.

You asked if I was opposed to other vaccines that are mandated, and I will say no I am not. The other vaccines guard against Deadly diseases that are communicated by simple proximity. HPV does not fall into this class.

I have now done some rudimentary research into HPV.

Here are some quotes from WebMD:
"While there is no cure for HPV, the good news is the infection often clears on its own."

""The HPV virus itself cannot be treated, but often the body will clear HPV infection on its own. In most women, cervical HPV infection clears on its own within two years of detection.""

Here is the link to the entire article.
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-co.....e-hpv-cure

It would stand more to reason that an annual PAP Smear should be mandated, as this would assure early detection of many more reproductive problems, not just HPV.

Would you support this?

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 10:46AM

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08.....re-praise/

Democrat Rick Perry is such an idiot that he praised Hillary Care. This was when all conservatives even some Democrats were fighting against it tooth and nail. No we Do Not need a fake candidate. He now claims he did not know what it would contain. Everyone at that time knew what Hillary's goal was and it was worse than Obamacare.

zane| 9.1.11 @ 11:26AM

Actually, HillaryCare was pretty bland compared to the leviathan known as Obamacare. And three months into the Clinton administration, it was unclear what the end product known a HillaryCare would actually be. Or do you think as Texas Agricultural Commissioner, Perry was privy to sitting in on HillaryCare conferences?

The main concern for Perry were those ranchers/famers that were subject to no local health care. But hey, go ahead and try to spin his concerns. It's what you Paulbots do.

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 11:34AM

You think nationalized health care is bland? She wrote about her goals before to her commission. If Perry even read the The American Spectator at that time he would have absolutely have known.

zane| 9.1.11 @ 12:45PM

In April, 1993, HillaryCare was a simple outline. It was later when the full plan came out and was rejected by Congress, then controlled by Democrats.

So, perhaps you think the Governor of a state of 20 million has nothing better to do that read AM? Or know what will come from a plan not yet fully developed?

You're a dreamer.

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 1:18PM

Before Bill even took office people knew what Hillary wanted with health care. You are saying a politician like Perry was too ignorant to know what was going on? This shows bad judgment. Conservatives were fighting even before her commission was started.

voted against carter| 9.1.11 @ 4:38PM

sean,..

Typical LAME Libratard attempt
at revisionist history. Ahaha LOL!

You jest,.. in that we would forget.

"Before Bill even took office people knew
what Hillary wanted with health care."

How is that possible when even Hillary
did not have a clue what would be in it.

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 5:43PM

You are just plain wrong. People knew what sort of plan she wanted and knew it was bad. Like back then and Obamacare now we didn't need to wait for the final draft to know it was bad.

Doorgunner| 9.1.11 @ 8:55PM

You are a paid troll.

Doorgunner| 9.1.11 @ 8:57PM

Have you considered = Paid troll

Patricia Leath| 9.1.11 @ 10:53PM

Perry is not an idiot. He is an American. What are you Sean?

kate| 9.2.11 @ 12:01AM

The more the liberals panic about Perry, the more I like him.
Looking forward to next Wednesday. Thanks for the heads up, liberal fools.

Sean| 9.2.11 @ 5:37AM

The guy who was Al Gore's campaign manager and praised Hillary care is your man. This is why the Republicna party is referred to as the stupid party. The reason we get Bush, Dole and McCain as nominees. Then you wonder why we are in this mess.

kevin| 9.4.11 @ 6:15AM

Just in case you missed it, Sean, Ronald Reagan was a Democrat who helped with FDR's campaign, before the Dem party left him.
But you just keep playing.

Aqua Buddah| 9.1.11 @ 11:09AM

You sound just like a Democat.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 11:20AM

"And yes Drunken Sailor, I am opposed to his using executive authority to mandate Gardasil. I'm curious to know if you now are upset that Perry has recanted?"

Nope, not in the least. I still think the vaccine is a good idea .

1. You missed or ignored this line from your article.
"Plus, as more people are vaccinated with the new HPV vaccines, the rates of HPV infection may be greatly reduced.

For now, HPV treatment focuses on treating the symptoms of the infection. Symptoms include genital warts associated with low-risk HPV types (which don't generally lead to cancers) and the precancerous changes sometimes associated with the high-risk types of HPV."

There is more than one type of HPV. The vaccine is meant for the sexually transmitted types which cause cancer.

"3.What is the association between HPV infection and cancer?
Persistent HPV infections are now recognized as the cause of essentially all cervical cancers. It was estimated that, in 2010, about 12,000 women in the United States would be diagnosed with this type of cancer and more than 4,000 would die from it. Cervical cancer is diagnosed in nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives annually.

HPVs also cause some cancers of the anus, vulva, vagina, and penis (2). In addition, oral HPV infection causes some cancers of the oropharynx (the middle part of the throat, including the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils) (2, 3).

It has been estimated that HPV infection accounts for approximately 5 percent of all cancers worldwide (2). "
"http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/HPV"

and

"Is the HPV vaccine effective?

This vaccine is highly effective in preventing four types of HPV in young women who have not been previously exposed to HPV. This vaccine targets HPV types that cause up to 70% of all cervical cancers and about 90% of genital warts. The vaccine will not treat existing HPV infections or their complications.

Is the HPV vaccine safe?

The FDA has licensed the vaccine as safe and effective. This vaccine has been tested in thousands of females (9 to 26 years of age) around the world. These studies have shown no serious side effects. The most common side effect is brief soreness at the injection site. CDC, working with the FDA, will continue to monitor the safety of the vaccine after it is in general use"

http://www.medicinenet.com/gar.....rticle.htm

That link is from MedicineNet, or as the folks at your link say.

"Our esteemed colleagues at MedicineNet.com are frequent contributors to WebMD and comprise our Medical Editorial Board"

If you are not for it, fine, your choice but I could go on all day why its a good idea. I worked as a Sexually Transmitted Disease counselor in the Navy for 12 years. The CDC is THE standard for all infectious disease guidelines in the US.

I understand you do not feel it is the goverment's job to tell you what shots you should take. I partially agree with your stand, but I do not see it as a major issue as you do when it comes to public health. The goverment has a role to play when it comes to protecting the health of the general public and many of their powers were listed in the Public Health law of 1875. This was a UK law that was the model for our public health laws.

Listen, I never said Perry was perfect and I have yet to find any canidate that is. It is my view, we need to find the canidate that we back the candidate we most agree with. My question to you is which canidate do you most agree with?

Then ask yourself honestly, do they stand a chance in winning? If so, then by all means back them but don't turn your nose up at other canidates simply because you disagree with them on a couple of issues unless you look at the same issue for all canidates and find one that you have more in common with.

My disagreements with your on this vaccine seem to have struck a nerve. Sorry about that. I like reading your post as you put a lot of thought into them. Unlike a couple of the other Ron Paul supporters on this site.

And yes, by all means women should get annual pap smears. Most cases of Chlamydia are detected and treated this way. That is a whole different chapter on serious, easily avoidable consequences.

W| 9.1.11 @ 11:25AM

The vaccine was not mandatory in Pa.
Everyone I know with daughters has had the vaccine for their young daughters. If you can reduce the chances of cancer, why would you not take this vaccine?
If the issue is the state mandate, the state mandates all types of vaccinations for public health.

PJ| 9.1.11 @ 1:20PM

I believe in equal opportunity. Boys ought to be vaccinated too. Let's face it, they tend to be the carriers of these viruses.

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 1:29PM

DS, yes you did hit a nerve, but it provoked enough thought to look into the matter further. Not a bad thing IMO. I often find myself in agreement with you. No hard feeling here, and hope same on your side.

I will note that I did not miss or ignore the sentence of "Plus, as more people are vaccinated with the new HPV vaccines, the rates of HPV infection may be greatly reduced." I will point out the seemingly universal qualifier in the word MAY though.

I will also point out that the common approach by docs is Wait and See. ""In most women, cervical HPV infection clears on its own within two years of detection.""

This infection IMO is not worthy of an expensive state mandate, and the crux of my opposition is the Mandate by executive order, which effectively did an end run around the citizen's representatives, which was his intention.

Is it a good idea? I would most likely vaccinate my daughter if I had one.

But, again in my opinion, that is for parents to decide, not Rick Perry. And again, I could argue that a mandated PAP would be much more effective, and Much cheaper.

I also don't like what I consider to be unsavory connections to Merck, which I also did some research on.

Unfortunately, there are no candidates currently running that I support without reservation. This includes Ron Paul. But this is the Only time we have available to cull the field. Let us put it to good use.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 1:38PM

I understand your reservations and no, there are are no hard feelings. I can take a dissenting view in stride unless your name is Clint or Jack . For some reason fanatics just rub me the wrong way, you are no fanatic, just a rational, thinking individual trying to make a informed decison.

JFGalt| 9.1.11 @ 12:45PM

"His support for wind power, although saying that he does not believe in AGW, is completely incongruous. "

You don't have to believe in global warming to believe in alternative energy. Its called diversification. What most people don't realize is that its almost always windy in West Texas which happens to be where a lot of the oil comes from too. These turbines turn most of the time. But you have to get the power to the users and that is being done. It does relieve some of the pressure on the use of oil down here so that we can ship it to the rest of the country. Texas can become energy independent. Does it solve everything? NO - but it works here. The thing about alternative energies is that you have to start somewhere with something new otherwise you will forever stay mired in the same muck. Solar may become viable but more on the at home level. As a commercial venture, it is too ineffecient still but that technology is getting cheaper. Is Perry the answer, I don't know, I'm kind of lukewarm to him. I would rather see Ron Paul but people would rather have a pretty poster boy instead of someone competent.

irish19| 9.1.11 @ 1:35PM

And that is the thing about wind and solar. They will mostly be niche applications. In those niches, they will likely perform well. As a general solution to our energy needs-not bloody likely.

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 1:52PM

JFGalt, if you are OK with increased rates and tax payer subsidies, for an unreliable and inefficient product, then that is your right.

I simply am not OK with it in any measure.

Do you live in Texas, and was diversification Perry's stated reason for supporting wind power? Another thing I will have to look into.

Also, here is a deeply saddening video of wind power in action as posted by Mr. Chris Horner here at TAS a few weeks back:
http://www.youtube.com
watch?v=svicELHAWyw

Please watch it and then let me know if you are still an advocate of wind power. They are killing machines.

Here is an article from a couple days ago that is Very critical of Texas wind power, both in reliability and cost.

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....bert-bryce

I didn't know that Texas uses oil for electricity generation, so that wind power can relieve pressure upon it. I will have to look into that too.

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 2:24PM

JFGalt,
Here are a few items I just dug up by doing a simple google search:

10/27/06, Gov. Rick Perry's Remarks Regarding Wind Energy - Amarillo"Wind energy is good for the environment, good for the economy and good for West Texas, because there is an ample supply. Last month I announced a $10 billion wind energy investment,""

6/2/08, Gov. Rick Perry: "Wind Energy Keeps Texas' Air Clean and Our Future Bright" Remarks to the American Wind Energy Association Conference

8/26/11, Texas curtailed electricity customers this Wednesday in the face of abnormally high temperatures and insufficient capacity. And as is to be expected this time of year, windpower is producing at its yearly lows–on Wednesday, about 9 percent of capacity (880 MW out of nearly 10,000 MW capacity), down from 18 percent earlier in the week.

8/26/11, The cost of building thousands of miles of transmission lines to carry wind power across Texas is now estimated at $6.79 billion, a 38 percent increase from the initial projection three years ago.

This is what you are supporting; this is what I am opposing.

Kishego| 9.1.11 @ 3:36PM

"The cost of building thousands of miles of transmission lines to carry wind power across Texas is now estimated at $6.79 billion, a 38% increase from the initial projection three years ago." This is why T. Boone Pickens abandoned the wind power industry after spending more than $1.5 billion. Generating the electricity is not the problem. The problem is both transmission for wind and storage for solar. Until these problems are solved, these are not technologies for large communities to rely on (just ask all the Brits who froze because they had to shut their wind mills down. It was too cold to run them, and they had nothing on line to back it up. Many people died for someones green energy fantasy).

Nick| 9.1.11 @ 7:28PM

Have you considered,

Your Youtube link doesn't work. Try this:

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

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 9:09PM

Thank you Nick. Saddening isn't it?

kate| 9.2.11 @ 12:22AM

I have some serious scientists in my family. Wind and solar are never going to work. Period. Wishing doesn't make it so.
Nuclear is the only viable alternative at this time.
If you were a true scientist then you would understand that this energy "problem" is simply not as easy to solve as the silly people think it is.
The world is what it is.
Solar and wind are a joke.
Have you driven through the vast, miles long "wind" factories of Texas?
Talk about pollution and a violation of earth.... and that is to say nothing of the millions of birds being killed by the gigantic gore-turbines. Hideous. Scarring and useless.
Everyone needs to get a grip and study solar flares and earth history and constitutional history and history in general.
This is what happens when liberals are in charge of education for decades.
Ignorance abounds.

kate| 9.2.11 @ 12:40AM

Thanks for the above video Nick on the wind turbines.

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

When my husband and I moved to Texas we drove through 100's of miles of such wind fields at night.
The flashing red lights made me ill. Seriously ill.
It surprised me.
I am not weak of spirit.
I feel so sorry for the people who have to live with such pollution.
The poor birds.
It was like hell.
Sad indeed.

Seek| 9.1.11 @ 12:56PM

Rick Perry supports mass immigration from Mexico and mass rejection of sound science. That's enough reason to oppose his candidacy for president.

zane| 9.1.11 @ 1:15PM

That is a lie. Perry believes in the "free flow" of immigration, in keeping with current immigration laws, i.e. permission to enter our nation legally.

If Perry is so pro-illegal, why did Rodney Johnson's widow come out for and campaign for Governor Perry in the last election?

Mike w| 9.1.11 @ 8:33PM

The country is hosed. Many well informed commenters seem to have locked in on Gardisil Rick as a conservative. Remember that Perry, along with Obama, said that if we build a twenty foot wall on the border then they will bring a twenty one foot ladder. The man has no interest in border security but instead he apparently wants to make many more illegal Democrats.

Jim| 9.1.11 @ 5:06PM

Perry probably made the wrong call on the Gardasil issue, but it's not as big a deal as others make it out to be. Also, his decision is completely understandable.

1) As others have stated, the danger from HPV is not the disease itself, but that it is linked to increased rates of cervical cancer in women.
2) Infectious and life threatening diseases with an effective vaccine are routinely required by governments to protect the public health. This is not a radical or left wing idea - if we were talking about small pox, would you really be against the government supporting vaccination?
3) Parents were allowed to opt out of the program - it was not forcing anyone to do anything, merely providing support if they wanted it.

Perry has claimed he didn't want to have cancer patients asking him later why he didn't do anything to protect them when it was in his power.

Now, I believe Perry probably got some bad advice from colleagues who had a financial interest in this, but to his credit he admitted his mistake and backed down from the executive order. Can you even imagine Obama ever admitting a mistake?

kate| 9.2.11 @ 12:56AM

I don't think it had anything to do with financial concerns, but with ideology.
The vaccine is expense. His compassionate side showed itself . By making it mandatory, poorer people would have access to help. He wanted everyone to have access.
You know, conservatives can do things for compassionate reasons too.
Conservatives called him on it. Mandating is not within the conservative mandate.
He says he made a mistake.
To say that it was to enrich a couple of friends is ludicrous.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:07PM

MT, as I'm sure you're aware of, El Chosen One's college transcripts, written paperwork etc have been locked up/secured prior to his 2008 election [so as not to proclaim his historical liberalism, no doubt]. While all of the recent bru-ha-ha over his birth certificate ignored the larger issue of these college papers, IMHO. Also, I think I read something about his law licence from Illinois either being non-renewed or cancelled by the state [but can't site the source of same]!!!!!

Sirbourbon| 9.1.11 @ 2:34PM

"decorated airman" sounds good on someone's resume but when one has egg on his face as Perry surely does regarding TARP, Freedom of Choice (ie: Gardacil), Raising taxes, cronism (ie: tax shelters and funds for his corporate friends who donate millions to his campaigns), TransTexas corridor trampling property rights, Texas Dream Act , sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, and all the usual liberal agenda.
Texas gal Terry Holt lays out the Guv Perry record here:http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/6984-rick-perrys-texas-record

JimP| 9.1.11 @ 6:59AM

Perry thinks we are "One nation, under God"? I thought he believed we are 'One nation-at the point of Yankee bayonets-, under God'. /sarc

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.1.11 @ 7:04AM

Rick Perry should stand his ground and be proud of his stand against wasteful, Ponzi like government programs. The public sees the waste and outright corruption inside the beltway and are simply waiting for President Destry to come clean the town up.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.1.11 @ 8:27AM

Bill:
He doesn't seem to be backing down, but doubling down on the truth and how it impacts young Americans. He isn't saying to scrap it, but he is for means testing, kicking rich Democrats like Warren Buffett off the system and is probably looking at positive reforms to help future generations of Americans.

Sirbourbon| 9.1.11 @ 2:37PM

Have you seen his record on cronyism?
http://thenewamerican.com/usne.....g-as-texas

fred filopek| 9.1.11 @ 10:39AM

there is somethig wrong with you.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:08PM

'somethig'??????

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 7:08AM

"Gov. Perry is very eager to appear tough on illegal immigration, but upon closer inspection he's part of the problem," complained William Gheen, who runs the North Carolina-based political action committee Americans for Legal Immigration. The group intends to educate conservative groups about candidates' positions on that issue.

Tea party criticism about Perry's immigration record is now appearing on activist blogs in Arizona and New Hampshire."

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 7:27AM

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was first elected in 1976 but has never authored any legislation to stop illegal immigration. This has occurred despite the fact he represents Texas which has the nation’s longest border with Mexico.

He is against the E-Verify program to stop employers from hiring illegal aliens. In fact, he is against all laws prohibiting employers from hiring illegal aliens. He opposes Arizona’s get tough policies and the deportation of people who are here illegally. If a state wants open borders that is fine with him. NumbersUSA gives him an “F” rating on immigration.

When he ran for president in 1988 as a Libertarian, Paul advocated the official policy of his party. He said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” At the same time he advocated the complete elimination of the Border Patrol, which he said was unconstitutional.

He has since changed his mind and now has strong rhetoric against illegal immigration on the campaign trail. This is not supported by his voting record or other actions. He claims to be against amnesty but his new book advocates it. He claims to be against birthright citizenship but his book supports it. He voted for the 2006 Secure Fence Act and claims he supports the Border Fence, but he also voted against it on numerous occasions and always says it is not needed. He claims sensors at the border are enough. He also says the military is not needed on the border, and the Border Patrol is sufficient. Some of Paul’s votes against using the military on the border include:

•2006: H. Amendment 206 to H.R. 1815
•2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200
•2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588
•The Goode Amendments authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain conditions, to assist in the performance of border control functions. It passed the House by a vote of 231-191.
•2002: H. Amendment 479 to H.R. 4546
•2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586
•2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205
•1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401.
•Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control efforts. The Traficant Amendment passed by a vote of 242-173.
•Paul voted against H.R. 418 in 2005 to strengthen border control by requiring completion of the last 3.5 miles of the San Diego border fence. The legislation also broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens. It passed by a vote of 261-161.

•Paul voted in 1997, 2001 ( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue under 8 USC Section 245-i amnesty for illegal aliens. This qualified as amnesty by “allowing an illegal alien to remain in the US legally” for a temporary period rather than permanent. This was seen as a loophole in the 1996 IRCA that barred illegal aliens from receiving visas for 10 years. By paying a “fee,” illegal aliens who applied for legal status could remain in the US while their application was reviewed and evade the usual investigation done in their home countries. The 245i program has since ended, but Ron Paul voted for its continuance in 1997, 2001 and 2002, and voted against ending it later.
•Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359)
•Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437). The legislation passed by a vote of 260-159. Rep. Paul changed his position when he decided to run for President and voted for the same measure, the Secure Fence Act, in 2006. The legislation authorized an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. The Congressman changed his mind because he wanted “enforcement of the law.” He said it was not because he supported the construction of a border fence.
•After Paul changed his position he was interviewed by John Stossel of 20/20 on January 3, 2008 and said he finds a border fence “rather offensive.” He described his vote as symbolic, and he has never explained how he would secure the border.
•Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners.
•Paul received a “C” rating from the anti-illegal immigration group ALIPAC, Americans for Legal Immigration.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 7:53AM

Do Your Homework, Perry PropagandaBoy.

"A nation without borders is no nation at all. After decades of misguided policies America has now become a free-for-all. Our leaders betrayed the middle class which is forced to compete with illegal immigrants who will work for almost anything, just because the standards in their home countries are even lower.

If these policies are not reversed, the future is grim. A poor, dependent and divided population is much easier to rule than a nation of self-confident individuals who can make a living on their own and who share the traditions and values that this country was founded upon.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

1. Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
2. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
3. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
4. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
6. Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done."

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 8:21AM

Clint, you are TRULY a moronic drone.

"Clinton" just explained to you, in exhaustive detail, Ron Paul's pathetic record on immigration, citing specific legislative facts, such as Paul's own bad voting record...

...And your idiotic response is "Do your homework"..???

He DID you complete and utter buffoon!

Meanwhile, all you do is recite -again -Ron Paul's talking points.

Is that all you've got??? 8th-grade insults, anti-Semitism, and talking points.

You're a freaking joke. With dim-wits like yourself pimping Ron Paul, the rest of us can relax, assured on the knowledge that Paul will NEVER be President.

"Do your homework"..! Lol!

Based on the IQ level of your posts, Looks like you didn't do much homework your entire life.

irish19| 9.1.11 @ 1:39PM

"Is that all you've got??? 8th-grade insults, anti-Semitism, and talking points."
Yes.

irish19| 9.1.11 @ 1:40PM

Sorry-sort of. This should be a reply to DR.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:17PM

Absolutely agree with your description of Mister C&P!!!!!!!

Mike w| 9.1.11 @ 8:38PM

Where the world do you get anti semitism out of this post? Do you realize how tiresome the anti semitism label is? Do you realize how un-original it is?

If Paul has changed his immigration views then that is good but the first post by Clinton was very effective. I suppose we can forgive Paul for old views if we can forgive Perry for being Gore's Texas campaign manager in 1988.

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 8:25AM

Clint, you are TRULY a moronic drone.

"Clinton" just explained to you, in exhaustive detail, Ron Paul's pathetic record on immigration, citing specific legislative facts, such as Paul's own bad voting record...

...And your idiotic response is "Do your homework"..???

He DID you complete and utter buffoon!

Meanwhile, all you do is recite -again -Ron Paul's talking points.

Is that all you've got??? 8th-grade insults, anti-Semitism, and talking points.

You're a freaking joke. With dim-wits like yourself pimping Ron Paul, the rest of us can relax, assured on the knowledge that Paul will NEVER be President.

"Do your homework"..! Lol!

Based on the IQ level of your posts, Looks like you didn't do much homework your entire life.

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 8:43AM

Liberal Democrat Zeke Philips an Obama voter is a Ron Paul supporter despite knowing he'll lose.

“I voted or Obama because he reminded me of FDR.

Many Democrats and I are now feeling snookered because Obama didn’t take the banks to task, he wasn’t bank-busting, muck-raking, a wealth-chasing socialist we thought we elected, but in a contest between him and Paul, he would win for the same reason he won against McCain.

That reason? That ear-to-ear, welcoming, smiling grin.

It is called the “halo effect” and it is well-documented in any psychology study, and it goes like this. People who are more attractive tend to be more successful. (Mind blowing, right?)
I like Paul (I think his son is bought by the money, but I like the dad) and I attended rallies and donated $XXX.00 to his campaign. But, he can’t win. Because he is an old, less attractive, seemingly Fed-raving lunatic, he won’t win against a more attractive, more articulate, wide smiling, welcoming American.

Sorry folks. We like to think the issues matter, but they don’t. In politics, all that matters is the appearance. Are you attractive (yes/no) do you have the appearance of a leader (yes/no). “

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:16PM

Just like FDR, wasting money and taking away rights. FDR's policies did not work then and will not work now except to ruin our economy.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 12:07PM

I Am Clint, And I Approve This Message.

Aaaand Your All Tool-Job Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkies.

PS: I Almost Forgot Asshats.

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 1:41PM

I Am Clint, And I Approve This Message.

Aaaand Your All Tool-Job Israel Firster RINO-CINO Flunkies.

PS: I Almost Forgot Asshats.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 1:58PM

Dr.Reich,You seem so upset this fine day.

Was it something I said ?

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 9:58PM

Nothing you say changes you are always an idiot so why would he care lol.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 11:26AM

Poor Clint.
"Perry, Romney, Paul, and Bachmann rank as the top four candidates in Gallup's latest GOP nomination preference poll, conducted Aug. 17-21. However, these four candidates' positive intensity trends have diverged in recent weeks, with Perry holding steady or improving but Romney, Bachmann, and Paul generally declining. This is the case even after Bachmann and Paul had the strongest performances in the recent Iowa Straw Poll, though the event was perhaps overshadowed by Perry's long-rumored official entry into the race that same weekend."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149.....Field.aspx

It hurts to have your hero fall so hard and apparently it doesn't get any easier when he does it over and over.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 2:01PM

Gallup poll: Ron Paul trails President Obama by 2 percent.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul trails President Obama by just 2 percentage points, according to the latest Gallup Poll released Monday.

The poll, which finds former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Texas Republican governor Rick Perry as the leading candidates to challenge Mr. Obama, shows Mr. Paul trailing Mr. Obama by just two percentage points, 47 to 45 percent.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 2:13PM

Clint, Clint,

You do realize that the poll you used to refute my claim shows Paul in 3rd place with Romney and Perry both beating Obama don't you?

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:23PM

And additionally that Gallup describes Paul support mainly among 18-29 year olds [shazam, the same age group that supports El Chosen One and his H&C]!!!!!!

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:24PM

" Rick Perry supported Lance Armstrong's 3 billion dollar Texas taxpayer funded medical research center. That’s like ObamaCare. That’s not free market.

Rick Perry, secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund for him and just the two leaders of the legislature to dole out to whomever he felt like being friendly to. That’s corporate welfare, a recipe for corruption, and as bad as the TARP bailouts that caused the Tea Parties to explode all across America. In fact, Perry gave 20 million dollars to Countrywide Financial which later went bankrupt.
He supported a new state business tax. He set up toll road tax collection booths all over Texas highways. The Austin Tea Party and the Austin Toll Party booed him on the steps of the state Capitol for that.

Rick Perry, signed an executive order mandating young Texas schoolgirls to get the HPV vaccine, while his former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck. Perry's judgment was so bad the Texas legislature revolted against him and overturned his decision,"

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:09PM

Duuuuhhhh !
RINO-CINO Apologist Flunkie Stooge Boy.

It shows that voters polled find Dr.Ron Paul breathing down Obama's scruffy neck.

Tell Your Propaganda to The Texas Tea Party & The New Hampshire Tea Party.
They Are After Perry for:
Rick Perry & TARP, The Trans Texas Corridor, Toll Roads, Business Margin Tax, HPV Vaccine Mandate...

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 3:18PM

And it shows that Perry and Romeny are beating Obama will Paul is tied with him.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:39PM

Gee, RINO-CINO Apologist, are ya also A Romney Guy now?

Aaaaand,
The Tea Parties from Texas, New Hampshire,Arizona,South Carolina,etc... are after Perry's & getting the word out to other Tea Party Groups & then to other voters.

Watch & Learn.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 4:02PM

Nope, but even he is beating your guy.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 5:22PM

The Tea Party is exposing"Your Guy" Perry.

Rick Perry,
"We must say to every Texas child learning in a Texas classroom, 'we don't care where you come from, but where you are going, and we are going to do everything we can to help you get there.'" he said. "And that vision must include the children of undocumented workers. That's why Texas took the national lead in allowing such deserving young minds to attend a Texas college at a resident rate. Those young minds are a part of a new generation of leaders, the doors of higher education must be open to them. The message is simple: educacion es el futuro, y si se puede."

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:03PM

Clint, Just cause you wear funny hats and drink tea at parties does not mean your in the "Tea Party." Obama polls behind unnamed Republican but Beats Ron Paul. Why is that Clint? Oh! I remember, its because Ron Paul is a nut.

Mike Hawk| 9.1.11 @ 10:53AM

Ron Paul is an anacronism and his Paulbot followers mostly kooks.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:20PM

Mike, speaking of Kooks, you are the Kookiest of them all, with your liberal name calling and total lack of any thought

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 2:10PM

Like ( Dr. Ron ) Paul, Reagan ran for President a couple of times before finally winning in 1980. In fact, when Ronald Reagan ran for the Republican nomination in 1976 he was opposed by the Republican leadership and was even considered a “kook” by many in the party. Sound familiar? At that time, only four Republican congressman supported Reagan and Ron Paul was one of them.

The RINO-CINO Ruling Elite & Their Apologist Flunkies have attempted to smear up & marginalize all Our Tea Party Candidates.

They're Afraid Of The Tea Party.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:34PM

You're correct, STUPID.....the tea party is supporting Perry: '.....Aug 29, 2011 Gallup Poll: Tea Party supporters back Rick Perry By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY Texas Gov. Rick Perry leads a Gallup Poll of Tea Party supporters for the GOP presidential nomination. By Eric Gay, AP....Tea Party supporters back Rick Perry for the GOP presidential nomination, giving him a strong double-digit lead in the latest Gallup Poll over rivals Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann.Perry is the choice of 35% of the Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who consider themselves supporters of the small government, anti-tax movement. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, and Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman who founded the House Tea Party Caucus, were each the choice of 14% of Tea Party supporters.Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose libertarian views have attracted a following in his three presidential bids, was the only other GOP candidate to rank in the double digits, as the choice of 12% of Tea Party supporters.Nearly six in 10 Republicans in the Gallup survey consider themselves Tea Party supporters.Overall, Perry is the top choice for the GOP presidential nomination, surpassing Romney by 12 percentage points in the Gallup Poll.Given Perry's lead among Tea Party supporters, it's not surprising to find the Texas governor as the top choice for those voters who say "government spending and power" is the most important issue to them. He's the choice of 31% who say "government spending and power" is the most important issue, followed by Romney with 17%.Romney is the leading GOP presidential candidate among those Republicans and independents who don't support the Tea Party movement, with 23% support vs. 20% support for Perry.The Tea Party movement is more disparate than other political entities, with its decentralized focus and no national structure. Before Perry's official entry into the presidential race this month, Tea Party supporters backed Bachmann, Paul and businessman Herman Cain.Shortly after Perry jumped into the race, a range of Tea Party supporters told USA TODAY's Alan Gomez that they would take a strong look at Perry's candidacy.In July, Romney had a 29%-23% edge over Bachmann among Tea Party supporters in the Gallup Poll.The new survey of 1,040 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents was taken Aug. 17-21. It has a margin of error of +/-4 percentage points.....'

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:12PM

CONCORD, N.H. – In spite of his thundering speeches against big government, Texas Gov. Rick Perry has a troubled relationship with the tea party, a rift increasingly obvious as he gets closer to a presidential bid.

Tea party groups from New Hampshire to Texas are collaborating to criticize Perry's record on immigration, public health and spending and his former affiliation with the Democratic Party.

"It's real easy to walk into church on Sunday morning and sing from the hymnal. I saw a guy that talked like a tea party candidate but didn't govern like one," said Debra Medina, a Texas tea party activist who challenged Perry in the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary. "I still don't think he governs like the conservative he professes to be."

Texas conservatives recently shared material on Perry's record with the New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition, which dedicated a section of its website to the Texas governor. The coalition offers links to negative media coverage and videos about the man who it says "was Al Gore's Democrat chairman" in 1988. Perry switched to the Republican Party in 1989, around the same time as other conservative Democrats.

The organization also distributed a series of emails to supporters, including one obtained by The Associated Press warning, "We should be aware there is more to him than meets the eye."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Watch & Learn.

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:05PM

Everything you say sounds familiar, cause your a friggin nut and keep repeating the same idiotic stuff over and over and over and over again. Ron Paul 6% or is it 5% now?

kevin| 9.4.11 @ 6:38AM

Ron Paul is the Paulbot's version of Obama. He is to be worshipped and anyone who finds his views...err, flaky, are RINOs instead of racists.

Seek| 9.1.11 @ 12:58PM

Excellent reasons for opposing Ron Paul. If Tom Tancredo were in the hunt, by contrast, I'd work for him. Tancredo -- a real patriot.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 2:13PM

Tom Tancredo Endorsed The RINO-CINO GOP "Annointed One " , Mittens Romney.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:14PM

Thanks for this informative information concerning Paul, since same seems to paint a partial picture of his thoughts concerning immigration in consideration of his libertarianism!!!!!

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:28PM

Ronald Reagan,
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion

Sirbourbon| 9.1.11 @ 2:59PM

Just go tho his website to see his positions of illegal immigration and border security.
Paul lays out his position quite clearly:http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

Ron Paul wants to use the Constitution to solve the illegal immigration crisis. He is not for supporting the band aid treatments offered up by the usual coterie of liberal /conservatives who have never really addressed the issue of national sovereignty and how applying the Constitution would solve the illegal immigration problem if only they would enforce it and the laws on the books!

You put your own partisan twist on Paul's record and repeat the liberal media's spin on the issue which negates your entire lengthy diatribe.

Birthright, amnesty, enforcement, dealing with employers who hire illegals knowenly, et al.

Insofar as the E-verify. The Bill of Rights trumps these types of programs.Paul's view is not to destroy the BOR to fight illegal immigration. Don't build a surrveliance society to stop border jumpers when the simpler solution would be to cut off illegals from welfare, free schools and NOT allowing them to open up bank accounts to obtain mortgages with legally issued drivers licenses.

He is Ron Paul from Texas. Here is his record:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/.....6-ron-paul

Conrad Spiracy| 9.1.11 @ 7:31AM

By Paulista automatons, likely.

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 7:37AM

Do you want a 700-mile fence between our border and Mexico?

Ron Paul: Not really. There was an immigration bill that had a fence (requirement) in it, but it was to attack amnesty. I don't like amnesty. So I voted for that bill, but I didn't like the fence. I don't think the fence can solve a problem. I find it rather offensive.

What about the millions who are here illegally already? Should we deport them?

Ron Paul: I don't think anybody could find them. Nobody even knows how many there are. But if they come for welfare benefits and you know they're illegal, (you should) deny them the benefits. If they commit a crime, send them home. Today in many cities, you're not even allowed to ask them their immigrant status. Policemen tell me they can't ask that question to find out if they're illegal. It's politically incorrect to ask a person his immigrant status because that would (be like saying), "If you've broken the law, maybe you ought to go home."

How do you see immigration in the future?

Ron Paul: If we have a healthy economy, we would probably have a lot of people coming back and forth working in this country. There was a time when (immigrants did that). That was when they didn't expect to get easy amnesty.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 8:06AM

Dr.Ron Paul,
"I basically say the people who come here illegally, no amnesty, no citizenship, no mandates to get free medical care and for education, Federal government telling the states, bankrupting our southern states, that they should not, and I don’t see how it’s possible where you can round up 20 million people but I would not give them citizenship, benefits and allow them to vote, I think that would be very detrimental."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up.

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 8:11AM

Tea Party founder and defender of America's borders and identity Tom Tancrado calls out Ron Paul.

Ron Paul’s amnesty with an asterisk
Tom Tancredo

I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. We didn’t see eye to eye on every issue, but he was generally an ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it appears that Paul’s views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.

Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.” One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before.

The result is not pretty. Ron Paul’s book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants “have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits.

This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.” He also claims, “It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant.”

The immigration website VDARE.com refutes both of these assertions.

They note that 77 percent of illegal aliens are Hispanic, while less than 5 percent of illegal and 10 percent of legal immigrants are European – so the idea that we are treating Europeans specially is specious.

VDARE also points to a Center for Immigration Studies report that shows immigrants are much more likely to be on welfare than native-born American citizens.

In addition to insulting the motives of the critics of uncontrolled immigration, he argues against policies that we don’t support. According to Paul, immigration-control advocates want to “use the U.S. Army, round them up, ship them home.” In my decades fighting this battle, I have not once heard anyone advocate using the military for deportations.

Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require “splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades.” Of course, there is nothing keeping the children of illegal immigrants from going home for their parents. If we got rid of birthright citizenship, which Paul says he supports, that would not be an issue to begin with.

As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not.

According to Paul, deporting such people would be “incompatible with human rights.” That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law.

The truth is that we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own.

Paul comes out against both these policies. He not only opposes the E-Verify program, he even comes out against all laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens. To make his point even more dramatic, he absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens “involuntary servitude.”

Paul comes out against Arizona’s popular SB 1070 law using absurd arguments of the type normally heard only from America-hating leftists: “Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a ‘threat,’ without charges ever being made.”

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what supposed secret prisons and political assassinations have to do with enforcing our immigration laws. The Arizona law’s definition of “reasonable suspicion” is the same standard that applies for federal immigration officials and local law enforcement for non-immigration violations, so the law does not expand police powers.

So if we can’t enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, “Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk could be issued.” This “asterisk” would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate “automatic citizenship.” Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty.

I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.

Mike Hawk| 9.1.11 @ 11:00AM

Rube Paul is a Paleoprogressive fringe kook.You Paulbots are nutty, but you are loyal to a fault, I'll grant you that.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 1:47PM

Tom Tancredo Calls Out Faaux Conservative,Rick Perry.

" Perry, in a speech in Mexico in 2007, said he supports completely open borders, calling for the “free flow of individuals between these two countries who want to work and want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico.”

In the same speech he came out against building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.Perry also came out in favor of blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2006, albeit without citizenship, supporting “a guest worker program that takes undocumented workers off the black market and legitimizes their economic contribution.”
Despite all his talk about sovereignty and states’ rights, Perry proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor. This toll road would go through Mexico, but be run together with the Mexican government in the middle of Texas.

While I was in Congress, I co-sponsored the H.C. Res. 487 to block the creation of this highway. Fortunately our efforts in Congress, along with the work of conservatives in the Texas legislature, derailed Perry’s sovereignty sacrificing scheme.

Perry’s views here are at odds with the vast majority of Americans — and virtually all Republican voters. While he opposes E-Verify for even state employees, 82 percent of all voters, and 91 percent of Republicans, support E-Verify for all employees.

While Perry opposes the border fence, 68 percent of all voters, and 86 percent of Republicans, support the fence. While Perry opposes the Arizona law, SB 1070, voters want 1070 in their state by a 2-1 margin — including 86 percent of all Republicans.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:44PM

If this quote leftists: “Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a ‘threat,’ without charges ever being made.” is accurate, then it is STUPID, since illegal immigrants are by the very definition of being ILLEGAL are not 'any American citizen'!!!!

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:23PM

Clint, Political Correctness is destructive to real life

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 1:48PM

Harold, Get Bent.

Thank You.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:45PM

Mister Copy&Paste; speaks.....STUPIDLY!!!!!!

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:42PM

Fart, Get Harold To Bend You.

Thank You.

Have A Nice Evening.

Sirbourbon| 9.1.11 @ 3:08PM

Conspiracy deniers never met a conspiracy they could recognize?
*The MAFIA (Cosa Nostra)
*The 9-11 airline hijacking plot and terror strike that must have taken a few years to coordinate.

Conspiracy deniers would have you believe it was all an accident if they could get away with their delusions that conspiracies like Watergate, Iran-Contra, White Water, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Clinton's Chinagate bribery, "et tu Brutus" never really were conspiracies because Fox News didn't talk about them! But sometimes even Fox does: http://current.com/community/8.....-order.htm

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 4:06PM

The "New Word order" Really? Wow. Watch out for those super secret black helicopters circling your location

kate| 9.2.11 @ 1:12AM

Hey
Try some European blogs. Particularly, the British.
They are very, very well educated, but they think a dryer is a luxury.
I followed a thread where a couple of thirty -somethings wrote about saving up for laundry lines.
They are pathetic.
And socialist.
I'll take Perry, thank you.

Negro X| 9.1.11 @ 7:10AM

Liberals cower in fear at the thought of an American with American ideals running for office.
The liberal cyborgs only weapon is the personal atttack, they cannot win by attacking policy.
All that is necessary to beat obama is to attack him the DOJ, immigration polices and his string of "green industries" bankruptcies.

Jack in Wi.| 9.1.11 @ 7:11AM

Perry has beeen puffed to the top by the media. Now the media will stick pins in him until he deflates. Mr. Perry looks like and sounds like GW Bush. He is even dumber. Bush was a C+ student at Harvard. I hear Perry was a D+ student at some agriculture college. No prowar Republican can win the general election this year. Trying to sound like Ron Paul on the Fed and going back to the Constitution won't make him the nominee. I predict he, with the help of the media, will implode by Thanksgiving.

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 7:31AM

TOM TANCREDO SAYS PAUL IS PRO-AMNESTY

“I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. . . Unfortunately, it appears that Paul’s views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.

Rep. Paul released his latest book, ‘Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.’
“One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before. The result is not pretty. Ron Paul’s book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. . .

“According to Paul, deporting illegal immigrants would be “incompatible with human rights.” That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law.

“The truth is that we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own. Paul comes out against both these policies. . . He absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens ‘involuntary servitude.’

“Paul comes out against Arizona’s popular SB 1070 law using absurd arguments of the type normally heard only from America-hating leftists: ‘Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a ‘threat,’ without charges ever being made.’

“I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what supposed secret prisons and political assassinations have to do with enforcing our immigration laws. The Arizona law’s definition of ‘reasonable suspicion’ is the same standard that applies for federal immigration officials and local law enforcement for non-immigration violations, so the law does not expand police powers.

“So if we can’t enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, ‘Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk could be issued.’ This ‘asterisk’ would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate ‘automatic citizenship.’ Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty. I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.”

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 7:51AM

Do Your Homework, Perry PropagandaBoy.

Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

The facts on the ground are being created right now. Every day that passes makes it more difficult to reverse the damage that has already been done."

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 8:00AM

Tom Tancredo, eloquently cut to the chase when discussing Ron Paul's position on illegal immigrants, “He’s got the wrong idea about immigration, I’ll tell you. His new book essentially calls for open borders.”Given the drastic change in Paul’s positions on immigration, Tancredo even wondered if Paul had actually written the book. A possibility since Paul claims not to have been the author of his racist newsletter in the 1990's despite his name being used as the author for the inflammatory comments attacking blacks.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 8:03AM

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 8:37AM

Dr. Ron Paul,

"I don’t believe in the open borders. But I don’t like the idea of people wanting to build walls and fences and guns and thinking that the immigrant is the evil monster and the immigrant becomes the scapegoat of everything. I think that’s very very bad. " (Is this an attack on his son Senator Rand Paul who supports a fence across our border?)

"I do not support amnesty. [...] I’m not for amnesty but it’s absolutely impossible to think that anybody — no matter strongly feel against illegals — they’re not going to round up 12 or 15 million people. It doesn’t make any sense."

Former Libertarian candidate Paul also pointed out that “the purist Libertarian viewpoint is totally open-borders.”

Sounds like despite his token opposition to open borders and amnesty Dr. Paul wants open borders and amnesty for tens of millions of illegal immigrants.

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 9:14AM

Notice how "Doctor" Ron didn't say anything about keeping illegals OUT; he merely said not to coddle them when they're already here.

That approach does nothing to solve our problem.

If you stop them from coming in, you don't have to worry about paying for them.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 11:30AM

Bingo DR.

I applaud Clinton's great work showing facts to Clint and Jack about some of Ron Pauls shortcoming but their minds are made up. Facts be damned.

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 11:50AM

Everyone of these cowards that uses that straw man "We cant round up and deport 20 million illegals" argument needs to be politically tarred and feathered. That answer is simply viewed as a way out for a cowardly career politician who knows the answer, but fears he will be labeled racist.

I first heard Walter Cronkite rail about this 15 years ago on a local AM station. We have had plenty of time to act.

The reason we now have a politically volatile issue in the form of illegal immigration is that weak willed politicians allowed our society to become saturated with a group of people who no longer even pretend to assimilate.

We can't deport 20 million illegals? Oh really? How about we begin by deporting the 10's of thousands of illegals who have been arrested for crimes they were convicted of and have had their standard of living improved by incarceration in our state and federal prisons?

When it costs us thousands of dollars of our tax money every year to house each of these individuals in a penal system already busting at the seams, do you think that might save us a little money?

How about we quit letting them reside and collect benefits in sanctuary cities? How about we fine employers for hiring them? How about we quit letting them pay in-state tuition? How about we stop putting up shade and water stations outside HomeDepot so they can rat pack every car or truck that drives up?

How about we stop giving them drivers licenses and stop them from illegally voting in our elections in order to obtain even more money from the public trough. In short, maybe if we quit coddling the ones here illegally some of them might be motivated to actually undertake the path to legal citizenship.

How about the Federal Government starts enforcing its own laws on "illegal" immigration instead of suing states trying to fill the void? Oh, that's right King Obama has now ruled that impossible. We need to elect a conservative who will who will build the wall, enforce our countries laws and end the invasion and occupation of our country!

steveo| 9.1.11 @ 1:36PM

Boar Hunter:
Good stuff! If you run, I'll vote for you.
"Retreat? hell, we just got here."

Trinacria| 9.1.11 @ 6:09PM

Amen, brother!

We figured out a way to defeat the nazis, the communists, the fascists, and the nips. We put a man on the moon, sent rovers to Mars, and put a telescope in space that can view the birth of galaxies billions of light years away. We cured polio, small pox, and malaria. Hell, we even took a marginally witted affirmative action beneficiary and made him the leader of the free world. And we can't deport 20 million illegal immigrants? Really?

You nailed it, BH; it's not that we can't, it's that we won't. The former would be unfortunate; the latter is a national disgrace.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 1:51PM

DUUUUHHHH !

Dr.Rich Buffoon.

From Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:08PM

Your an idiot Clint. You were included in my point about idiots who talk about rounding up and deporting 20 million illegals.

VBMax| 9.1.11 @ 7:41AM

The "dumber" strategy is not going to fly....I suggest you give it up.

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 8:29AM

No! They should keep it up!

Makes them look desperate, and now they can't focus their liberal rage at Palin, Bachman, or Santorum.

And Perry will just fire it right back at them.

It's a win-win for Conservatives.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 1:53PM

DUUUUHHHH !

Dr.Reich Is An Imbecile.

From Ron Paul’s six point plan puts a stop to illegal immigration:

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:30PM

Give it up VBMin, Fences make good neighbors

john dubose| 9.1.11 @ 8:48AM

As a graduate of A&M, I am a bit annoyed with this post. High quality work goes on there and also in the time or Rick Perry. I have no doubt that as a student, he just did not study much. He became a campus politician. He learned that trade very well !

What we voters need to know is how wise he is and what sorts of people and policies would go to the White House with him. For me.. not so great, but better than Obama.

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 9:16AM

Gig'em!!

Seek| 9.1.11 @ 1:00PM

If I'm not mistaken, former Sen. Phil Gramm was an economics professor at Texas A & M.

Trinacria| 9.1.11 @ 6:21PM

On point, JD. Given the choice between an individual who earned his way into college and graduated with a modest 2.5 GPA and a rabble rouser who was awarded admission based on affirmative action and refused to disclose his academic record, I'd put my nickel on the former every time...

W| 9.1.11 @ 11:30AM

Jack,
Harry Truman did not attend college. He was a good president.
Why do you think college is necessary? Or law school? Look at the mess Obama, a Harvard grad, has made. The guy in my neighborhood with a pizza shop would have been a better president. He has a job, pays his bills, has a payroll, and provides a product people want.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 3:04PM

Yeah, you heard about his academic record from the HuffPost, need anything else be said. He GRADUATED with a 2.5 GPA from Texas A&M. Once again, he GRADUATED. BTW, what was your GPA and did you also GRADUATE from college??????

Shamus| 9.1.11 @ 7:14AM

It's amusing to watch liberals wet their pants over the thought that Perry might win. The fact that the left seems content with Romney makes me wonder what he would do if elected.

Intelligent Design| 9.1.11 @ 8:44AM

The media recognizes that Obama can't win, so they are supporting the candidate who in their minds would be the next best thing: Romney.

Notice that in Texas there is no PerryCare, while MA has RomneyCare, which is the blueprint for ObamaCare. There is only a shade of difference between Romney and Obama, and both have no problem subverting our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Romney and Obama should be running mates.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:34PM

ORomney, would be more of the same only without all the lies

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 8:59AM

Shamus,

I don't have to wonder. I know exactly what he would do. Bring a RINO member in good standing of the DC establishment, he'd meet the left halfway every chance he got. What a Republican president should is kick their butts all the way back to Berkeley.

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 11:56AM

My support for Perry rises in direct proportion to the screams of outrage on the left. They are telling us who they fear most. They know romney (not a typo) is nothing but an empty suit who lacks the political will to do anything other than get along with these spoiled petulant children for four more years.

Seek| 9.1.11 @ 1:01PM

Just because the left opposes someone that doesn't make that person right for the job.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 1:06PM

No, but it's a great start.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 2:59PM

Seek,

Are you kidding? LOL.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 3:08PM

Hey Margie, do you know how to STARVE A DEMOCRAT? You simply have to.....HIDE HIS FOOD STAMPS UNDER HIS WORK BOOTS [from the current book on how to argue with liberals]!!!!!

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 3:10PM

Oldefarte,

You always make me smile. LOL.

kate| 9.2.11 @ 1:29AM

oldefarte
That is the best clean joke I've heard in years!!
:)))

Trinacria| 9.1.11 @ 6:23PM

Perhaps not; but it's one hell of a leading indicator.

Nick| 9.1.11 @ 7:48PM

Seek,

"Just because the left opposes someone that doesn't make that person right for the job."

Maybe not automatically, but, it is a great indicator. As the ole' sayin' goes, "How do you know when you are over the target? When you start taking flak."

The same can be said of the Catholic Church. The left hates Christians, as a whole, but, they really hate Catholic Christians, don't they?

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 10:17PM

Catholicism isn't Christianity, and one is free to hate it.

Nick| 9.1.11 @ 11:21PM

But, I still love you, Margie, my sister in Christ.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 3:06PM

I love you too, Nick. It's what you believe that I despise. It is what leads you to wrong conclusions about the Bible and Jesus.

It's what sadly leads you to say that Bible believing Christians are heretics, as you've stated.

Here is what I know about the God of the Bible, and I will leave you with it:

.."for the LORD sees not as man sees; man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart." 1 Sam. 16:7.

Your heart may be in the right place, but I pray that God opens your eyes.

Nick| 9.2.11 @ 7:32PM

Margie,

The difference, of course, is that I do not hate what you believe, even though I think it leads you to wrong conclusions about the Bible and Christ. I just believe that you are mistaken.

I have stated many times that I don't think that you, or most other non-Catholic Christians, are heretics. Saint Thomas Aquinas defined heresy as: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas."

Only those who have publicly proclaimed their belief in, and ascent to, the Catholic faith, and then work to corrupt Her dogmas can be classified as heretics. That leaves you out.

God Bless!
Your brother in Christ, Nick

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 8:51PM

Nick,

You couldn't hate what I believe, because I believe the Bible are the Words of God.

God himself hates deceit, and so do I, since His Spirit dwells in me, by His Grace.

If you do not hate false and unbiblical doctrine, it's not a good sign.

As to heretics~ you said you believe the Martyrs are heretics, that were murdered by the Papists for 600 or so years. They rejected the Religion of Catholicism~ and it's why they were killed.

How is it possible to believe that the false doctrines that led the Papists to kill Bible believing Christians are of God, and yet say you do not hate what they died for?

You cannot serve two Masters. It keeps coming back to this, Nick.

Either the doctrines that led them to kill Christians are wrong (they still teach the same things to this very day!) and you reject them, and hate them, or they are right and you accept them.

The Martyrs are in Heaven with God.. for their testimony to the Word of God~ the murderers (Papists) are not going to be there.

Nick| 9.3.11 @ 12:15AM

Margie,

"You couldn't hate what I believe, because I believe the Bible are [sic] the Words of God."

But, as "a tool of Satan" (your words) shouldn't I hate what you believe? And, yet, I do not.

"How is it possible to believe that the false doctrines that led the Papists to kill Bible believing Christians are of God, and yet say you do not hate what they died for?"

Because, I can distinguish between the corrupting of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, i.e., the act of heresy; and, the laws passed by kings, princes, and parliaments, that sentenced those convicted of heresy to be executed. Even though every heretic was not always put to death.

So, I can agree that certain persons were, in fact, heretics, but, not agree that they should have been executed for this act.

I should add, as I have explained to you in the past, I wouldn't judge those secular rulers for what they did, because I did not live in those times. Just as I don't judge the Founding Fathers for owning slaves, in the 18th century.

You also don't condemn those Protestants who martyred all those Catholics for over three centuries. Just as you don't accuse Anglicans and Episcopalians, or Lutherans, or Calvinists, etc., of teaching false doctrines or being a "false Religion." Why not?

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 5:45PM

You are blatantly lying again, Nick.

And that proves who you are.

I have always stated here and for years that whoever murders another is not Christian.

When will YOU confess that your Papacy is guilty and has the blood of the Martyrs on its hands?

When will you admit that the same teachings that lead them to commit these murders are still being taught today?

You need to repent of following these false doctrines that cause you to believe that these Martyrs and the living Martyrs of today (Bible believing Christians) are heretics.

I'm going to leave you with this:

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son." 1 Jn. 1:9.

Nick| 9.4.11 @ 12:20AM

Margie,

"I have always stated here and for years that whoever murders another is not Christian."

That wasn't the question. Why do you only single out the Catholics? When have you ever called Lutheranism a "false Religion"? When have you ever stated that Episcopalians are not Christians? When have you ever written that "Calvinism isn't Christianity"? When have you ever said that the Presbyterians were going to Hell for what they teach?

There have been plenty of articles and blog posts about these other religions, here at AmSpec, for you to do so. But, I have never seen you write any such thing. Or, did I just miss them?

"When will YOU confess that your Papacy is guilty and has the blood of the Martyrs on its hands?"

Umm, never. Pope Benedict XVI is not responsible for the evil actions of Catholics, from the past. Just as President Bush was not responsible for the actions of FDR or LBJ.

The Catholic Church is not responsible for the evil actions of Her members. Just as the U.S. Army was not responsible for the My Lai massacre or the Abu Ghraib scandal.

I don't know how I can be any clearer. I will not defend any pope, from the past, who committed grave sins. And believe me, there were far too many, and they did very bad things.

"When will you admit that the same teachings that lead them to commit these murders are still being taught today?"

I have explained to you, ad nauseum, that it was not a teaching of the Catholic Church to execute heretics. These were secular laws prosecuted by local magistrates. I have also explained to you that it was forbidden by Canon Law for any cleric to shed blood for any reason.

I urge to learn the real history, so you won't keep repeating these mistakes.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 6:14PM

"But, as "a tool of Satan" (your words) shouldn't I hate what you believe? And, yet, I do not."

Yes you do hate what I believe, Nick. You reject the Words of God and replace them with Catholic doctrine which is demonic.

And why did your Papists torture to death and then kill my brethren for 600 years, Nick?

For the same reason you despise them and consider them "heretics":

"I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill Me, because My Word finds no place in you." Jn. 8:37.

It was NOT because my brethren the Martyrs were heretics~ no! It is because they refused to bow the knee to the demonic Papists, who perverted the Word of God.
It is because the Papists, like the Pharisees had NOT the Word of God in them!

Jesus says if you love Him you MUST keep His Words:

"Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone
loves Me, he will keep My Word, and
My Father shall love him. And We will
come to him and will make an abode with
him.
The one not loving Me does not keep
My words. And the Word which you hear
is not Mine but of the Father, the One having
sent Me." Jn. 14:23 & 24.

I have posted some of the myriad false and unbiblical teachings of the Catholic church here. I have also posted the history of the murderous Papacy.

I have also posted the FACT that the murderous and hateful Religion has NEVER repented from these false teachings, and the fact that the REASON why~ what actually LED them to commit horrendous atrocities upon Bible believing Christians because of their vile hatred toward them~ because they chose to be deluded by their own false teachings and become tools of Satan himself~ and yet you reject the truth~ and just as the Papists of old~ you have become a modern day Papist, who deceitfully tries to paint the Bible believing Christian (along with your fellow modern day Papal Inquisitors)~ as a liar and a poseur.

Yet whose names will not be entered into the Lamb's Book of Life?

"And if anyone takes away from the
words of the Book of this prophecy, God
will take away his part from the Book of
Life, and out of the holy city, and of the
things having been written in this Book.
The One testifying these things says,
Yes, I am coming quickly. Amen. Yes,
come, Lord Jesus!" Rev. 22:19 & 20.

Nick| 9.4.11 @ 7:36PM

Margie,

"Yes you do hate what I believe, Nick."

I think I know what I hate, and what I don't. And, I do not hate what you believe. Honest. I, like you, also love the Word of God. I try to learn something new, about the Scriptures, everyday.

"For the same reason you despise them and consider them 'heretics' [...]."

I do not despise them. I think that they were wrong in rejecting the teachings of Christ's Church.

"I have posted some of the myriad false and unbiblical teachings of the Catholic church here. I have also posted the history of the murderous Papacy."

No, you have posted many of the things that people mistakenly believe about the Catholic Church; and, I have set the record straight.
God Bless!

LSinAZ| 9.2.11 @ 12:23AM

Margie, is that really true that Catholics are not considered Christians? I have never heard that before.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 1:22AM

Catholicism isn't Christianity. It's a Religion that teaches another Gospel, a false one, and not that of Christ.

Individual Catholics may indeed come to Christ, but their Religion teaches them a lot of garbage that isn't biblical, and not of God.

For example, that Bible believing Christians are heretics, because they refuse to follow the Pope.

Christians follow Jesus, while Catholics follow the Pope.
If you really want to know the truth, you have to actually read what the Bible says, and see for yourself.

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 11:59AM

Margie,
I always suspected you were a batty old loon; now you've gone and removed all doubt!

Catholics aren't Christians??? My dear, you're entitled to your opinion, but if it's your opinion that THE ORIGINAL Christians aren't christians, we shan't be expected to take you seriously.

Really - what's next, sweetheart - Jesus wasn't really a Jew?

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 12:57PM

In typical Catholic fashion~ you've purposefully perverted what I said. No surprise there, since you are taught to be deceitful by your Religion.

What I said was Catholicism isn't Christianity.
And it's the truth. Need I list the hundreds of false and unbiblical doctrines that they teach that pervert the will of God? Do you really want to go there?

And the ORIGINAL Christians weren't Catholic~ Catholicism didn't exist for a few centuries after Christ, and with it came the false doctrines, and the murdering Papists who tortured and killed my Christians brethren.

So, I suggest you do a little historical research, "sweetheart." (A sweetheart you are not.)

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 2:02PM

Point 1: with respect to doing your research, perhaps you might profitably consider the possibility that the person with whom you are corresponding is not, in fact, Catholic. It does rather tend to limit the force of one's argument when one makes assumptions that are invalid.

Point 2: As surely you know, the titular head of the Catholic church is the Pope. Had you followed your own advice and bothered to do your research, you would be aware of the fact that the first Pope was Peter, who was entrusted with e stewardship of Christ's church BY CHRIST himself in the first century ("thou art Peter and on this Rock I build my church" - you know, pietro=rock, clever one, that Jesus was).

Point 3: As to that rather nasty business of the hundreds of false and "unbiblical" doctrines that the church teaches and, in so doing, perverts the will of God (your words, not mine), I'm delighted to know that you've been granted exclusive access to the mind of the omnipotent creator. Accordingly, in the spirit of christian fellowship, I enthusiastically accept your kind and magnanimous offer to enlighten me by listing said hundreds of false and unbiblical doctrines taught by the church.

Point 4: Condolences for your Christian brethren who were extinguished by those murdering papists. Pity, that. Perhaps you could contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs and form a victim support group (I hear they had a terribly frightful experience with some over zealous ... Oh, upon reflection, perhaps that wouldn't be such a jolly idea).

Finally, may I be so indelicate as to note in passing that your frank acrimony towards the members of another faith is an inspiring example of "living the gospel". Well done, Christian soldier; well done!

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 3:18PM

Ah, where do I begin with this tripe?

As to your "point 1"~ you certainly defend the Religion exactly the same way they do~ and your continuance of same only leads me to say, "You coulda fooled me!"

Point 2: Peter was not the "first Pope". And in fact, there is no such thing as Popery in the Bible. Instead of spewing Catholic doctrine, I suggest you actually read your Bible.

For a history of the false Religion and its demonic Popery, I suggest you read this:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Then get back to me, or rant on.

Point 3: Yes, I am familiar with the Mind of God~ since His Words and will are actually written in the Bible~ something that Catholicism perverts.

Would you like a list?

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm

Point 4: A snark is a snark is a snark.

I pray God opens your eyes.

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 5:52PM

By the way, since (as you state) you been granted access to the mind of the Omnipotent Creator, could you be a dear and ask him who he likes in the Packers/Saints game next week?

Terribly kind of you.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 6:47PM

"By the way, since (as you state) you been granted access to the mind of the Omnipotent Creator,"

Everyone is granted access.. His Words are in the Bible.

"So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ." Rom. 10:17.

Do you want faith?

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 7:26PM

But how do you know that his words are in the bible? Surely you won't respond that you know because the bible says so, for that would be a classic example of circular logic. And how, then, to repomd to the Muslim who believes that the words of god are in Koran? Or the Mormon who believes that the real words of god were dictated to some old coot in Utah?

As for faith - I suppose it rather begs the question, doesn't it. If faith means believing without evidence or proof, wherein lies the virtue? One can then believe in all varieties of nonsense and call it virtuous, but is that a virtue to which we should aspire?

You see, Margie, here's he problem I have with folks with you - you accept as truth those things that cannot be empirically demonstrated, then dismiss the views of others as heresy or nonsense simply because they don't accord with your own. I haven't the least problem with this if you could empirically validate your own views, but you cant. And instead you champion the virtue of faith - belief without proof - and then invalidate other views on the basis of the fact that they are unsubstantiated beliefs.

Rather a pickle, isn't it?

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 9:08PM

Not a pickle for me, but obviously for thou!

Since you are the one without faith here.

And, since you are without faith, you have not the authority to judge one who has it, are you?

Now, you assume all kinds of things, wrongly~ in your post.

First of all, faith isn't based on blind hope, though the things Christians hope for are unseen, that's true!

If you truly want an answer from me as to how I know the Bible is true, and how I know that God is real, I'm willing to tell you.

But so far you've only mocked and insulted me, and though I just posted a ton of factual and historical information concerning the Religion of which I spoke~ you didn't even care.
Which proves to me that you are not a whit interested in the truth.

And that puts you in a serious pickle, doesn't it?

"Jesus said to him, "I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." Jn. 14:6.

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 10:05PM

Ganesh (the talking elephant) said to the hindus, "I am the supreme being; worship me before all others".

Allah said unto the muslims, "I am the way; follow me."

Darth Vader proclaimed, "Luke, I am your father."

Why don't you believe them? They have offered as much direct evidence as God, and if faith and hope are virtuous, surely one should be commended for opening one's heart to the message of these.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 10:31PM

Now I know you are not serious! LOL. Or do you REALLY believe that fantasy beings are real? Do you also believe in zombies?

I would like for you to show me this "direct evidence" that they have offered.
And you say, "as much direct evidence as God!"
Are you admitting then that God has offered direct evidence?
Was that a slip? Oops. :^).

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 11:29PM

Quick, Margie, look up - that thing zooming by is the point.

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with the concept of reductio ad absurdum. Google it. Here's the idea: you demonstrate the fallacy in ones thinking by carrying the argument to it's extreme conclusion. The point is not that there's empirical evidence for the existence of talking elephants, Allah, or darth vader; on the contrary, there is none. But ask a Muslim or a Hindu to justify his belief in 72 celestial virgins or talking elephants and they will give precisely the same answer that you offer to support your belief. Talking elephants sound absurd to you? Me too; but then again, I'd wager a tidy sum that the Hindu would snicker at the concept of talking snakes and loquatious burning bushes. You think he's foolish for accepting such an absurd concept; he thinks the same of you. And neither one of you can substantiate your position (yeah, yeah, I know...but it's in the bible).

By the way, any word back on that Packers-Saints game?

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 12:02AM

Dear sir or madam,

I believe it is YOU who had better look up. And quickly. You're already choosing to thumb your nose at Christ and His Words now~ what do you think is going to happen when you look up and see Him on that cloud at His coming. like the rest of the World who mocks and rejects Him?

And where is the fallacy of my thinking, hmm? Because I believe in God? Because I reject false Religion?

What is absurd is you you have no faith trying to make a mockery of a person who does.

If you were in the least bit interested in the truth, I'd be very happy to get into it with you, but it would take you having to quit the mocking and insulting AND you having to be willing to hear what the Bible (God's own Words) has to say.

So far you've demonstrated that you aren't interested.

But I will pray for you anyway.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 3:25PM

Since the link doesn't work, I'll have to post the list here.
And though your full of deceit in your judgment of me as hating Catholics~ I don't hate them~ I HATE what their Religion teaches.
Now why is it that you defenders of lies cannot get this through your thick skulls?
Why is it that you refuse to love the Truth?

It is because it is what you are destined to do:

"The coming of the Lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2:9-12.

LIST OF CATHOLIC HERESIES
And HUMAN TRADITIONS

ADOPTED and PERPETUATED by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN THE COURSE OF 1600 YEARS

(Compiled by Rev. Stephen L. Testa)

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free.” —Jesus in John 8:32

Notice: These dates are in many cases approximate. Many of these heresies had been current in the Church years before, but only when they were officially adopted by a Church council and proclaimed by the pope as dogma of faith, did they become binding on Catholics.

And doctrine to be true must conform to the Word of God. “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” (Isaiah 8:20)

At the Reformation in the 16th Century these heresies were repudiated as having no part in the Religion of Jesus as taught in the New Testament.

Heresy Date

OF ALL THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, which are contrary to the Bible, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ. 310
Wax Candles introduced in church. about 320
Veneration of angels and dead saints. 375
The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted. 394
The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, "Mother of God", as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus 431
Priests began to dress differently from the laity 500
Extreme Unction 526
The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great 593
The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Word of God forbids praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9). 600
The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church

(Matthew 11:28; Luke 1:46; Acts 10:25-26; 14:14-18) 600
The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title "pope."

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11).

Note: Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." 610
The kissing of the Pope's feet

It had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors. The Word of God forbids such practices. (Read Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:9). 709
The Temporal power of the Popes

When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by Pope Stephen II, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and He himself refused worldly kingship. (Read Matthew 4:8-9; 20:25-26; John 18:38). 750
Worship of the cross, images and relics was authorized

This was by order of Dowager Empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine VI, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian I, pope of Rome at that time.

Such practice is called simply IDOLATRY in the Bible, and is severely condemned. (Read Exodus 20:4; 3:17; Deuteronomy 27:15; Psalm 115). 788
Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized 850
The veneration of St. Joseph began 890
The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV 965
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV

Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2). 995
Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed

Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (Bull, or permit to eat meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. This is against the plain teaching of the Bible. (Read Matthew 15:10; 1st Corinthians 10:25; 1st Timothy 4:1-3). 998
The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The Bible teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the Lord's Supper. (Read Hebrews 7:27; 9:26-28; 10:10-14).
The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII

Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. On the contrary, St. Peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. (Read 1st Timothy 3:2,5, and 12; Matthew 8:14-15). 1079
The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090. Copied from Hindus and Mohammedans

The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. (Matthew 6:5-13). 1090
The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184
The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin.

Christianity, as taught in the Bible, condemns such a traffic and it was the protest against this traffic that brought on the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. 1190
The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year

By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during Mass. The Bible condemns such absurdities; for the Lord's Supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. The spiritual presence of Christ is implied in the Lord's Supper. (Read Luke 22:19-20; John 6:35; 1st Corinthians 11:26). 1215
Confession of sin to the priest at least once a year was instituted by Pope Innocent III., in the Lateran Council

The Bible commands us to confess our sins direct to God. (Read Psalm 51:1-10; Luke 7:48; 15:21; 1st John 1:8-9). 1215
The adoration of the wafer (Host), was decreed by Pope Honorius

So the Roman Church worships a God made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. (Read John 4:24). 1220
The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia

Jesus commanded that the Scriptures should be read by all. (John 5:39; 1st Timothy 3:15-17). 1229
The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk

It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism. 1287
The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance

The Bible commands us to celebrate the Lord's Supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. (Read Matthew 26:27; 1st Corinthians 11:26-29). 1414
The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence

There is not one word in the Bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. (Read 1st John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1). 1439
The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed

The Bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. (Read Matthew 28:19-20; 26:26-28). 1439
The Ave Maria, part of the last

It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by Pope Sixtus V, at the end of the 16th century. 1508
The Council of Trent, held in the year 1545, declared that Tradition is of equal authority with the Bible

By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus bitterly condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of God. (Read Mark 7:7-13; Colossians 2:8; Revelation 22:18). 1545
The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent

These books were not recognized as canonical by the Jewish Church. (See Revelation 22:8-9). 1546
The Creed of Pope Pius IV was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles

True Christians retain the Holy Scriptures as their creed. Hence their creed is 1500 years older than the creed of Roman Catholics. (Read Galatians 1:8). 1560
The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX

The Bible states that all men, with the sole exception of Christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a Savior. (Read Romans 3:23; 5:12; Psalm 51:5; Luke 1:30,46,47). 1834
In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility

This is a blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and of the antichrist predicted by St. Paul. (Read 2nd Thessalonians 2:2-12; Revelation 17:1-9; 13:5-8,18).

Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's title: "VICARIVS FILII DEI." -- V-5, I-1; C-100, I-1; V-S, I-1; L-50, I-1; I-1; D-500, I-l — Total, 666. 1870
Pope Plus X, in the year 1907, condemned together with "Modernism", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church

Pius IX had done the same thing in the Syllabus of 1864. 1907
In the year 1930 Pius XI, condemned the Public Schools 1930
In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is "the Mother of God"

This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431. This is a heresy contrary by Mary's own words. (Read Luke 1:46-49; John 2: l-5). 1931
In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary 1950

CONCLUSION

What will be the next invention? The Roman Church says it never changes; yet, it has done nothing else but invent new doctrines which are contrary to the Bible, and has practiced rites and ceremonies taken bodily from paganism. Some scholar has found that 75% of the rites and ceremonies of the Roman Church are of pagan origin.

Note: Cardinal Newman, in his book, “The Development of the Christian Religion,” admits that ... “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and season of devotions, processions, blessing of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), images ... are all of pagan origin...” (Page 359).

HERESIES are those doctrines and practices which are contrary to the Bible. They are also called "human traditions" or "doctrines of men". Both Peter and Paul predicted and warned that in the later times "false teachers" would rise within the Church and bring in "damnable heresies" and "doctrines of devils". (Read 2nd Peter 2:1-3, and 1st Timothy 3:2-5). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, for they transgressed the commandments of God by keeping their traditions. “in vain,” He said, "they worship me by keeping for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:3,9).

The real heretics therefore, are the Roman Catholics and the true orthodox are the Evangelical Christians.

BRETHREN! The Word of God commands us to get out of Babylon, saying: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4). All true Christians will remain faithful to the religion of Christ as taught in the Bible, and heed the warning of the Apostle Paul, who said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8).

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 5:36PM

Margie,

I must, in light of the overwhelming evidence, concede your point, as you have invoked the definitive reference on all matters pertaining to life's ultimate truths - the Bible. Indeed, I have come to recognize the wisdom contained therein, and I look to it for the answers to the most profound questions. My favorite part is the one where the snake slithers down from a tree and talks to a woman, although I must say I'm also particularly fond of the part where all humanity springs forth from the only man and the only woman on the face of the earth who, we are told, had 2 SONS (one of whom killed the other). I'm still reading, though, as I'm sure the author is going to reveal who the remaining son's mate was (it must be in the newer part - but, please, don't tell me who it is, you'll ruin it for me!). I was sure that the answer would be revealed by the talking shrubbery, but alas, he had nothing to offer on the subject.

Oh well, must run. I'm frightfully late for the train out of Babylon, and I dare not miss it (you know, plagues and sins and swarms of locusts and all that business...).

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 6:43PM

Trinacria,

I must've mistaken you for someone who is a believer.
So, you're mocking God now? Because if you mock the Bible, that's Who you are really mocking.
I'll pray for you.

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 7:03PM

No, madam, on the contrary. I'm mocking you.

By the way, do get back to me on that Packers-Saints game.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 8:56PM

No, you are mocking God. What I post is from the Bible, and the Bible are God's own Words.

Just because you reject Him, doesn't make Him untrue.

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 10:07PM

Perhaps you're confusing yourself with God; I assure you, madam, the mockery is directed at you.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 10:35PM

"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." Mt. 10:40.

Trinacria| 9.2.11 @ 11:32PM

"Bdbdbdbd, that's all folks." Porky Pig. Circa 1974.

Nick| 9.2.11 @ 7:20PM

Margie,

You really need to stop going to these anti-Catholic websites for your arguments, because this one, like the many others to which you like to link, is full of errors and falsehoods.

"Many Bible students see the number of the beast (Rev. 13:18), 666 in the Roman letters of the Pope's title: 'VICARIVS FILII DEI.'"

There is just one problem with this premise of Rev. Testa's, and these so-called Bible students, the Pope never had Vicarivs Filii Dei as one of his titles, EVER. Thus, making this a lie.

A lie promoted by anti-Catholics, especially by Seventh-Day Adventists, for at least a century, maybe longer.

One of the Holy Father's titles is Vicarius Christi, or Vicar of Christ. Unfortunately for those who hate the Catholic Church, those letters only add up to 214, which adds up to only about one third of the Beast! Ha-ha!

By the way, the number 666 is in the Bible two other times in the Sacred Scriptures. 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13 tells us that King Solomon extracted the sum of 666 talents of gold in taxes. This was a violation of Moses' decree back in Deuteronomy 17:17.

The number six was the number of imperfection, so, six hundred sixty-six represented perfect imperfection. It does not represent the Pope.

You need to stop listening to these sources who promote falsehoods about the Catholic Church.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 9:01PM

Actually Nick, that particular quote says, "Many Bible students", as you pointed out. So that means not everyone thinks that, and I have no idea as to the 666 issue right now.

But the Bible says the Anti-Christ will be revealed, so I'm not worried. All in God's time, right?

As to everything else~ it's FACT, Nick.

You do not appreciate the revealing of fact against your false Religion.
But that is truly not my problem!!

Nick| 9.2.11 @ 11:43PM

Margie,

"So that means not everyone thinks that, and I have no idea as to the 666 issue right now."

Then why did you copy and paste this lie?

As I pointed out last week (I think?), you continue to link to these sites, and when I point out their errors and falsehoods, you say that you don't claim everything that they state is true or correct. If these sources have all these errors, how can they be trusted?

"As to everything else~ it's FACT, Nick."

Wrong. That was just one example of the many falsehoods asserted in the quote you posted.

"375 The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted."

Daily Mass is mentioned in Acts 2:46-47, "And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people." Mass was also celebrated by the early Church Fathers daily.

"1545 The apocryphal books were added to the Bible also by the Council of Trent."

Wrong. The Deuterocanonical Books were always part of the Canon of Scripture. But, they were listed, officially, at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393. The Council of Trent defined the Canon, infallibly, in A.D. 1556, to counter the errors that were spread by the Protestant Reformation.

I could go on and on listing the many errors of Rev. Testa's, but, then, you would just throw him under the bus, like Mr. Job, et al.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 12:09AM

Please, spare me, Nick.
It isn't a lie, it's an opinion, and stated as such.
The rest of the information is absolute truth~ which you reject.

"Mass" isn't in the Bible. Neither are Popes.
I just listed some of the hundreds of false teachings of your Religion, the murderous Papacy, the Martyrs accounts, yet you find fault with a date, or with a word or opinion.

You avoid the truth constantly. Thus, you are the tool you were destined to be.

Nick| 9.3.11 @ 12:24AM

Margie,

"It isn't a lie, it's an opinion, and stated as such."

Wrong. Rev. Testa states, as a fact, that Vicarivs Filii Dei was title of the Pope. This is a lie. Go read the quote again.

Also, I'm not quibbling with mere dates or opinions. Everything you copy and pasted is either false or a half-truth.

And, as I predicted, you threw Rev. Testa under the bus, rather than defend him. Good choice. Please, check your facts before you post from these anti-Catholic sites that you find, because they have an agenda.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.5.11 @ 2:51PM

I threw no one under the bus, liar.

Your deceit is despicable.

I already explained that I do not have to agree with everything the owner of a website says, but that the information that they write on a specific page is in agreement with the truth, and that is why I post a page.

And to say everything I posted are lies or half truths is a lie.

You have always rejected the true gospel of Jesus Christ in favor of your demonic Religion, and you lie as well for it, and for Satan himself therefore.

I have posted historical fact as to your murderous Papists, and the millions of Martyrs of which their blood is on their hands... and you defend them, calling the Martyrs heretics instead~ my brethren who died for the sake of the Truth that is in Christ Jesus.

It is sad that you are of the same father of lies.
I hope you repent, liar.

Nick| 9.7.11 @ 12:33AM

Margie,

I am no liar. It is against God's eighth commandment: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

"[...] but that the information that they write on a specific page is in agreement with the truth, and that is why I post a page."

No, the so-called information is "in agreement with" what you already believe. You don't care if it's true, or not.

"And to say everything I posted are lies or half truths is a lie."

I did not write any such thing. This is not true.
I stated that everything that Rev. Testa claims on his website, according to your quote, was "either false or a half-truth."

Please, don't misrepresent what I have written.

By the way, why won't you answer my questions, from above? Why don't you tell Lutherans, Episcopalians, Calvinists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc., that they follow the "doctrines of demons"; or, that they belong to a "false Religion"?

Of the many things that I must repent, lying on this website is definitely not one of them.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 12:18AM

"As I pointed out last week (I think?), you continue to link to these sites, and when I point out their errors and falsehoods, you say that you don't claim everything that they state is true or correct. If these sources have all these errors, how can they be trusted?"

You're a blatant liar, Nick.

God knows what you are doing here.
You are very deceitful.
What I have said is that at times, I post a link to a particular website's article or page. The contents on the page is what I was looking to post, and that I do not necessarily know anything about the owner of the site.

No matter what you try and make me out to be, Nick~ God sees what you are doing, and He knows who is telling the truth, and who is lying.

And the Martyrs that died for their testimonies are the same ones who YOU refer to as heretics~ and I believe what they did, in Christ Jesus, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

They refused to bow to your false Religion's doctrines, and so do I.

The blood of the Martyrs for 600 or so years is on the hands of the Papacy~ and it is them that you lie for.

Good luck with that, Nick.

"..and on her forehead was written a name of mystery: "Babylon the great, mother of harlots and of earth's abominations."
And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly." Rev. 17:5 & 6.

Nick| 9.3.11 @ 12:31AM

Margie,

Yes, this mother of harlots was Jerusalem and the Jewish authorities: The Sanhedrin, the scribes and Pharisees, and the Herodians. Those who persecuted the first Christians for teaching what the Catholic Church teaches. But, I have already explained this to you.
God Bless!

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 5:55PM

If you truly believe what you just posted~ that the whore of Babylon refers to Jerusalem, you are truly delusional.

Since the Papacy tortured and killed Bible believing Christians, millions of them for approx. 600 years, the blood of those Martyrs is on their hands and they are just as much a part of the Whore as anyone else who has done the same.

And the Religion you belong to still teaches the same unbiblical doctrines as it did then.

You can try and deceive here, and to try and paint Christians who expose the historical accounts of Martyrdom by your Religion as liars~ and that you have done to me as well~ but God knows, as well as anyone who has "ears to hear"~ the truth.

All I have to say to you for doing this is what Jesus said to the Pharisees who refuse to believe His Words:

"He who is of God hears the Words of God; the reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God." Jn. 8:47.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son." 2 Jn. 1:9.

Nick| 9.3.11 @ 11:41PM

Margie,

Believing that "millions" were killed by Catholics for "600 years" is the definition of delusional.

And, I have never tried to paint you as a liar, or called you a liar. Never. And I never will.

I didn't even call Rev. Testa a liar. I just stated that what was on his website, according to your quote, was a lie.

I don't know if Rev. Testa is even aware that the Pope has never had the title Vicarivs Filii Dei. How could I? But, if he is going to put it on his website, he should know better, shouldn't he?
God Bless!

Nick| 9.3.11 @ 11:45PM

Margie,

Oh, yeah. If you don't believe that Jerusalem is many, many times referred to as a harlot, prostitute, whore, Babylon, Sodom, and Egypt; then you believe that the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, et al, were delusional.

Margie| 9.3.11 @ 5:47PM

You need to repent from following a false and demonic Religion Nick.

"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son." 2 Jn. 1:9.

Jack von Bauer| 9.1.11 @ 7:24AM

"Party's shift away from Bush's approach to a more libertarian, anti-government..."

Truly hilarious, the irony so thick you can butter it onto bread.

Anyone remember when all the crusading "journalists" were "anti-government types, with "libertarian" leanings.

Oh yes, that was when today's "establishment" status quo types were radical counter-culture types.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:39PM

JvB, nobody remembers any of that trash

martin j smith| 9.1.11 @ 7:41AM

There are two things about this condition: It is imperative that we not permit the MSM to determine our nominee and thus we need to continue the process as our side determines.
As for the attacks on Perry or for that matter candidate X( than means any other front runner who the MSM cares top attack ) its not so much a matter defending the candidate but the integrity of our choice--and I would not take too much
credence in LEFT critiques anyway and that brings me to point two:

The idea of civil discourse is dead for me and infact it is more than time for some leader to call Obama out for the extremely dangerous atmosphere that is being fed by such individuals as Maxine Waters and other in the Black Congressional Caucus--but they are not alone.
Never the less lets cut to the chase and properly assume that the atmosphere of the electoral "debate" starts at the top. That would Obama himself.
Finally point three: We need to win this election.
Now let me explain who "we" is or is not. "We" are NOT rich Socialists or rich Crony Capitalists but average people who sick of the way WE are being led by the nose. We should be fully aware of the attempts at manipulation from any source
and focus on a winning candidate.

I am personally open to most of the field ( except Ron Paul and John Huntsman ) provided that winner do so on their own steam and not be imposed or manipulated in ANY FORCE OR POLITICAL GROUP and that would include PUNDITS ON " OUR SIDE".

Nancy in NC| 9.1.11 @ 8:16AM

Many excellent points, Martin.

There is something very ugly afoot in this country. The race baiters are stirring a very nasty pot of poison. Their actions will not endear most to the side, and in fact, will foster a climate of racism. After all, if one is called a racist often enough, it might become a self fulfilling prophesy.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 9:07AM

Nancy,

You're right. What you describe is simple human nature. Obama and his ilk call me a racist every day of the week. Who knows how long it'll be before I start harboring unreasonable resentment against all blacks? I hope I'm better than that, but I'm weary of our "post racial" president spreading hate and division with his every word. His strategy is straight out of Mein Kamph.

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 3:14PM

From the currect bestseller on how to argue with liberals comes the thought that people don't dislike the president because of his race, but instead because of his RADICAL LIBERALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:49PM

Nan-C of N-C, I'm sooo tired of being called a racist because I oppose Obama, Really phony, The liberal attack dogs cannot use reasoned arguments to my ultra conservative values so they resort to name calling. it's all they know how to do.

martin j smith| 9.1.11 @ 7:42AM

OH YES, I BELIEVE PERRY CAN BEAT OBAMA--thus your story.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.11 @ 7:46AM

Two things
One, It is going to be fun watching Perry campaign.
He throws political correctness to the winds on a daily basis, and I enjoy watching communist heads explode.
Two
He certainly offers a CLEAR choice on what kind of country we will have.

JimP| 9.1.11 @ 9:08AM

I agree, Ken! Plus, regardless of Perry's 'negatives', he's still the most Reaganesque in the field and he has a solid record [as far as I can tell] as governor that outshines the rest of the field also.

idalily| 9.1.11 @ 4:42PM

Well said, Jim and Ken. Anyone searching for a "pure" conservative with a substantive record of experience who is also electable is wasting his time. There is no such animal. Overall, Perry is the most conservative candidate who can beat Obama (IMO), and beating Obama is job #1. Also, Perry is politically very, very shrewd, and we need that trait in our candidate.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 9:09AM

Ken,

What a relief it would be to have a choice of something other than the lesser of evils! As they say, what a concept.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:53PM

Ken (OT) I agree, Perry #1, PC is such an evil thing because it is anti-truth

Butch| 9.1.11 @ 2:40PM

Very insightful, Harold. PC is a "war on the truth." The thoughts subject to PC condemnation are treated as out of bounds because they are irrefutable. If they could be refuted through facts or logic, they would be. So they are socially condemned, instead.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 3:01PM

My kind of man.

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:11PM

Since the liberals from both sides of the political aisle hate Perry with a passion, so far he's my favorite choice.

kate| 9.2.11 @ 1:33AM

Lovin Perry right now....
He is making them squirm isn't he?
We need a cowboy. A straight talker.
Hmmmm....
We'll see whether he is a fake, ego-maniac or a heartfelt American soon.

kate| 9.2.11 @ 1:43AM

I haven't thrown my hate in yet. But I have some hat tippage going on.
This is a GREAT article on why we may just fall in love with Perry.
http://www.americanthinker.com.....n_big.html

kate| 9.2.11 @ 1:44AM

whoops meant hat not hate :) yikes.

Anthony| 9.1.11 @ 7:58AM

The only candidate suitable to the leftist MSM is one that will lose to Obozo.
We need to insure that the leftist whores in the MSM have little or no influence on the 2012 election, by making them irrelevant.
Too much is at stake, this is the election that will determine the very survival of our nation as a Constitutional Republic, or a banana republic.

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 8:07AM

Democrat Rick Perry praised Hillary Care 3 years after he switched parties. Probably wanted mandatory STD shots for little girls even back then.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08.....re-praise/

zane| 9.1.11 @ 10:58AM

Did you even read the letter or make a mental note of the date? It was three months after Clinton assumed office and before the HillaryCare plan was finalized.
And what was Perry's major concern? Farmers, and ranchers, many who had no access to even basic health care due to the shortage of doctors and the lack of local hospitals in rural Texas in 1993.

I can promise you, once the nuts and bolts of HillaryCare was revealed, it would not have been something Perry would have supported. Instead, as we Texans oft do, the shortage of medical services in rural areas was address by passing tort reform laws that encouraged the return of those doctors who had fled Texas because it was a haven for blood-sucking tort lawyers, and appealing to new health care providers to come to Texas.

The result? My own small Texas town now has more than one primary care physician, we have specialists who maintain offices here, and a local hospital when once we had to travel 60 miles to Austin for Emergency Room care.

As to the Gardisil issue; why do you fail to point out that parents could opt out for their daughters, that the FDA had put Gardisil on their "recommended" vaccination list and that 6 other states had also added Gardisil to their list of vaccinations for school aged girls? Or that the data that showed Gardisil was not the magic potion it was once thought, came out long after that?

I am really, REALLY sick of reading talking point that stem from three sources; Ron Paul (who I was a precinct chairman for before he jumped the shark), Alex Jones and Debra Medina, who killed her own campaign by appearing on the Alex Jones show and who associates with the black helicopter crowd.

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 11:40AM

Nice try. Everyone knew what Hillary's goal was before her commission. Nationalized health care which is worse than Obamacare. It was no secret and Conservatives were fighting against it while Perry praised her work.

As for the Gardisil issue. Conservatives do not mandate things like this. They leave it up to the parents. I know many parents at the time thought it was mandatory because Perry said it was. Do you think the government was telling them hey you have to just jump through all these hoops then you won't need it?

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 12:02PM

zane, it was not just a nice try, it was spot on brother. Just ignore the liars and lovers of lies who are at best willfully ignorant. You will not persuade them with facts and some of us value your insight into the matter.

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 12:25PM

Fact is Perry praised Hillary Care. That isn't a negative to a liberal like you, but it is to us conservatives.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:59PM

A politician with no negatives has not been doing anything

zane| 9.1.11 @ 1:08PM

Here's a question for you (which might cause your head to explode): if Perry was so in favor of HillaryCare, at a time when it was in its infancy and only an outline and not a complete plan, why did he not impose HillaryCare on Texans when he became governor?

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 1:23PM

At the time of Perry's praise of Hillary everyone that didn't have their head in the sand knew what was going on. She wrote about it before Bill even took office.

Perry has shown his leftist instincts by going around the legislature for his Gardasil ploy.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 3:03PM

Truth is, everyone who isn't an anarchistic scumbag is a Leftist to you.

And in fact, Ron Paul IS a Leftist.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 3:09PM

That was to Sean, of course.

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 5:45PM

Margie you are just a antiCatholic bigot. Truth is if you are praising nationalized health care you are a leftist. I know that it is hard for your tiny brain to accept that.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 6:04PM

Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate

A new national poll of the general population has revealed that top tier candidate Ron Paul is the most favorable choice in the Republican Presidential nomination race.

Ron Paul 37% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = +1
Mitt Romney 39% favorable vs 41% unfavorable = -2
Rick Perry 33% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = -3
Michele Bachmann 35% favorable vs 43% unfavorable = -8

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 9:38PM

Sean,

Everyone knows what you are~ a punk.

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:25PM

Margie;

I did read your response the other day and I wanted to let you know how much I appreciated your kind words. I had to laugh when I read, “…now you have just discovered what is most likely the gist of your problem!” Lol, I know good-and-well what my problem is Margie; I just didn’t expect you to figure it out so fast!

I should have chosen my words more carefully. My complaint about the “love your enemy” direction was merely tongue in cheek. I was trying to be humorous by comparing my attitude to the one Noah expressed over being called to Nineveh. I thought it appropriate since we all know how that went for Noah.

My loving wife of 33 years has given me three Christian sons who married three Christian wives and have given me five Christian grandbabies (so far). I call myself a Christian, but you humble me. I love God, I love my country and I love warriors like you!

I know I’m not the only one who considers your presence and input on this site to be a blessing. I was trying to find a verse that best described you and I found this one;

“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” 1 Peter 3:15 (NIV). Good Job Margie!

It saddens me greatly that these contemptible and rude little vermin are able to address you in the manner they do. As I generally always try to be a gentleman in all regards, as it pertains to Clint and Sean, shake the dust from your feet.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 1:12PM

Appreciate your comments here, BH.
AmSpec happens to be a haven for Libertarians of all stripes, since some of its authors are same. In fact, I've always wondered if Clint/Tim* is one of the authors. Why else would he be permitted to be here when the "rules" say profane comments will be deleted?
By the way, Clint is Catholic, so he truly believes that Bible believing Christians are heretics, he also believes anyone who doesn't believe in his form of Libertarianism is to be utterly destroyed (character wise). Though he often displays threats of the physical nature as well.. even to me. He's been taught well both by the Papists, and his other leader~ Ron Paul.
Imagine the zeal he could have for the Lord if he ever truly came to Him?
Once, they banned me (for a day) for telling someone who was behaving like a disingenuous hack that he was behaving like a disingenuous hack!!
Also, if you dare to speak out against the Religion that advertises here big time, Catholicism~ you are a bigot and a hater. But I do anyway, because I'm into telling the truth.
It's why my brethren were put to death by their Papists for 600 years, and I suppose one day I just might be joining them a s a "heretic" for doing the same. (Refusing to bow or to acknowledge a lie).

Anyhow, I'm glad you're here. Thanks again. You have an awesome family, wish I knew them all. I hope we both make it to Heaven, and will meet there.
p.s. I think you meant Jonah, above, not Noah? Jonah didn't want to preach so he hid. But didn't he end up doing it anyhow? I haven't read that in so long.
God bless.

RCV| 9.3.11 @ 10:14PM

Margie, it's really tiresome to hear you speak as if the Inquisition were a real and present threat to you personally. No one is persecuting you for what you believe. You are free to read your Bible and hold to the beliefs you have, just as Nick and other Catholics are. You are both Christians, who believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, true God and true Man, who died for our sins and was resurrected. That's what really matters. The differences you have are on minor points of theology.

And neither of you, thank God, is likely to become a martyr.

Margie| 9.5.11 @ 2:38PM

RCV,

You are a Leftist who, along with your friend Nick, twist most everything I say.

I do NOT act as if the Inquisition is a clear and present danger to myself personally, and that isn't my intent~ although the Martyrdom has never ceased of Christians all over the World, and Jesus does say it will be till His return. Don't you read the Bible??

The point is~ and truthfully so~ that the Catholic Papacy would be still doing it~ if they could~ but they know that they can't get away with it in this day and age.
Their doctrines are still the same as they were then. And the doctrines are what led them to torture and kill Bible believing Christians. These doctrines are not biblical, they are demonic.
Why do you think they tortured and killed? It is because of what they believed!

Spare me, RCV. You know the history. You know the doctrines aren't biblical~ yet you defend the Religion.
It isn't surprising, but hypocritical indeed.

The doctrines are utterly perverse, and Bible believing Christians have rejected them and DIED because of them for the sake of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, for centuries.

And always will.

Margie| 9.5.11 @ 2:42PM

p.s. The Catholic church IS actually persecuting Christians in that they are aligning themselves with Religions that persecute Christians, such as Muslims and Hindus. Every time they engage in Ecumenical or Interfaith services, such as the one that's being held on 9/11, they are aiding and abetting those who do persecute Christians.

And here are some modern day persecutions of Christians.
Voice of the Martyrs newsletter:

http://www.persecution.com/

RCV| 9.5.11 @ 4:56PM

Margie: I don't for a moment believe that John XXIII or John Paul II or Benedict would torture or martyr anyone because they didn't share Catholic doctrine. Indeed, it's ironic that you claim on the one hand that the Catholic Church still wishes to persecute people for heresy, and on the other hand, you criticize the same Church for ecumenical outreach!

The Church seeks reconciliation with all fellow Christians, and with people of good will of non-Christian beliefs. It seeks to love all our neighbors, as Christ taught us. I will happily join with anyone who wishes to condemn the hate and ignorance and evil that led to the muddier of innocents on 9/11, and I applaud the Church for doing so as well.

RCV| 9.5.11 @ 4:57PM

Sorry - spellchecker changed murder to muddier!

JohnC| 9.1.11 @ 8:08AM

I am glad liberal Romney is going to expose the liberal Perry on immigration. Mittens should also add globalist Perry embracing the NAFTA Superhighway,

Look both Perry & Romney are liberal establishment Republicans. Why the Tea Partiers are embracing Perry is mystifying.

The danger of Perry or Romney is that a liberal Republican is a Trojan Horse and could do as much damage to America then Obama but in smaller steps.

I would hold my nose once again and vote for either of them over Obama if the so-called conservative media would push these Rockefeller Republicans from the patriotic right, but we know that El-Rushbo and company will carry their liberal water as they did for 8 years of George W. Bush -- and that is the danger to the continuation of America’s demise.

I am leaning to voting for pro-American Trump if he runs as an Independent. At least he wants America to be great again and is for a strong military -- not gutting it like Obama and Boehner agreed to. I do need to hear more clearly though his views on the very critical issue of immigration.

Nancy in NC| 9.1.11 @ 8:22AM

I've never heard Trump mention illegal immigration. Many in the business community like it: cheap labor.

I am flummoxed as to why the Tea Party favors Perry. He has sound bytes galore, but his policies seem less than conservative to me.

Michael Tomlinson| 9.1.11 @ 9:06AM

Nancy:
The Tea Party is not a monolithic group that practices group think like the followers of RINO Ron Paul. Some in the Tea Party like Rick some don't it is that simple. The key is he's currently the only conservative running who beats Romney a moderate with a weaker social conservative record and still defends the albatross of Romenycare.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 9:14AM

Nancy,

Another thing... Perry is not afraid to condemn political correctness, which is something I believe every Tea Party member can identify with. He says stuff (the truth) out loud that we are all thinking. That's a winning strategy. That's what the left fears, since deception is their strategy.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 1:06PM

JohnC, I'm tending to lean to Trump also, refreshing to hear a candidate say he wants to make America strong again, a real Pro- American, not an America hater like BHO our Kenyan Muslim

Nancy in NC| 9.1.11 @ 8:12AM

Illegal immigration is a very unpopular political football, but one that desperately needs attention.

I know it's politically incorrect, but the Hispanic community has a segment that, like some of the Muslims, does not like this country very much. Many never learn the language or assimilate into the community. The balkinazation of the Hispanic community is widespread.

Because so many Hispanics end up on the receiving end of government they tend to vote for the Democrats. As they tend to have large families that would spell a death knell for those who believe in small government. There are many unpleasant side effects of illegal immigration, including crime and disease. Leprosy has made a comeback in the last decade, along with increased cases of tuberculosis and hepatitis. Illegals have made a horrible impact on our social systems as well. Hospitals on the border have closed, and schools are stressed from educating those with no skin in the game. Many families receive some type of welfare or other government assistance. We cannot afford the illegal population in a number of ways.

Of all the candidates presently running, Numbers USA has a favorable grade for only Michelle Bachmann. But her voice has been silent on the illegal problem as many deem it to be a political killer.

Why haven't concerned Americans realized that this IS a serious problem and demand it be addressed?

hardcard| 9.1.11 @ 8:13AM

Gov. Perry you've got my vote. Keep standing tall.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 1:09PM

hardcard, I say the same thing

POST American| 9.1.11 @ 8:14AM

----And we see Alex Jones InfoWars is now
the second most popular online news site --for the entire world.

-AGAIN, capstone cardboard ---with crooked
smiles. ------NO WAY.

Dustoff| 9.1.11 @ 12:01PM

It is? Proof please.

Dustoff| 9.1.11 @ 12:06PM

Alex Jones is also a 911 TRUTHER TOO.

zane| 9.1.11 @ 1:10PM

and believes that FDR helped plan Pearl Harbor with the Japanese.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 1:14PM

The truth is evident, Islam is the cause of 9/11, they have said so. Moore's lies aside, there is no evidence that points any other direction

Nancy in NC| 9.1.11 @ 8:18AM

I recently read the perfect rely to the statement: you attack Obama because he's black.

"You defend Obama because he's black."

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 9:15AM

That's a direct hit! Excellent.

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 1:16PM

Thanks Nancy, I'll use that

zane| 9.1.11 @ 1:36PM

One of the best:

Yes, I know you voted for Obama to show you are not a racist. Now vote against Obama to show you are not an idiot.

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:28PM

LOL I love that line!

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:28PM

Why would that surprise anyone? They voted for him because he was black...and if that isn't the most raciest thing you have ever heard I don't know what is.

RCV| 9.3.11 @ 10:16PM

Keep telling yourself that.

JGwen| 9.1.11 @ 8:20AM

As a senior on Social Security, I have recognized it is a Ponzi scheme for years. To make matters worse financially, coverage was extended to dependents and the disabled. Then the "Trust" funds were raided so moneys could be used for other ends. Power to Perry and Ryan to address this scheme before it collapses!
Re Medicare - I was told my physician would be barred from treating Medicare recipients, if he permitted me to pay out of pocket as I wished and had requested. A local Medicare Advantage provider wrote that they would not provide any further medical care to any patient who failed to fully follow their care directions. All this before ObamaCare under Emanuel and Berwick policies will be implemented.
U. S. energy needs are critical to our well-being! We need to have a responsible Administration to address this issue realistically!
For me - life and earth were created and from there we evolved.
As for Perry being a "career politician," he has been an elected official who has helped make Texas the smashing success it is, as compared to the failures of the Administration and its ilk with the nation and as compared to the ramifications of Romneycare on the financial well-being of Massachusetts.
As for Gov Perry's positions on the Illegal Invasion. He, as a populist, has reflected the desires of a majority in his state. In this last session legislation requiring IA's pay out of state rates was pulled after demonstrations and other oppositions. Legislation, he sponsored, to implement Secure Communities was defeated. Texas, while citizens have rejected fencing, has spent millions in State moneys to improve border security. Gov/Candidate Perry's early perspectives on border security (and ramifications of the current invaders) for a nation remain to be established.

Power to the U. S. with a President Perry!

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 1:20PM

A secure America under President Perry's Administration

kate| 9.2.11 @ 2:02AM

A sane America under President Perry's administration.

Petronius| 9.1.11 @ 8:39AM

As if any of this matters. There is not one candidate with the raw guts to use the executive powers of state to force the lost generations of ignorant layabouts to become competent productive adults. The Republican leadership would still recoil in abject fear as did President Bush back in 1992 at that debate where he tried to mollify that pony tail weenie who told him, "we are Your children. You'd better find a way to meet our needs. And they are many." I have yet to hear Mr. Perry, or any of the others, say that these drooling twits must earn their own living or take their infantile character deficiencies elsewhere.

Ruckus| 9.1.11 @ 8:40AM

It's opening day of dove season in Texas. Most hunters will probably be out Saturday.

Don't be surprised to see a story about Rick Perry dove hunting over the weekend.

Don't be surprised to see a story about Barack playing golf over the weekend.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 9:17AM

met·ro·sex·u·al/ˌmetrōˈsekSHo͞oəl/
Noun: A heterosexual urban man whose lifestyle, concern for personal appearance, and spending habits are likened to those considered typical of a fashionable male homosexual.

No dove hunters here...

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 8:59AM

NumbersUSA describes Dr. Paul’s record on immigration as “mixed,” obviously intending that designation as an indictment of the Texas congressman.

In the group’s 2012 Presidential Hopefuls Immigration Stances Report Card, Ron Paul was awarded a failing grade: an F. He was previously given a more respectable (though below average) C- and likely would have seen his marks improve were it not for Representative Paul’s “latest comments on immigration” and that they display “not just some ad hoc thoughts tossed off carelessly at some speaking event. These are engraved in a brand new book.”

The book wherein Dr. Paul lays out the details of his “mixed” immigration philosophy is entitled Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect Our Freedom.” In the chapter on immigration, Paul begins by describing the “ideal libertarian world,” wherein “borders would be blurred and open.”

In his inimitable fashion, Dr. Paul then goes on to provide a nuanced realpolitik analysis of the issue that apparently went unread by the NumbersUSA crew.

For example, in the explanation of his position on immigration, legal and illegal, Dr. Paul admits that the creation of a perfect libertarian world is impossible in a country such as the United States where the government has created a welfare state that is forced by government-initiated cycles of recession and recovery to abide by rules and regulations that otherwise would be unnecessary and unqualifiedly unconstitutional.

The nation’s resentment of illegal immigrants and their presence in our country stems from two reasons according to Paul: First, there is the “government-mandated free services” that citizens decry when they are afforded to illegals; second, there is the “government-created unemployment crisis” that leads out-of-work Americans to rightly regard employed illegals as a threat to the economic well-being of citizens and those who came to this country through the proper channels.

For Congressman Paul, then, the solution is simple and it is similar to the answer to most of the ills plaguing our once mighty Republic: Abolish all extra-constitutional programs, entitlements, and benefits and permit the federal government to exercise only those very limited and specifically enumerated powers that are laid out in the Constitution. In other words, Dr. Paul would recommend treating the disease, not the symptoms.

Regardless of the logic and constitutional soundness of Ron Paul’s positions, NumbersUSA counts the red flags and sticks by the failing grade. According to the report:

The ratings add up to an overall stance that just barely misses warranting an F-minus and squeaks through just better than Pres. Obama. It is significantly worse than the grade of former Speaker Gingrich who had previously been the worst of all Republican Hopefuls on immigration.

And:
But you will find that only one Republican in Congress has a worse grade on border issues than Ron Paul. Furthermore, he has failed to act in every category of immigration during this new Congress.

His grade on presidential stances is different because it is based not just on what he has done but on what he publicly says he would do as president. As a Member of Congress, he has been able to avoid acting on many immigration issues, thus protecting his grade a little.

Why NumbersUSA gave such abysmal marks to Congressman Paul:

In his book, Dr. Paul sounds very much like supporters of Comprehensive Amnesty measures by talking about the impossibility of sending back home 11 million illegal aliens.

Like most amnesty supporters who say they oppose "amnesty," Dr. Paul seems to buy the false choice between "legalization" or mass deportation. Since he says mass deportation isn't possible, he feels he has to choose some kind of legalization.

Congressman Paul in his book espouses a largely unfettered business philosophy that seeks to allow employers to import far more foreign labor than they do now. His comments in this vein seem oblivious to the 22 million Americans unable to find a full-time job.

Nor is he much interested in punishing businesses for hiring illegal foreign workers, saying the U.S. should NOT "punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration."

Requiring businesses to verify the legality of workers is a form of "compulsory servitude," he writes. This is consistent with his record. In his more than a decade in Congress, he has never co-sponsored a bill mandating E-Verify.

He says the federal government -- not businesses -- should keep illegal aliens out. But how does that happen without cutting off the jobs magnet at the work place? Tens of millions of foreign citizens visit our country each year legally as students, temporary workers and tourists. Border enforcement can do nothing to keep them from overstaying their visas and taking U.S. jobs.

Nearly every business that has ever used E-Verify extols its virtues and ease of use. Rep. Paul seems to want to set himself up as a protector of businesses, but his positions primarily protect outlaw businesses to the disadvantage of patriotic, law-abiding, community-loving business owners who comprise the majority of employers.

For political supporters of Rep. Paul, they can hope that the immigration sections of the new book were ghost written by naive aides and that Rep. Paul will soon disavow them. For now, though, NumbersUSA has to rate and grade him on the best available information we now have.

daveh| 9.1.11 @ 9:06AM

The Professional Left in the media are nostalgic for 2008 when the were able to circumvent the DNC primary process and anoint their chosen one the winner. Then there were the giddy days in the fall with a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Governor Palin, and the ego stroking participation on every talking head "news" forum claiming the economy was worse than the Great Depression, further fueling the panic.
They now wish to control the Republican primary process as a means to contol the 2012 election. I am hoping that they have struck prematurely and there will be the time for people to judge their accusations against the facts and reject their attempts to be treated as mindless sheep.

William L. Gen sert| 9.1.11 @ 9:31AM

It is not so much that the media wants to save America from Rick Perry; they want to save Barack Obama from Rick Perry.

They tried the same thing with Ronald Reagan. Remember, he was too radical right wing; he was too conservative, too stupid, he was an actor, simply reading lines.

Liberals, at least those with their eyes open, can easily see the parallel with the 1980 election, with Barack Obama playing the part of Jimmy Carter.

When there is nothing positive to campaign on, concentrating on your opponents negatives, even manufactured ones, is good strategy, if not fair play. In the end, there is the hope that voters will support you because they are frightened of the other guy.

martin j smith| 9.1.11 @ 10:00AM

Beyond the MSM is the atmosphere which has been and is brewing thru extremely violent imagery and words by man on the LEFT. The candidate than can cut thru this garbage and reach the most voters will get my vote. And, this will be a requirement to get elected. So Rick Perry and all of the others will be observed. Calling the Tea Party Racists, and wanting to lynch or to desire to harm the unemployed --these "homo sapiens" are beyond a disgrace who express these views. Obama has to be asked: Do you support or oppose such beliefs. And if you do oppose then where have you been ? Can Rick Perry do that ? Will he. What will happen if there is civil unrest ? If there are riots before or after the election ? The Socialists are getting the mob fired up. What will Rick Perry and all of the others do. ? This is crucial for me .

russel| 9.1.11 @ 10:07AM

The last sentence should read " schtick " because that's the LSM's MO . Any subterfuge , slander , insinuation and downright lying is acceptible , throw it all at the wall . Heck , look how well one as simple as Macaca worked .

zane| 9.1.11 @ 10:44AM

How ironic that the left wing press is now longing for the good old days of G.W. Bush, after spending 8 years trying to destroy his presidency, only to compare Perry to Bush in their next sentences.

And how predictable that the Paulbots are out in force, responding to any article about Perry with half truths, innuendos and talking points taken from Alex Jones' Infowars. Yeah, that would be the same Alex Jones who claims that FDR was in on the plans to bomb Pearl Harbor.

Another ironic point is how everyone now seems so concerned about illegal immigration. Where were you 30 years ago when we Texans, nay, all border state residents, were complaining about the problem that D.C. viewed as simply something that affected only fly over country and really didn't warrant their concern? Funny how that works, isn't it? If it didn't affect YOUR state back then, you couldn't have care less. Now that is does, oh, my, it is priority.

Romney goes in front of the VFD bragging how he is a "conservative" business man, a clear slam against Perry who he labeled a "professional politician." I wonder how that flew with a group of veterans who have walked the walk by a guy whose father was a "professional politician" and paved the way for him compared to a man who grew up on a hard-scrub cotton farm and actually spent 5 years wearing this nation's uniform.

Rick Perry's Christian beliefs will come under a constant barrage of insults by those who can't seem to leave the Golden Beltway. Perhaps it is time to send everyone of those naysayers a copy of George Washington's Farewell Address.

Gary| 9.1.11 @ 11:06AM

At age 65 I've seen it all before. Goldwater would launch a nuclear war which was a successful smear in the good ole days when there was no conservative media. Reagan was a "cowboy" as was the second Bush. Oddly, once these guys were out of office, they are OK and the libs wax nostalgic when comparing them to the newest conservative they fear and loathe. They do love pushovers like Dole who lose and the elder Bush who raised taxes and was rewarded by losing his reelection bid. Much is made of the "radicalization" of the GOP but what is ignored is that for decades moderate and conservative democrats have fled their ever leftward bound party. Reid, Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Rangel, Fwank, ... I mean Frank, and on and on. The few left that are not as liberal like Landrieu of Louisiana, are seldom heard from.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 1:13PM

Gary,

We share the same name and we're both 65. Does your wife also think you're wrong about everything?

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 1:46PM

I knew I married Mrs. Right, I just didn't realize her first name was Always

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 3:15PM

Haha...!

NYMPH| 9.1.11 @ 3:28PM

So Mr. Right, your first name is Never?

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 4:21PM

According to my ex-wife, yes.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 5:45PM

You've heard this before, but if a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?

kate| 9.2.11 @ 2:07AM

Only if his food stamps are under his work boots.

Sherlock| 9.1.11 @ 11:28AM

So, if liberals and the liberal media are are this much against him, then he must be the right man for the job. Gov. Perry gets closer to getting my support each day. I have noticed that liberals can't seem to find anything good to say about their President, so they must attack the one who may be able to get us out of this mess. No one wants to think of themselves as a failure, but liberals and their policies are failing more with each passing day, and the must grow up and face the reality and take the blame. And what is really bad, is they want to continue to do what has already failed. It is time for real change. NO MO BO!

Janeway| 9.2.11 @ 8:52AM

We need to win! No matter whether Perry is great or not, he cannot win the Independent vote and without it No One can win - Obama or Perry. You all want to make a Point, don't use the election to do it. Good example: Tea Party Freedomworks protesting Romney. I go an e-mail from Freedomworks, I USED to be a Tea Party member, declaring defeating Romney was a greater priority than defeating Obama. Focus people.

Karen| 9.1.11 @ 11:30AM

Sorry, I don't buy it. There is a chasm between what Rick Perry says and who he is. He is no conservative; he just talks like one. His history is left of Romney; he is a pay-to-play cynic. He has shown no regard for due process; he may even make Obama's abuse of executive privilege look moderate.
Once more of his history is known, conservatives will be disillusioned and may well stay home on election day.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 1:16PM

Yes, but he stands up the press, whom he also has to campaign against. My kingdom for a true blue conservative who does that and... who is electable.

irish19| 9.1.11 @ 2:03PM

So, who do you like, then?

Chris Smith| 9.1.11 @ 11:34AM

In a survey of 600 schools, Texas A&M is ranked in the top 20 nationally (#17 overall) in the Center's The Top American Research Universities 2010 report, with three performance measures in the top 25 nationally and four measures in the top 26-50 nationally. For example, Texas A&M is ranked #12 in National Merit & Achievement Scholars, #16 in endowment assets, and #18 in advanced training in the report. It is hardly
just an agricultural college. Your elitism is showing.

Karen| 9.1.11 @ 11:37AM

Postscript: Numbers USA has given Rick Perry a D- on immigration issues. Look it up. Again, he is no conservative. Look at his record on the Gardasil fiasco. Or his accepting 17.4 billion in Stimulus funds, spending 8 B of that on routine state expenses--while making a big-to-do of refusing $555 million in federal unemployment funds. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 12:08PM

So you like Paul (who, as Clinton posted, shows us he is well versed in the Texas Immigration Two step) or Romney, the godfather of Obamacare?

zane| 9.1.11 @ 12:43PM

Do you even know how NumbersUSA rates candidate? Since you don't seem to know, let me tell you how; by their CURRENT statements.

And even taking the Stimulus funds, Texas still remains a donor state, meaning, unlike other states, it still pays in more than it gets back. 88 cents on the dollar.

Gardisil? Get your facts straight and not from Ron Paul/Alex Jones website.

Perry refused the unemployment money because it would have required a constitutional amendment to the Texas Constitution. What happens to the states that did take it? Now they, not the federal government, are on the hook to maintain those benefits. Put your state into bankruptcy, not mine.

rhonda| 9.1.11 @ 11:38AM

The media all live in New England and San Francisco so they have no respect for the rest of the nation. The big story was Hurricane Irene. Read any stories about the devastation of Texas by drought. The poor animals should at least get some liberal sympathy. But I digress. Romney was a failure as Governor--why he never even ran for reelection. So how does he think his business skills applied in Washington will be any different??

Seek| 9.1.11 @ 1:06PM

I live near Washington, DC and I have seen plenty of stories about the Texas drought on the tube. Enough already with the poor-flyover country-folks routine, ever and always persecuted, ignored and victimized by the MSM.

voodoomindreader| 9.1.11 @ 11:51AM

The good news is that the msm is becoming more irrelevant by the day. I speak for many when I say I haven't picked up a local paper in years. My news comes from Fox, Drudge, NRO, Am. Spect., WSJ, First Things, etc. The average person is now aware that the "news" is agenda driven and can usually see it for what it's worth.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 1:19PM

Do you think the New York Times is too big to fail? Why does that mogul in Mexico keep increasing his stake? On the other hand, who cares...

Patrick| 9.1.11 @ 11:55AM

First, at the bottom of every comment submission is an injunction to "Please be respectful" here. The use of words and phrases such as "moronic drone", "buffoon", "kook", and similar language is not being respectful nor does it add anything to the discussion. I thought this is what liberals and democrats do, not well raised conservatives and republicans engage in? It would be nice one of these days to see less personal attacks here? Or am I asking too much?

As for Perry of concern to the Innocence Project and others and I've raised this before is his willingness to execute people, people whose guilt is in question like Wallingham(?) in 2004. How big a deal is this for any of you? Since questions were raised about his guilt even in 2004 what would have been the harm in issuing a stay at that point at postponing the execution a year or two? We always have the option of injecting the needles later.

What advocates of the death penalty miss and this is important is that when innocent people die at the hands of the government, the cases get closed. Almost never does a prosecutor open a case where the alleged perpetrator has been executed. That means when an innocent person gets executed the guilty person never gets brought to justice. As long as we keep people alive we have a chance to right these wrongs as in the case of the current Chicago 9 which means we now can go after the real killer(s). That is real justice.

In Perry's case should the number of people being executed in Texas, the fact that the state leads the nation under his adminstration, be a factor in his candidacy? I throw the question out for discussion. RESPECTFUL discussion please?

zane| 9.1.11 @ 12:38PM

Oh, please, spare us the "Cameron Todd Willingham" was innocent clap trap. Willingham went completely through the legal system and the SCOTUS refused to hear his case.

Perry had no authority to stay Willingham's execution because Barry Scheck is trying to make amends for defending O.J. Simpson with his "Innocence Project." He didn't seem very concerned with the deaths of Nicole Simpson and Ron Brown when he was on the money end.

Nevermind that Willingham had a record as long as your arm and once beat his wife so badly she lost the baby she was pregnant with.

Here is a lesson for you: if you don't want Texans to kill you, don't kill one of us first.

Seek| 9.1.11 @ 1:07PM

Willingham strikes me as a raw brute.

martin j smith| 9.1.11 @ 11:57AM

My parting shot on this topic is this" Trust with caution, and verify" when it comes to opinions of any candidate on this or any other site. Think for yourself. Be realistic in that you will never have a perfect candidate--ever. You will have some one you find something you do not like. In the end someone will win. Lets make sure whoever it is is at least " good enough" to beat Obama.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.11 @ 12:14PM

I spend a lot of energy on my scroll button here.

The Paulbots are Paul's worst enemy...."birds of a feather flock together" problem.

Yes, Paul has missed the boat. His followers have flipped overboard.

Just scroll as I do and ignore them.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 2:39PM

Bill| 9.1.11 @ 12:39PM

Good job Karen. I read somewhere that he is also backed by a very rich Muslim, and Perry does promote & support a lot of Muslim ideals. Another Obama! With Perry winning the GOP race, and him running against Obama -- it don't matter which one wins. The UNs will have its world order all set-up and ready to be implemented. Bye-bye U.S. Constitution.

Mark in LA| 9.1.11 @ 12:42PM

Perry is simply the hand picked other side of the Obama coin. The people who own both the Democrats and Republicans are giving us theirn usual "choice".

Truth to Power| 9.1.11 @ 12:59PM

Sometimes you sound like a lefty nut and today a Paulbot. Which is it LAMark? Maybe just a lefty trouble maker is more like it. Anybody will beat Obama next year. You need to get over that.

Mark in LA| 9.1.11 @ 2:59PM

I am a paleocon - look it up. It is funny that you guys equate the Republicans with conservatism. That is the biggest joke around.

Ken (Old Texican)| 9.1.11 @ 1:01PM

Bill and Mark,
You two are either totally ignorant...or total LIARS!

Lying trolls are getting tiresome here.

Mr. Perry is a good man. Go back to your basement and take a nap.

Gary B| 9.1.11 @ 1:22PM

Ken,

How about Perry's tort reform here in Texas? I just heard about it. I was very impressed. Going up against lawyers is a real accomplishment.

Mark in LA| 9.1.11 @ 2:43PM

You are a fool if you think there would be any difference between a Perry Presidency and a GWB Presidency (which was the same as an Obama one). Perry is about as grass roots Tea Party as Dick (bought and paid for) Armey of freedom works.

MATT| 9.1.11 @ 1:42PM

Maybe its time we as a party, the Tea Party, had a discussion about how to resolve the situation with the people who are here illegally. #1 no prior arrests while present in the US, #2 filed for bankrputcy, you are disqualified, #3 must have filed tax returns, #4 used public aid or obtained medical services without paying for them, disqualified.

Simon Templar| 9.1.11 @ 1:53PM

I would like to thank the blogger, Clinton, for his research on the real Ron Paul, particularly his voting records.

To be honest, this thread really disturbed me because it reminds me of the state of politics and the state of this society at large. My conclusion is that this Republic is truly headed towards destruction and not necessarily for the reasons you might think. What never seem to fail to astounds me is the ability of these bastard politicians to do one thing and say another to get elected. I am talking about the GROSS disparity, the EXTREME hypocricy, the EXTREME manipulation and complete disrespect for truth.

The other is the complete manipulation and complicity of the media in all directions. The idea seems to be, NEVER present the public with any real information about anybody or anything. Plie them with agenda oriented propagaganda seems to be their sole purpose.

Then finally the last aspect...the sycophants that can not wait to follow their leader right over the cliff like dumb animals (Clint is a good example).

This is what will destroy this country. Ironic is it not that we are also living in an age that is described as the Information Age with communication technology that is astonishing.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:02PM

Dr.Ron Paul, On The Issues:
Let churches provide services for immigrants, not state. (Jun 2011)
If economy were good, there’d be no immigration problem. (Dec 2007)
Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)
Those who attack bilingualism are jealous & feel inferior. (Dec 2007)
No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
No amnesty, but border fence isn’t so important. (Jun 2007)
We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)
Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations. (Jan 2003)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
Government services in English only. (Mar 2008)
Rated C by the ALI, indicating an acceptably anti-amnesty stance. (Nov 2010)
Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron.....mmigration

Norseman| 9.1.11 @ 2:01PM

You forgot to mention one issue that this TEA party person finds unnaceptable in Mr. Romney. He has fallen for the global warming scam, hook, line, and sinker. I voted for Mr. Romney in 2008 and as of today, I am leaning towards Governor Perry. I simply cannot vote for Mr. Romney because of his views on the global warming scam, cap & trade, etc.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 2:23PM

GOP Insiders would be better off with Romney.
http://hotlineoncall.nationalj.....gop-wo.php

Great! Now I have another reason to be for Perry, if the GOP Insiders that helped us get in this situation don't like him (because they do not trust they can guide him) then he must be doing something right.

johnr| 9.1.11 @ 2:29PM

I honestly believe most of the MSM attacks on
Perry are based in an unspoken belief by many of them that Perry will crush Obama in an election, where Romney will likley lose against Obama. True or not, the liberals, I believe, see Perry as a bonafide threat to the annointed one.

aware| 9.1.11 @ 2:39PM

I really can't understand anybody defending career politicians. ANY of them. And worse, actually cheerleading for them.

But then, Al Capone had his fawning admirers too. Of course, mobster is 2 or 3 rungs above politician, so at least he had that going for him.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 3:26PM

Anarchists wouldn't defend anybody, this is true.
The rest of us do not have the luxury of allowing our precious votes to go to Obama.

aware| 9.1.11 @ 5:12PM

Hey Margie(hope you are untouched by storm).
I'll keep believing all politicians are owned, criminal, scum, and you keep believing that some(?) are honest. I'll bet you now that you'll be disappointed many times before I'm disappointed once.

Even if you were lucky enough to find one, he/she would still be in charge of a vast extortion/protection racket. Owned by an international banking cartel. With a sophisticated propaganda arm, passing itself off as "news and entertainment", to reduce the average intelligence level to the point of near zombie. And hides its theft from you with promises, cheap money and easy credit, thereby making you a dependent, debt zombie chasing after material crap made overseas where the labor is cheap but the profits are huge.

For a Christian I think you vastly underestimate the capacity for evil when sanctioned by "the Law". And how deep the feeder roots of corruption are in high places. The truth is that the destruction of our society and way of life is driven by our government. Every check it writes is a bribe against responsibility and every dime it takes in is taken at the point of a gun. Don't fool yourself into thinking you aren't in for huge tax increases from here on out, no matter who wins.

It's either that or default. Which ever it is, it will hurt and leave a mark.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 9:49PM

aware,

Greetings in Jesus, my brother. We weren't affected by the storm at all, thanks for asking. Were you? We've moved to western PA and soon to Ohio.

I truly do not underestimate evil~ I'm aware (speaking of!) of it in its many forms.
false Religion, politics, Hollyweird~ it has many guises.

When I back a candidate or a party, it's because of the platforms of same. I put no trust in any individual, but in God. I know His will's going to be done no matter what happens~ and till He returns, I do the best I can with what I've got.

I know that He doesn't want me to sit idly, and not at least place my vote for the best candidate that's running. It's just plain old common sense.

This World is passing away, and soon as you know the Scripture says that when Christ returns the "government shall be upon His Shoulders."

I can't wait!! Is. 9:6.

VBMax| 9.1.11 @ 2:48PM

It is apparent to me that whichever Republican might win the presidency, their feet must continually be held to the fire. They will be subjected to continual bombardment by the usual suspects which will make it difficult to forward the agenda they were elected on. The opposition standard procedure consists of sabotaging anything that will actually better the country and we better be there to keep our people upright and moving forward.

Mark in LA| 9.1.11 @ 3:05PM

And what agenda would that be? The same open borders, guest worker, free trade, globalist, anti-white, and anti-American worker policies that have been in place since Reagan?

VBMax| 9.1.11 @ 4:17PM

Mark in LA:
I'm a Florida Tea Party guy....that agenda!

kevin| 9.4.11 @ 7:42AM

Please put the tinfoil hat down and step away from the Alex Jones site.

sub| 9.1.11 @ 2:55PM

the american political media has literally sunken to the murky bottom of the sea, over the last generation. these indoctrinated liberals, fresh out of "journolism" classes taught by partisan acolytes, seem to feel it is there right and duty to spin and influence the minds of their peers. i've never seen anything scarier. i directly blame liberal professors and educators for the hubris and arrogance to disregard the lesson of impartiality. when i read the words of a clown like jonathan cohn, and see his picture by the byline, the entire story is told. a generation of propagandists, given to us by our universities. totally sickening.

B. Samuel Davis| 9.1.11 @ 3:02PM

This is what the media does - it is trying to create a generalization - so that Perry can be dismissed, as in 'that tea party Perry." It is a way to avoid thinking.

READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES:

1. Even those who support Obama in this article do so by saying that "he is less bad than the competition." Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

2. Let's not forget that the competition is facing a media that for the most part guns at them day and night - the so called mainstream media is still favors the Democrat party - despite the fact that Americans are five to one moderate or conservative the mostly white, mostly male mainstream media chases the 20% that calls itself liberal.

Look, Obama has LOST the white vote - it's now two to three to one against. Republicans need to look to winning the Latino vote. The way to do that is to tell them to look at what Democrats have done to blacks - and the consequences of accepting Democrat poison.

B. Samuel Davis| 9.1.11 @ 3:03PM

Sorry - when I transposed the comment from word I got more than what I expected.

Earle Belle| 9.1.11 @ 3:08PM

Does the Elite support Rick Perry?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/.....lp-you-out

Rick Perry comes under fire for investment in America's largest pornography distributor:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....z1Vdx310qB

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 3:41PM

Give me a break. He bought stock in a movie rental company that happens to carry Porno and you construe that as he condones it? You do realize they were the second largest movie and game rental company in the US?

And you quote a BRITISH LIBERAL RAG as your source?

Dick Nome| 9.1.11 @ 7:27PM

The sewage slime Larry Flynt was a visible Clinton supporter. What does that tell you??

Earle Belle| 9.1.11 @ 3:08PM

Is Rick Perry on the side of the best interests of the American people?:
http://www.augustforecast.com/.....-policies/

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 3:43PM

Another conspiracy rag

Sean| 9.2.11 @ 5:44AM

Seems to be fact to me about the TransTexas Corridor. Of course you offer no facts of your own.

Drunken Sailor| 9.2.11 @ 9:10AM

When the source is a crackpot conspircay theorist site, I don't even waste my time. I'm not trying to convice him or you. Just stating a fact.

Earle Belle| 9.1.11 @ 3:15PM

Secession has been a verboten issue in the United States since the end of the Civil War. Any group who've brought it up have been targeted by press and government as 'militant fringe groups" All of a sudden in 2009, we're seeing it endorsed by career politicians in several states simultaneously, and the media is giving them good press.

Last week, Rick Perry, Texas Governor since George W. Bush's departure in 2000, raised secession of Texas from the Federal Union at a Ron Paul type 'Tea Party" to protest Federal spending and the tax burden on the little guy.

Clearly the Illuminati intend to harness and divert popular discontent to advance their own secret agenda, I.e. The melding of the USA into their world government. Many people think the tea party movement in general exhibits a suspicious amount of organization and media acceptance. (Contrast Fox TV's coverage of this with "9-11 Truth.")

Perry later told the Star-Telegram that he "never specifically said that Texas should consider trying to secede." Technically he's correct. He got cheers telling the Tea Party rabble that the Republic of Texas legislature left a provision in the 1845 agreement to cede with the US Federal government.

But Perry is no populist. In May 2007, Dallas Morning News reported, "Gov. Rick Perry is flying to Istanbul, Turkey, today to speak at the super-secret Bilderberg Conference, a meeting of about 130 international leaders in business, media and politics." All the Governor's press secretary had to say was, "He's looking forward to learning the secret handshake." And, "It's their conference, and I suppose they can run it anyway they want." Perry's expenses were officially paid by the PAC group 'Texans for Rick Perry'.

Although he's never cared what the voters want, Perry intends to run for an unprecedented third term for Governor in 2010.

Perry's gubernatorial resume includes supporting 'Open Borders'; proponent of the $145 billion+ Trans-Texas (NAFTA) Highway to the dismay and anger of central Texas residents who have never been consulted on whether they want or need it. (Thousands of square miles of land has been seized by the State of Texas under eminent domain for this project in Central Texas from the Mexican border just west of San Antonio, Austin, and and Dallas and North Texas.) Perry helped set it up so the project is being built by the Spanish contractor Cinta, and paid for by new toll highways all over the State.

Perry further alienated Texas parents and Legislators by attempting to override a "No" decision on mandatory vaccination of 11-year-old girls with an vaccine for an STD, venereal & warts (the $350 a pop "slut shot.") Perry invoked Executive Order in Feb 2007, but families filed class action suit and many financial connections between Perry and big pharma corporation Merck came out. Perry backed down but a new bill has been introduced that will make Gardasil mandatory "as an admission requirement for all primary and secondary schools."

THE REAL SECESSIONISTS

The real secessionist movement leaders were arrested, one killed in 1997. Old school Texans will remember there was a genuine grass roots secessionist movement during the 70's through the 90's. They called themselves the Republic of Texas. During the 80's one couldn't miss seeing thousands of 'SECEDE!' bumper stickers in Houston and Austin traffic. Few people took the Secessionists seriously, but the Federal and Texas governments did. Secessionist movement leaders were hunted down and arrested or killed in West Texas in 1997.

The story made the New York Times and CNN, referring to them as 'militant secession group' and 'fringe group'. The group, led by Richard McLaren, stated historical fact that the original Republic of Texas legislature had never ratified Texas becoming a territory or State of the United States. The Republic of Texas was chartered as a sovereign nation recognized by the United States government at the time.

All the Republic of Texas members had been calling for was an official state wide public referendum so citizens could decide whether they wanted to remain under Federal government or reclaim Republic status.

One secessionist was killed in the Davis Mountains by Texas State Police helicopter snipers. No other witnesses. How is it that Governor Rick Perry is getting full media support using the same arguments as did a 'militant fringe group' ?

RCV| 9.1.11 @ 3:54PM

The Illuminatti??? Occam! Another customer!

Shill Watch| 9.1.11 @ 5:03PM

He seems a bit crazy but not as scary as Obama supporters. They took an affirmative action community organizer from one of America's failed cities and made him President. Apparently he would stop the rise of the oceans and get us going with green jobs and other such nonsense. He referred to himself as the one we have been waiting for. I guess it fed your race obsessed view of the world. Everyone suffers unless they receive kickbacks from the Soprano like Obama administration. You should seek help for yourself RCV. You have ruined your state and now have come after your country.

RCV| 9.3.11 @ 10:24PM

The American people elected President Obama, Shill Watch, and by a healthy majority, and I don't believe most Americans are "race obsessed".

They elected Obama because the GOP candidates were pathetic. And they will likely reelect him for the same reasons.

Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 9.1.11 @ 5:30PM

I don't bother with silly over / under on the number of readers who saw the subtitle of today's article by Lars Walker that was, quote:

"It isn't often that human excrement brings clarity",

and wondered if it was, really, truly, actually, the repulsive contemptible vile one himself, deigning to shed light on statements of such genius as:

"At least, Skippie, I belong to a party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born",

or:

"I supported Obama from the beginning",

or, any other of a plethora of archived nuggets, equally representative of both the Christian and the Constitutional lifelong expertise of a poster of such rare brilliance matters.

RCV| 9.3.11 @ 10:25PM

Man up, Skip. Zzzzzzzzzzz.....

Nite| 9.1.11 @ 9:20PM

Wow! All the liberal talking points that have been making the rounds on conservative web sites. Perry has never lost an election, and TX is a conservative state. I have voted for him in the last 4 and will vote for him again. Trashing him will not make your boy look any better.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 3:44PM

"Clearly the Illuminati intend to harness and divert popular discontent to advance their own secret agenda, I.e. The melding of the USA into their world government. Many people think the tea party movement in general exhibits a suspicious amount of organization and media acceptance. (Contrast Fox TV's coverage of this with "9-11 Truth.")"

Wow, another conspiracy theorist. You and Post-America really must get together and compare notes.

Steve A| 9.1.11 @ 4:14PM

Let's forget about politics for a bit & talk about baseball.

I think Justin Verlander has too much velocity. More than he needs, really. He should "give his fair share" to John Lackey.

Adrian Gonzalez is hitting over .340. Why not shuffle & divide up at least .040 of that among those at the bottom of the average list to equal things out?

The Phillies do not need all of those wins. They are a shoe in to make the playoffs & have the best pitching staff in baseball. Give The Dodgers 10 of those wins to help ease their financial troubles.

There, I feel so much better now.

Jrd| 9.1.11 @ 4:26PM

I have big problems with Rick Perry's crony capitalism. I am disgusted that the new crown jewel of the Republican party has become crony capitalism. Now is the time to be vetting Slick Rick. Instead the conservative media has decided to cheerlead and act just like the lame stream media did in 2008 with Obama. Obama is a crony capitalist also. Nothing will motivate me to get up and vote for Slick Rick. Now is the time to get rid of all of the dead wood not pile on more crony capitalists and wasteful spenders like Perry.

Ax D WhiteMan | 9.4.11 @ 7:27AM

I've lived in Texas for 31 years. I've voted for Perry 4 times. Everything you say here is 100% true. Texas was a fabulous place before Perry, now it's just a bit better than everywhere else.

Steve A| 9.1.11 @ 4:43PM

Jrd, Soooooooo your horse in the race is....???

Katherine | 9.1.11 @ 4:48PM

Gov. Rick Perry is a much better choice than this vague man we have in The White House now, reading scripts, and fermenting his Socialist ideology while bullying us into submission.
Governor Perry understands what needs to be done...In my opinion Obama is a disgrace to America.
It is my understanding that Gov. Perry has created more jobs than Obama has lost; and Obama with access to all the $$$ he could take from us!...That is unacceptable..He doesn't know what he is doing, or he does know what he is doing and is doing it for his own reasons. What would those reasons be?
Gov. Perry is successful, works hard, been re-elected three times for the governship of Texas, and if there is a God in Heaven he will be our next president..
I hope he wins the nomination, I hope he wins the presidency, I hope he takes Obama to school and Air Force One wings it's way to Chicago so Obama and all his illegal relatives can catch the first flight out of this country....as far away from it as he can get...

Pat| 9.1.11 @ 5:01PM

Don’t you just hate it when the White House calls and you are promptly summoned into another meeting with the feature editor for your next “hit piece” assignment? Get the goods on Rick Perry or write a piece on how Obama’s Stimulus Plan really did work as promised - your choice but we need something by the end of today you’re told. Unfortunately, when you flunked out of business math and inorganic chemistry back in college but managed to ace Sociology 101, your career choices were somewhat limited - and isn’t journalism supposed to be an exciting field? Maybe 50 years ago it was exciting but today you grind out story after story supporting the Democrats if you know what’s good for you and want to retain your “sources” inside government.

And talk about boring – you’re supposed to be an independent journalist but no one in your organization wants to hear about juicy scandals involving the White House or anyone remotely connected to the Democrats. Your last major revelation reported on how the White House cafeteria’s till was short a whole ten bucks at closing time. Big whoop, right? Still, it’s a living, although your intended plan of skating out shortly after lunch will have to be put on hold so you can invent reasons to praise Obama’s Stimulus Plan.

Everyone knows, but no one will admit, Obama is working on yet another Stimulus Bill – it could very well be his last shot at lining the pockets of his supporters before he finally bows out. But this time around, even your news organization might benefit financially from another Stimulus Bill and goodness knows the bottom line could use some government help.

You look over at your editor’s office, he’s trying out different headlines should that happy stimulus event occur – “The New York Times, Too Big To Fail” – or wait, how about “The New York Times, Too Important To Fail”? Oh well, back to the word processor.

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 6:06PM

Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate

A new national poll of the general population has revealed that top tier candidate Ron Paul is the most favorable choice in the Republican Presidential nomination race.

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

Dick Nome| 9.1.11 @ 7:23PM

An AP poll doesn't mean sqat and never has. They get the result they want, ot in this case a result you Paulbots want. Rube Paul is a kook and will only garnish single digits in primaries.

Real American| 9.1.11 @ 6:27PM

Romney couldn't even beat that dinosaur, John McCain. He may be preferable to Obama (as would a bag of rocks), but that doesn't mean he's the best candidate. He's definitely more of a politician in every way than Perry. If Perry actually is what the left accused Bush of being, then he's the man.

Dick Nome| 9.1.11 @ 7:20PM

Romney was beating Capt McQueeg until the RINO establishment got Huckephoney and uberRINO Crist to throw a few primaries to him. It was his turn.

Rick| 9.1.11 @ 7:07PM

Rick Perry is a rasist and a dunse!

Dick Nome| 9.1.11 @ 7:18PM

Didn't finish grade school, did you??

NJK| 9.1.11 @ 8:02PM

Um, excuse me, but it's "Dunce." Rick Perry is a former Air Force Pilot. What is Barack Obama again? Oh, that's right a community agitator who has his college transcripts under lock and key. Did he really go to college?

Bob Grant| 9.1.11 @ 11:22PM

LOl

davelnaf| 9.1.11 @ 7:33PM

Libs will convince no one but themselves that Perry is unqualified to be president after their cheerleading for the worst, most destructive president in US history. They should be more concerned that the outcome of the next two election cycles could spell the death of the Democratic Party. They probably will be working hard, that is lying hard, to keep that debacle down to a non-suicide watch level, but Obama is gone and they know it; so, why bother expending what is left of their dwindling credibility on this loser? I guess one would have to be a lib to answer this question.

bluecollarbytes| 9.1.11 @ 7:51PM

Rmoney is also getting help from the professional Republicans, who would rather have another Democrat Republican over anyone who can rightly be called a conservative.

The old and establishment Republicans have nothing to offer but more of the same. If they really want people like me to lose all interest in trying to decipher the dwindling number of differences between the elephant and the ass, keep it up ya'll. It's not like we don't have better things to do with our time than pretend anything's going to change with a northeastern blue-blooded liberal Republican in the presidency.

It appears, as it usually does, that the Republican Party's prime interest is in regaining power- screw the "issues".

NJK| 9.1.11 @ 8:00PM

If they attack someone that is who I gravitate to. They are a good barometer of who not to vote for.

PCP Smoker| 9.1.11 @ 8:51PM

Excellent piece. Make sure the intern forwards it to Antler, Mushitsky, and Hilier.

Speedypete| 9.1.11 @ 10:10PM

Good article and my family and friends don't give a rat's backside what the New York Times and other propagandists will try to portend about your religious beliefs and how you will peddle these in Washington. We want to know what you plan to do to reduce deficits and improve the tax base which is jobs. Both go hand in hand but these news organizations with declining viewers and readers also don't recognize that their advertising dollars has gone in to the toilet. We have a candidate that has a plan and we have a president and senate that are clueless.

Ted Shepherd| 9.1.11 @ 10:48PM

I quote "If Perry is "anti-science" for thinking that the world didn't create itself through random processes, so were they. " (They refers to the Founding Fathers.) It is fair to call someone "anti-science" if he has no grasp of the progress in science since the Revolution.

Osamas Pajamas| 9.2.11 @ 12:58AM

Ted Shepherd, you left this hanging out there...."It is fair to call someone 'anti-science' if he has no grasp of the progress in science since the Revolution" --- as if it is self-evident that Perry "has no grasp of the progress in science since the Revolution" --- with no supporting argument.

What Perry has said about the theory of evolution is exactly and precisely true --- and I say this being an atheist, myself.

By the way, Ann Coulter has thoroughly demolished the evolutionist arguments raised against Perry, go to --- http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html --- and cry your eyes out, oh, boohoo!

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 1:32PM

Good for you, OP! And bravo, Annie.
Thanks for posting that link yo her article.
By the way, not sure if you know this or not, I didn't till just the other day myself~ Intelligent Design~ it's a group that comes up with all kinds of pyscho-babble and it isn't Christian.

Christians believe every Word of God, that He created the universe and Mankind.

God says He CREATED each living thing ACCORDING TO ITS KIND.

Darwin says we EVOLVED.

One of them's a liar. Right??
OP, I always enjoy your posts when you come around.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 1:34PM

I forgot to post the "link" to God saying He created each according to its kind, so here it is: Gen. 1:11 & 12.

doolittle| 9.1.11 @ 11:43PM

stop harping about Perry supporting Algore 23 years ago. how many REPUBLICANS were actually alive in Texas then? Certainly the only way to vote was no doubt to register as a Democrat. AND, if KarlRove couldn't find any fault with Perry and got him to change his registration, there must not be much dirt to dig up. The object is not just to nominate a conservative but rather to nominate a conservative WHO CAN WIN.

Sean| 9.2.11 @ 5:48AM

Too bad Perry isn't a conservative. Praising Hillarycare, mandatory Gardasil shot, TransTexas corridor these are not signs of someone who is conservative. Perry= a worse Bush. Is that what we really need?

Osamas Pajamas| 9.2.11 @ 12:47AM

The libertarians and tea partiers are a great mixture of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics --- and atheists like myself. As a "right-wing" atheist, I won't have any problem voting for a Christian like Perry --- it's the left-wing atheists [and Muslims] who are far more dangerous to me than conservative Christians are.

POST American| 9.2.11 @ 4:13AM

-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------

----Globalism, USURY, EUGENICS n' TREASON
and crooked, crooked smiles ALLLLL the way
around.

Ken Van Doren | 9.2.11 @ 6:17AM

Once again, no mention of the REAL runner up in the polls, Ron Paul. Amazing that you can not figure out that Perry was sent to undercut Ron, first, because he also is from TX, and second by stealing some of Ron's talking points. WHO MADE THE FED an issue????
I guess the Spectator can only write about Ron in negative terms, and then only by employing distortion and outright lies, as in the Lord hit peice last week. You guys are pathetic, and discredit yourselves.
And despite the Spectator's apologia re: Perry, there is plenty of dirt to dig up. Perry will prove a flash in the pan.

CraigTX| 9.2.11 @ 11:42PM

I find it interesting that of all the commentary on AS, those that cover anything about Perry seem to attract all sorts of obnoxious comments from people I suspect are Ron Paul nutcases or obama astro-turfers.

Why is that? The Ron Paul crazies I can fathom ... they're just crazies. The leftists are very afraid of Rick.

I do have concerns about Perry, but a Perry/Rubio ticket would be unstoppable in an honest election and the prime directive is to put a stop to the left's destruction of our Republic.

Neil| 9.3.11 @ 10:21AM

Is any of thie really a surprise?

Grey Warrior| 9.3.11 @ 10:04PM

Does he have a learning curve from his time in Texas' unique politics? Are the brackets of his likely or predictable decisions to be acceptable and in our American interests? 1800 PA Ave has no learning curve and is spiraling faster. Would both Perry and Bachmann slow down and then stop the spiral we all are being taken down?

POST American| 9.4.11 @ 11:28PM

--------------------FINAL WORD------------------------

Ron Paul, such as he is, IS what he IS,
and IS ALL by the Grace of God, we need.

polyDNA | 3.24.13 @ 5:18AM

The fact that Perry lost out early during the Republican primaries is good thing in my opinion. And, the fact that he was against what seemed to be a scientific HPV Remedy was amazing to me.

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|56 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|105 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|30 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|48 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|20 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 4:27PM

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 3:41PM

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth

Ross Kaminsky | 3:27PM

Cook Insists: No Income Shifting, Tax Avoidance

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 3:01PM

Democrats Outraged Over IRS, But Not the Right Aspect of It

Kaylin Bugos | 2:10PM

What Happens If the Uninsured Can’t Register Under Obamacare?

Patrick Ryan | 1:22PM

Whitehouse Berates Republicans for Causing Tornadoes

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

UPDATED: Former IRS Chief Refuses to Apologize

Kaylin Bugos | 12:45PM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Open Season

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (349) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Michael Tomlinson| 9.1.11 @ 6:42AM

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 9:06AM

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 10:46AM

zane| 9.1.11 @ 11:26AM

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 11:34AM

zane| 9.1.11 @ 12:45PM

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 1:18PM

voted against carter| 9.1.11 @ 4:38PM

Sean| 9.1.11 @ 5:43PM

Doorgunner| 9.1.11 @ 8:55PM

Doorgunner| 9.1.11 @ 8:57PM

Patricia Leath| 9.1.11 @ 10:53PM

kate| 9.2.11 @ 12:01AM

Sean| 9.2.11 @ 5:37AM

kevin| 9.4.11 @ 6:15AM

Aqua Buddah| 9.1.11 @ 11:09AM

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 11:20AM

W| 9.1.11 @ 11:25AM

PJ| 9.1.11 @ 1:20PM

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 1:29PM

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 1:38PM

JFGalt| 9.1.11 @ 12:45PM

irish19| 9.1.11 @ 1:35PM

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 1:52PM

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 2:24PM

Kishego| 9.1.11 @ 3:36PM

Nick| 9.1.11 @ 7:28PM

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 9:09PM

kate| 9.2.11 @ 12:22AM

kate| 9.2.11 @ 12:40AM

Seek| 9.1.11 @ 12:56PM

zane| 9.1.11 @ 1:15PM

Mike w| 9.1.11 @ 8:33PM

Jim| 9.1.11 @ 5:06PM

kate| 9.2.11 @ 12:56AM

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:07PM

Sirbourbon| 9.1.11 @ 2:34PM

JimP| 9.1.11 @ 6:59AM

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 9.1.11 @ 7:04AM

Michael Tomlinson| 9.1.11 @ 8:27AM

Sirbourbon| 9.1.11 @ 2:37PM

fred filopek| 9.1.11 @ 10:39AM

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:08PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 7:08AM

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 7:27AM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 7:53AM

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 8:21AM

irish19| 9.1.11 @ 1:39PM

irish19| 9.1.11 @ 1:40PM

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:17PM

Mike w| 9.1.11 @ 8:38PM

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 8:25AM

Clinton| 9.1.11 @ 8:43AM

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:16PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 12:07PM

Doctor Right| 9.1.11 @ 1:41PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 1:58PM

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 9:58PM

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 11:26AM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 2:01PM

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 2:13PM

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:23PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:24PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:09PM

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 3:18PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:39PM

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 4:02PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 5:22PM

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:03PM

Mike Hawk| 9.1.11 @ 10:53AM

Harold| 9.1.11 @ 12:20PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 2:10PM

Oldefarte| 9.1.11 @ 2:34PM

Clint| 9.1.11 @ 3:12PM

Boar Hunter| 9.1.11 @ 10:05PM