"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."
--Joseph Stalin

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Rick Perry's Letter "Praising" Hilary - Just Another Trumped Up Non-Scandal

Will Malven

How startling. I'm sooo shocked. Imagine, the then Texas Commissioner of Agriculture praising Hilary Clinton for her "efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system” and daring to ask her to see what can be done to expand coverage availability to the rural population, ranchers, and agricultural workers. Really??? What a nightmare!

Grow up people! Time to put you short-pants aside and start behaving like adults. Quit trying to create a mountain of scandal against Rick Perry out of these tiny little mole-hills. Have you no pride at all?

This from the Daily Caller, an allegedly "conservative" publication by Tucker Carlson, a former conservative gone "David Brooks" on us.

Rick Perry’s camp defends 1993 HillaryCare praise

By Alexis Levinson and Caroline May - The Daily Caller
5:52 PM 08/30/2011

Texas Governor Rick Perry has been among the most vocal critics of President Obama’s health care reform initiative, and of Mitt Romney’s preceding health care program in Massachusetts. But in 1993, while serving as Texas Agriculture Commissioner, Perry praised the efforts of then-first lady Hillary Clinton to reform health care, a precursor to Obama’s health care reform efforts.

In a letter to Clinton, who is now U.S. Secretary of State, Perry wrote: “I think your efforts in trying to reform the nation’s health care system are most commendable.”

“I would like to request that the task force give particular consideration to the needs of the nation’s farmers, ranchers, and agriculture workers, and other members of rural communities,” Perry continued, noting his administration’s focus on economic development for rural Texans. “Rural populations have a high proportion of uninsured people, rising health care costs, and often experience lack of services.”

“Again, your efforts are worthy,” Perry concluded, ”and I hope you will remember this constituency as the task force progresses.”
Holy cow! Rick Perry actually had the temerity to make an effort to see to the needs of the people of rural Texas while he was the Commissioner of Agriculture of the state. How novel, how unusual . . . how very boring.

Here is the letter in it's entirety:

Anyone reading this letter objectively, can see that it is not so much a "praise Hilary letter" as it is an attempt to ingratiate himself sufficiently to get his agenda--reformed healthcare for his rural constituency--improved.  Very clearly his goal it to get the committee to look at the plight of ranchers, farmers, farm workers and rural community residents.

It isn't terribly likely that Commissioner Perry would have gotten very far with saying something like:
"Hilary, your efforts to reform healthcare are a socialist abomination. By the way, would you do me a favor and please turn your attention to the difficulties our rural communities in Texas are experiencing in getting good affordable healthcare and insurance."
Seeing as how Rick Perry was the Texas Commissioner of Agriculture at the time and part of his responsibilities was to assist those rural communities with any problems they might have, you would have to be fairly determined to see something objectionable in what he wrote.

Only those with an anti-Perry agenda could read the letter as praising Hilary-care--especially since the letter was written in April of 1993 just 3 months after the healthcare task force was created and six months before opposition to their efforts--in the form of the "Harry and Loise" ads--solidified.  Those ads didn't begin running until September of '93, after it became clear that what Hilary had been creating was not an improved healthcare system, but a socialized medicine program.

Let's see, two sentences , the opening sentence and the first of the last paragraph--where he again calls attention to the plight of rural Texans--politely commending Hilary for her efforts in trying to reform the healthcare system and three paragraphs expressing his wish for the task force to pay close attention to the needs of the rural communities.  I'd say that shows how absurd the accusations of Perry detractors are.

These poor fools who are stuck in the D.C./Baltimore/NYC/Boston corridor live in a fantasy world. They have been so long in the MSM that they have lost touch with their inner conservative and have become, for lack of better term, CINOs (Conservatives In Name Only).  [David Brooks lost his conservative card so long ago most folks see him as simply a Wall Street Liberal.]

This is a non-story. Everyone in America knew then and knows now that our health care system is on a one-way trip to Hell if something isn't done to slow the rapid growth in costs.

Note, he didn't praise what she came up with, he praised her efforts, her willingness to take on a daunting (some would say impossible) task.

This is a very sad example of establishment--inside the corridor/beltway, insular Northeastern pseudo-conservatives--searching desperately for something with which they can attack Rick Perry and stop his campaign juggernaut before it smashes the Romney campaign, complete with that Romney-care albatross he's got hanging around his neck.

They are so afraid of being seen as "unsophisticated" or too conservative, that they would rather lie about Rick Perry than see him get elected. These are the same type of people who fought tooth and nail to prevent Ronald Reagan from being nominated, because (all together now) he was "unelectable."

Funny thing is, some of these same clowns who are now living is terror of a Rick Perry Presidential campaign were probably out working as hard as they could to get Ronald Reagan elected. Now that they have become part of the establishment right, they have lost everything that made them conservatives.

How pathetic that they are reduced to trying to create a controversy where none exists because they are unable to make an affirmative case for their used car salesman candidate "Slick" Mitt Romney.

Smearing another candidate with lies or (in this case) innuendos, is faint praise for your integrity and for your chosen favorite. Guilt by association used to be a tool only liberals used.

The Slowly Dying Myth of Man Made Global Warming

Will Malven

You can hear the desperation in their voices. The stridency of their attacks. The proponents of the failed theory of man made global warming see their golden-egg laying goose slowly being roasted.

Al Gore calls skeptics "the new 'racists.'" Earlier this month, ManBearPig (Gore) launched into a tirade of obscene language attacking those who question his pet theory--a theory, by the way, which has made him quite wealthy--and before that, he compared skeptics to Nazis. Has he no shame? . . . Of course not, HE'S A LIBERAL.

The degree of their stridency will tell you just how desperate the global warming crowd has become as, point after trumped-up point, their theory is unraveling in the face of more and more data.

It has always be true that those scientist who deal with real world data are more likely to question the assumptions supporting AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) than those who work with computer models into which those data are fitted (note the word "fitted," not "dropped").

There are several reasons for this, paramount among them is that real world data have never supported the theory very well and models are continually having to be adjusted by their creators to correct for those variances.

That method works for climate alarmists, because computer models are only a reflection of the biases of those who wrote the programs--have a little data-fit problem, merely "adjust" the model to accommodate the new variance and "Voila!" another perfect fit . . . albeit meaningless.

Now, however these pseudo-scientist are encountering something that rips their theory apart, something that was suggested a long time ago by a very unpopular "climate change skeptic," Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark.

Svensmark suggested that the sun was the dominant force influencing climate here on Earth.

[Wow! What a revolutionary idea, that the sun--that huge glowing thermonuclear furnace whose heat you can feel within seconds of stepping outside, even at a distance of 93,000,000 miles--has more to do with "global warming" than any activity of mankind.]

Svensmark's theory postulated that variations in global temperatures were the result variations in cloud cover over the Earth. The more clouds, the more solar energy was reflected back into space, and the lower global temperatures would be.

He suggested that cloud formation was seeded by the interaction of cosmic radiation with the atmosphere. Thus greater amounts of solar activity leads to a more powerful solar wind, less incident cosmic radiation, less cloud formation, and greater global temperatures.

Interestingly, the data fit for a correlation between incident cosmic radiation and climatic temperature variations is much closer than that of CO2 levels and those same temperature variations--a fact that so threatened the AGW crowd that they have spent an inordinate amount of their efforts to attack Svensmark and his theory.

AGW advocates have an over-inflated image of mankind and what he is capable of doing. They fail to understand that compared to this planet, this universe, mankind is insignificant. This leads me to a pseudo-question, or perhaps it is a rhetorical question--I'm not sure which:

Question: What is the probability of finding intelligent life in the universe?

Answer: Judging from the intelligence of the folks who adhere so adamantly to the increasingly failed theory of global warming and their arguments, I would venture to guess it's very rare.

That leads me to a little thought experiment that science fiction/comedy author Douglas Adams came up with in his wonderful Hitchhiker's Guide to the Planets books (in this case it is The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, Chapter 19).
"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination."
Perhaps my estimate isn't so far off based on Adam's fun conjecture (of course since the number of possible planets is not "infinite," but merely immense beyond counting, it goes to show that my estimate of "very rare" is understated, but more accurate).

Anyway, to the point. Scientists at CERN the largest particle physics laboratory in the world and site of the largest particle accelerator in the world, have run a series of experiments based on Svensmark's theory and low and behold, found significant evidence that his postulations were correct and that cloud formation is affected significantly by the level of cosmic radiation impacting on our planet.

Here is the an article in the Financial Post by Lawrence Solomon
Lawrence Solomon: Science getting settled

Lawrence Solomon Aug 26, 2011 – 11:37 PM ET | Last Updated: Aug 27, 2011 10:08 PM ET

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from ├╝ber-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
The remainder of the article goes into the facts and the arguments surrounding these findings. The gist is that political pressure is so intense that this discovery may be suppressed by the pro-AGW folks.

Governments and the establishment academic elite have a lot invested in the myth of man-made global warming, so much so that they have continually sought to suppress, ridicule, and deny access to the press anything or anyone who contradicted Al Gore's pet money-maker.

For governments, global warming means power they can wield over their citizens and we all know how much government types like to control the lives of those they are supposed to be working for.

For academia, the stakes are even higher, their livelihoods and their prestige depend on their mythology not being debunked that's what happens when scientists cease being scientists and become advocates. AGW advocates love to liken climate skeptics to the clergy in the Catholic Church who tried to suppress Galileo Galilei's findings, but who really is involved in an attempt to suppress whom?

Clearly, we skeptics are facing a battle with the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming and their desire to suppress and prevent the dissemination of any information which would cause doubt in their theory.

Even now, in the face of this devastating evidence, they are busy trying to spin it like the Wizard of Oz, "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

The mythology of AGW continues to collapse and as it does so, you can bet that the voices defending it will become even more strident and alarmist. They will exert even greater pressure to suppress, conceal, and distort the findings of those whose work pokes holes in their religion, but word will still get out. Once the cat's out of the bag, you can't put him back in.

Al Gore (or ManBearPig as the comedy channel calls him) will get more hateful, more obscene and more desperate as evidence continues to mount against him.

Come on Al, isn't the $100 million you've scammed off of a gullible liberal public enough for you? Yeah, yeah, I know, Al, we've heard it all before:

"Top of the world, ma!"

Come on, Al, climb down off the building.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Clueless in Washington: America's Ruling Class Just Doesn't Get It.

Will Malven

Well, I guess you might say I've been asleep at the wheel, but I stumbled across this article from August 3rd at Rassmussen Reports and, at least to me, it tells us exactly what is wrong with this nation and our government.

It seems that our political class, those who reside in the bubble of government and the traditional news media, have absolutely no idea what is going on throughout the rest of the nation except in the vaguest of hints. Check this out and then pick your jaw up off the ground.
67% of Political Class Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction, 84% of Mainstream Disagrees

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

"Recent polling has shown huge gaps between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans on issues ranging from immigration to health care to the virtues of free markets.

The gap is just as big when it comes to the traditional right direction/wrong track polling question.

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 67% of Political Class voters believe the United States is generally heading in the right direction. However, things look a lot different to Mainstream Americans. Among these voters, 84% say the country has gotten off on the wrong track.

Twenty-four percent (24%) of Mainstream voters consider fiscal policy issues such as taxes and government spending to be the most important issue facing the nation today. Just two percent (2%) of Political Class voters agree.

With a gap that wide, it’s not surprising that 68% of voters believe the Political Class doesn’t care what most Americans think. Fifty-nine percent (59%) are embarrassed by the behavior of the Political Class . . ."
[Much more at the link]
Talk about being out of touch with the electorate. It's no wonder why America is in as bad a shape as it is. We have ventured so far from what our Founding Fathers intended that it is embarrassing and worse, our elected "representatives" not only don't care what we think, but believe they don't need to care except at election time.

I don't know about you, but I was shocked, not at the existing disparity--I think all of us know Washington is out of step to one degree or another--but at the extent of that disconnect. I mean really, 84% of us--the citizens--the voters--think America is headed in the wrong direction and 67% of those whom we elect to represent us (and those who are supposed to keep us informed on them) think we are just fine--headed exactly in the direction we should be?

How can any sane person believe America is headed in the right direction? What possible source of information can they be using that would, even remotely, lead them to believe that America--with 9+% unemployment, a national debt equal to our entire annual gross domestic product, a government that spends 50% more than it takes in, and a gathering momentum towards inflation--is even close to being on the right track?

Are they smoking crack? These numbers prove that our government and the MSM are completely out of touch with, not just the voters, but with reality. They live in a bubble, a fantasy world in which their imaginings and academic theories are reality and to confirm it, they are isolated in a world in which everyone they know believes the same thing,

That explains why the words "unexpected" and "unexpectedly" have become the most common adjectives in ever financial/employment/housing report we see.

These folks need to be replaced. We have created a professional political--ruling--class who have about as much in common with the voters as did King George the colonists back in 1776.

This disparity of view explains much of why America is in the increasingly dire state it is in. Those folks in Washington believe they are the only folks in the nation who understand what is needed and they have each other's opinions to confirm it.

Did I mention that this disparity of opinion is even greater than that between Democrats and Republicans on the issues?

Time to clean house, folks. Time to sweep the garbage out of D.C.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Monday, August 22, 2011

Understanding "Rick Perry--Democrat, 1988" A Political Primer for Non-Texans

Will Malven

A lot of Republicans have expressed concern over the fact that Rick Perry was a Democrat up until 1989 and worse, not only supported Al Gore's 1988 bid for the Democrat Party Presidential nomination, but ran his campaign in Texas. For some, these questions arise for partisan political reasons and a desire to forestall Governor Perry's campaign. Lacking an affirmative argument supporting their candidate, they seek to elevate themselves and their candidate by distorting Perry's record. For them, the truth is irrelevant and winning their only concern.

For others, there is a legitimate concern that a Republican who sounds like a good, conservative, electable candidate might, in the end, turn out to be just another liberal wolf in conservative sheep's clothing. It is a reasonable question to ask. Will Rick Perry end up being just another smooth talking closet moderate (or even liberal) who has adopted a conservative facade out of political expediency? It is for these people, the ones with legitimate concerns, that this article is written.

Without growing up in Texas (or indeed much of the South) or knowing the history of Texas (and Southern) politics, it might be difficult for non-Texans to understand why Perry's support for and management of Al Gore's 1988 campaign to be the Democrat Party's presidential nominee, which on the surface seems to be an incomprehensible and an irredeemable flaw in judgment, isn't considered that big of a deal in Texas.

Post-Reconstruction South--A Democrat Stronghold

After the Civil War, the federal government instituted a policy of Reconstruction. Under that mandate ex-Confederate office holders were stripped of their authority and elections were held, supervised by the U.S. Army and the newly created Freedman's Bureau (an agency of the U.S. federal government), in which all ex-Confederates were deprived of their right to vote and prevented from running for office.

In those elections a coalition of freed slaves and so-called "carpet baggers," blacks and whites who migrated south after the war, elected Republican state governments. Because of the policies implemented by those new governments and the corruption which accompanied them, a bitter resentment grew among Southerners towards anything Republican. That resentment lasted a very long time.

After Reconstruction, these Republican governments were thrown out and replaced by conservative Democrats. Over the next century the Democrat Party came to dominate southern politics in a way rarely seen in America. All political decisions throughout the South were controlled by Democrats and only Democrats could get elected.

Whatever the election, be it for your mayor, your governor, your Representative, your comptroller, or pretty much any other political office holder that had a party affiliation, the decision as to who would hold that office was made in the Democrat Party primary. If you wanted to have a voice selecting your representative, you had to be registered as a Democrat.

Literally, one-party rule became the norm in the South. The Republican Party was reduced to insignificance. Not only couldn't Republicans get elected, for all intents and purposes, they didn't exist.

This state of affairs lasted until the fifties and sixties and even after, elections were dominated by Democrats. There were a few notable exceptions like the election in Texas of John Tower to the Senate in 1961, Barry Goldwater's popularity among conservative Southerners in the 1964 Presidential election (he carried six states, his home state of Arizona and five in the old South, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina), and, again in Texas, the election in 1966 of a young George Herbert Walker Bush (the 41st President of the United States) to the House of Representatives.

The lone Republicans--early electoral champions in Texas and the South:

With rising dissatisfaction over the growing power of the federal government, increased spending on social programs like FDR's "New Deal" and Johnson's "Great Society" welfare boondoggle, and increased federal interference in the affairs of what were traditionally state issues, Republicans began to make inroads into the solidly Democrat South. They were baby steps, but here and there Republicans began getting their messages across and winning elections.

Besides those mentioned above, Republican gains continued. In Texas, in 1977, Bill Clements was elected as the first Republican Governor in over a century. That was, for Texans, the beginning of a long climb upwards from the abyss of Democrat dominance. Republican victories, however remained rare and usually involved national elections.

Across the South, Republicans started winning elections--governorships, state and federal representatives and even some local elections, but the South in the 70's remained a Democrat stronghold.

Republican Progress in Texas"

In 1982 the Texas Congressional delegation was Democrats-22, Republicans-5. In 1983, Bill Clements lost his re-election bid to Democrat Mark White, but at that same time Phil Gramm, who was under fire from his Democrat colleagues for his support of the Reagan tax cuts, resigned his Democrat seat in the House and then won it back as a Republican in the special election that was held to replace him.

With the 1984 landslide Reagan re-election, the Texas delegation shifted to a balance of Democrats-17, Repulicans-10 and in 1986, Bill Clements won back the governorship he had lost in 1983. With that victory, the realignment continued.

Progress was slow, the 100th Congressional delegation from Texas (1987), remained at Democrats-17, Republicans-10. Republicans lost 2 seats in 1989--the year Rick Perry switched parties and the Texas delegation to the 101st Congress that year was Democrats-19, Republicans-8. The same held for the 102nd Congress.

In 1993, Texas gained 3 House seats, but that was not the boon to Republicans that was hoped and the delegation remained dismal at Democrats-21, Republicans-9 and the issue as to whether Texas would swing Republican was still in doubt.

A growing Republican tide

The shift in the Texas Delegation finally began in 1995 when the balance became Democrats-18, Republicans-12 (one Democrat, Greg Laughlin, switched to the Republican Party after the election). In 1997, Republicans gained another seat, raising their share of the delegation to 13. The balance remained the same in 1999 and even after President George W. Bush's election in 2000, the balance of Representatives remained at 17-13. In 2002, Texas gained another 2 seats, and the balance became Democrats-17, Republicans-15.

In 2005--16 years after Rick Perry switched parties--the re-election of President George W. Bush brought with it the final shift to a Texan Republican majority and Texas became a Republican state. It was a swing of 6 seats. The tally: Democrats-11, Republicans 21.

Rick Perry's decision to become a Republican in 1989, took place relatively early in Texas' realignment. He was not the first, but he was well ahead of most in the state. Remember that, for 120 years, the path to power for career politicians in Texas, was the Democrat Party. It required foresight and a fair degree of courage and dedication to core conservative values for Rick Perry and those other conservative Texas politicians to make that decision.

At the time that Perry made his choice, Texas was far from the bastion of Republicanism that it is now. It took the electorate another decade and a half to follow suit.

Chalk it up to a learning experience: support for Al Gore, Jr.

As for supporting and leading the campaign for Al Gore, Jr. in 1988, Perry was in pretty good company. Quite a few conservative Texas Democrats supported Gore in that election, among them were former governor Dolph Briscoe and Texas State House Speaker Gib Lewis.

Whatever Perry's detractors may say, Al Gore was still seen by most southern Democrats as a moderate with votes against federal funding of abortions, laws restricting the interstate sale of firearms, and in support of a moment of silent prayer in schools.

Perry says that it was during that campaign, that he came to realize just how liberal his Democrat Party had become and it was for that reason that he chose to switch parties in 1989. One only has to look at the percentage of those in Congress who get re-elected year after year in the face of the continued low favor-ability numbers revealed in polls after poll to understand just how difficult it is for people to turn from what is familiar and comfortable and to embrace what is new no matter how logical such a move may seem.

Perry's change of party came just in time to run for him to run for the position of Commissioner of the Texas Department of Agriculture against Jim Hightower (one of the most liberal politicians ever to curse Texas) whom he defeated in 1990. Was there a degree of opportunism involved? Very possibly, but he wouldn't be the first politician to see the writing on the wall and make the expedient choice and his leap was consistent with the values he has espoused his entire life.

Rick Perry's conservatism has never wavered. While still a Democrat in the Texas House of Representative, Perry distinguished himself as a fierce fiscal conservative always arguing for more austere budgets. His stands on abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, the intrusion of the federal government into traditionally state issues, the courts, and the Constitution are all consistent with traditional conservative values.

He has his flaws, foremost among them is his stand on illegal immigration, but in politics, as in life, the search for perfection is a futile, vain effort.

For Republicans, Rick Perry is the real deal; a conservative in the traditional sense, not a George W. Bush "compassionate conservative."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

References for this article:

Wikipedia pages for the 99th United State Congress and from the table at the bottom of that page, the 100th-109th Congresses).

List of Governors of Texas

Reconstruction Era of the United States

United States presidential election, 1964

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress

Sunday, August 21, 2011

2012--Anybody but Obama, but today: Rick Perry for President!

". . .And I promise you this. I'll work everyday to try to make Washington D.C. as inconsequential in your life as I can."


Rick Perry for President!

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Facts about Texas education and Rick Perry the left don't want you to know

Here is an extensive response to all the attacks against Texas education and Perry's record on it from Free Republic.

I don't know who hates Gov. Rick Perry more, teacher unions, trial lawyers or the EPA.

Gov. Rick Perry said "no" to competing in "Race to the Top." Texas Knows Best How to Educate Our Students

But Rep. Shelia Jackson-Lee and her Democratic Party wanted Perry's signature so the "money would flow to our schools within days."

Gov. Perry sued for Texas' money (without Washington telling us how to spend it) -- And won! Promise Kept.

Mona Charen: NRO Beware those 'radical' ideas -- Good opinion piece on Perry and education – Reagan simplicity that works

Chris Christie article -- Even Democrats are now alarmed about the state of education in this country but its too late because the GOP owns this issue.

UCLA: "Gov. Rick Perry’s ‘Seven Breakthrough Solutions’ would make for bad business, undermine meaning of a university"

Perry Draws Flak for Plan to Run Universities Like Businesses ……..”Perry, who has been governor since 2000, has filled state boards and commissions with those who share his vision and has launched a public attack on college costs.

“A bold, Texas-style solution,” the governor said in an address to the Legislature. “I’m challenging our institutions of higher education to develop bachelor’s degrees that cost no more than $10,000, including textbooks.”

The amount is about a quarter of what students at the University of Texas and Texas A&M pay for tuition and books. An organization formed to fight the changes, Texas Coalition for Excellence in Higher Education, counts among its members power Republicans such as TRT Holdings Chief Executive Robert Rowling, who gave $1 million to the conservative “super PAC” American Crossroads. Handling media for the group former George W. Bush adviser Karen Hughes, the Post reported.

Nonetheless, some of Perry’s higher-education ideas could be catching on elsewhere. Florida Gov. Rick Scott said he was passing on a list of higher education reform ideas from Texas known as the “Seven Breakthrough Solutions” to candidates for the Florida university and college boards of trustees, the Post reported.

Perry creates online university Gov. Rick Perry announced Wednesday that Texas is getting a branch of Western Governors University, a private, nonprofit school whose online model dovetails with Perry's emphasis on flexibility and affordability in higher education.

An executive order issued by Perry calls on the state's education and workforce agencies to help Western Governors establish WGU Texas.

[Texas Education Agency] TEA to lay off 178 workers [Thousands of pink slips for state workers]

[Rick] Scott Promotes Controversial Education Reforms [Rick Perry has championed] “Gov. Rick Scott has begun discreetly promoting the same changes to the higher education system that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has championed. The proposals include some of the same reforms pushed by conservatives in K-12 schools: merit pay for professors, tenure reform, and generally a much greater emphasis on measurement of whether professors are turning out students that meet certain goals.

The attempt in Texas has caused something of an identity crisis in that states higher education community, with opponents saying what needs to be reformed is Perry's control over university policies.<<<

Florida might reject $100 million [Fed] grant to educate children [tied to Obamacare]

Perry's education record distinctly different from Bush's

Higher Education Coalition attack on [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry raises eyebrows

[Texas Education Agency] TEA to lay off 178 workers [Thousands of pink slips for state workers]

Gov. Perry: Veterans’ Experiences, Skills are Valuable to Our Workforce "The knowledge and skills our veterans bring back from service are an important, and all too often untapped, resource for our communities," Gov. Perry said. "While we can never fully thank them for their service to our nation, I'm proud to sign this important bill, which helps veterans and military service members transition to civilian life by applying their skills and experience to help them graduate more quickly and save money on tuition."

A cry in the black education wilderness - LINKS to education, leftists and race.

Rick Perry Leads the Way on Higher-Ed Reform
First, runaway college costs are an important “kitchen table” issue for American families. After the economic woes of the past decade, many families are wondering how they are going to afford to send their kids to college (the yearly cost of attending an in-state four-year public college now tops $16,000 per year).

Second, like our public schools, America’s colleges are woefully underperforming. The authors of the recently published book Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses found that 45 percent of college students show no improvement in critical skills after two years in college. Troubling statistics are forcing many families to question whether investing time and money in college is really worth it, particularly since many college graduates are struggling to find employment and appear to have gained few marketable skills.

Third, colleges are creating a heavy burden for taxpayers. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, higher-ed spending accounts for approximately 10 percent of state spending. And federal subsidies for higher education (including grants, loans, tax credits, and direct payments to schools) amount to well over $100 billion annually.

Fourth, colleges have long been an intellectual driver of progressivism in American life. I am sure I am not the only person who found my undergraduate and graduate school years to have been a tiring indoctrination in leftist ideas. It is surely no coincidence that young American voters are more included to vote for the Left after this indoctrination.

For too long, the Right has neglected the need to challenge and reform American higher education. But in the current political climate, reforming colleges and universities (as well as our student-aid policies) is an eminently winnable fight — and one that would yield big gains for students and taxpayers.

Conservative leaders around the country should follow Rick Perry’s lead.
LA Times story that underscores reasons for Perry’s 7 Solutions push:

Take back the liberal arts - Too often, liberal arts courses aren't attuned to undergraduates looking for a broader understanding of the world but toward professor's narrow interests.
………”Amherst once had a college-wide course called "Evolution of the Earth and Man," team taught by faculty from geology through genetics. It was exactly the sort of thing that drew people into the sciences. However, that offering no longer exists. Such classes don't earn points for the professors who plan them. Instead, they are expected to be doing research that will lead to tenure or higher ranks, which often means they are concentrating on ever more obscure topics.

An American Mathematical Society study of introductory courses found that only 11% were taught by regular faculty. Professors making their mark in "orbit structure of diffeomorphims of manifolds" feel their talents would be wasted teaching Math 101. But they might mull Albert Einstein's words to young researchers: "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother."

There are still colleges where the contents of the bottles match the labels. But they tend to be more modest schools, ones that don't expect their faculties to make national reputations in research. Occidental College in Los Angeles is such a school, as is Hendrix College in Arkansas and the new Quest University Canada in British Columbia. And there are excellent dedicated liberal arts colleges within affordable public systems. New College of Florida and St. Mary's College of Maryland are two; also Arizona State University's Barrett honors college and Macaulay Honors College at the City University of New York, which waives tuition for students who maintain a 3.5 grade-point average.

As high school students and their parents consider college options, they might want to take a careful look at catalogs and course descriptions. In higher education these days, it's buyer beware.”

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Ed Schultz EDITS Rick Perry to FALSELY Accuse Him of Making Racist Remark

Yes, there's that pesky old liberal dishonesty and unethical behavior again. Ed "Sgt." Schultz is up to his old tricks again, this time intentionally altering the meaning of something Governor Perry said, by cutting the tape off in mid-sentence solely so that he can smear him as a racist by taking words out of context.

Not really unexpected in a liberal and especially not unexpected from a hate-monger and peddler of envy and misery like old Schultzy. Remember when he got suspended for using an epithet when talking about Laura Ingram? Well this one is less ethical, more contemptible and straight from the liberal liar's handbook.

It comes to us from NewBusters, via my friends over at Free Republic. There's a video and transcript at the linked siteL
Ed Schultz Edits Rick Perry to Falsely Accuse Him of Making Racist Remark About Obama

By Noel Sheppard | August 16, 2011 | 18:43

For months, NewsBusters has been warning readers that America's media are going to do everything in their power to label all contenders to Barack Obama racist.

On Monday's "The Ed Show," the host edited Rick Perry - in mid-sentence, mind you! - to falsely accuse the Texas governor of making a racist remark about America's first black president (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):
The word despicable, callow, unethical and unconscionable all come to mind in this.

This is not accident, this is no minor error, it is a conscious, intentional effort on Ed Schultz's part to smear with the epithet "racist," Governor Rick Perry, not because he deserves it, but because he poses a grave threat to the aspirations of the Democrat's immature, unqualified, unprepared, incompetent, ineffectual, Narcissist in Chief.

If NBC doesn't come down on Ed Schultz for this clear violation of ethical standards, then they become culpable for the same crime against truth and are revealed as the political lapdog of the Obama Administration conservatives have been claiming. There can be no excusing this behavior from an employee of a major news concern.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Rick Perry and Texas Job Numbers--the truth about Texas's prosperity--Perry's right.

This is something I found a link to over at Free Republic and it's a very thorough evaluation of the Texas job numbers, the allegations that all of the jobs are "minimum wage jobs," which of course is just another lie, and the employment and unemployment numbers.

The gist of it all is that Perry's being truthful and accurate in his claims about the prosperity here.

Have you notice the all out assault being made, not only by the liberals, who are scared to death that Perry will be elected, but by the Paulettes, the haters on the extreme right-wing?

The Paulettes--[w]Ron[g] Paul cult members--have been waging a war of lies, half-truths, and rumors against any Republican candidate that threatens what in their minds is the inevitability of [w]Ron[g] Paul's victory and ascension to the Presidency--by acclamation (if the darned old press would just give him a fair shake) and they have now set their sights on Governor Perry, because he is the instant front runner.

Their libertarian behavior is strikingly similar to the behavior of liberals . . . a similarity I have often observed and commented on. I guess Utopian fantasies attract the same immature, emotionally driven intellects regardless of whether they are extreme left of extreme right.

Anyway, here is the introduction to this guy's article and a link to his webpage . . . I don't want to steal his thunder nor do I wish to detract from his webpage traffic by posting the entire thing here. Please go and read this thing, it is a striking post and a great example of serious work.

Rick Perry and Texas Job Numbers

Matthias Shapiro
(Political Math web blog)
August 16, 2011

Full disclosure: I don't like Rick Perry for our next president. I have my reasons that aren't worth going into here. However, when I was watching the GOP debate and pro-Perry people started bringing up Rick Perry's job numbers as a cudgel against other candidates, I looked into the BLS data on Texas jobs. Having familiarized myself with the data, I started noticing claims on the Texas jobs data that started popping up that directly contradicted what I was seeing in the data. So I wanted to clear up a couple of these common misconceptions.

Note: If you are going to comment and you want to introduce some new objection to the Texas job numbers, you MUST provide original data. I spent about 4 hours digging through raw data to write this post. I don't want you to point to some pundit or blog post and take it on their authority, because I've already researched several idiot pundits who are talking directly out of their asses when it comes to the data. I want you to point to the raw data that I can examine for myself. This means links. I refuse to waste any more of my time on speculative bullshit or "Well, I'll wager that the Texas jobs don't really count because..." If you're willing to wager, take that money and put it towards finding the actual data. In short, put up or shut up.
Enjoy the read and the results.

Rick Perry for President!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

President Bart Simpson

Will Malven

Never before in our nation's history have we had a President less likely, or less willing, to take responsibility for his failures. Unlike President Truman, who famously had a sign on his desk that read, "The Buck Stops Here," President Obama avoids responsibility like the plague.

It can be seen in his handling of the Democrat written, Democrat passed, economy-destroying health care initiative--to which he contributed little, but rhetoric and which he allowed his Democrat allies in Congress to write. 

It can be seen in his Libyan War-that is not war--the planning of which and the decision for which he deferred to our NATO allies, jumping on board after they had made the decision.

It be seen in his record as a member of the Illinois Senate where he voted "Present" more often than he voted "yea," or "nea" on any issue (though he did manage to vote "yea" on the killing of a baby that survives a failed abortion). [. . . okay, a little hyperbole there, but still over 130 times on critical issues]

That is the Obama model of "leadership." In military circles it is called "leading from behind," with the derision it deserves. Obama is to leadership what Marx was to individual liberty (that's Karl Marx, not Groucho Marx). 

President Barack Obama couldn't lead a train if he was his name was B&O . . . Oh! . . . Wait . . . umm . . . nevermind.

For the first two years of his administration, President Obama blamed everything--and I do mean everything--on former President Bush:
  • run up the national debt at a record rate--blame Bush
  • continued high and then record unemployment--blame Bush
  • ever-worsening economy--blame Bush
  • BP oil spill--blame Bush (no seriously, he blamed Bush; I'm not kidding you)
The Obama blames Bush meme has gone on so long that it has even begun to wear thin with the MSM--those who number among his strongest and most ardent supporters.
When he wasn't blaming former President Bush, he was seeking some other scapegoat. Whether it was "big oil," "big Pharma," the banking industry (among whom are some of his most ardent supporters and enablers), the tea-party (referred to with typical liberal class as "tea-baggers) and their unwillingness to allow him to raise taxes, global climate change deniers (like it's their fault he was gullible enough to have bought into a badly researched mythology created by faux science and power hungry politicians), or "messy democracy;" with Obama it's always somebody else's fault.

Lately, when confronted with the (still worsening) declining economy, Obama has variously blamed the European economic difficulties, the Japanese earthquake, and the so-called "Arab Spring," (which he has variously, ignored, sought to take credit for, and exacerbated with military action).

Obama's failures . . . and they are legion . . . are never his fault. This is typical of behavior one expects from a man suffering from a narcissistic personality disorder. His posture, his demeanor, his rhetoric and his inability to accept responsibility for his failures all provide evidence of his narcissism.

This severe character flaw is disturbing not only because it leads him to believe in his own infallibility, but dangerous, because it makes him unable to learn from his mistakes. How can one learn from his mistakes if he is incapable of making them?

Another indicator of his illness can be seen in his lack of empathy for the very people who elected him. When confronted with the fact that his trillion dollar stimulus package failed to generate jobs in significant numbers, he joked that "I guess those shovel-ready jobs weren't so 'shovel ready.'"

It is this inability to connect on an emotional level with people that enabled him to support the Illinois bill allowing abortion survivors to die.  Only a narcissist (or a complete psychopath) could believe those innocent "accidents" were inconsequential, or would subordinate those lives to his personal political aspirations.

This is a President who mocks the unemployed, shows utter contempt for the truth, ridicules our Constitution and those who seek to impose it's restrictions on government, and demonstrates absolutely no capacity for leadership beyond empty rhetoric.

His statements are more reminiscent of Bart Simpson than of Franklin Roosevelt (to whom the press and his supporters like to compare him).  
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!"
That line may be funny coming from a cartoon character, but it is profoundly disturbing when it comes out of the mouth of the President of the most powerful nation on Earth.

President Obama is the ultimate placer of blame, he is the consummate avoider of responsibility, he is the antithesis of President Truman (and of every other President in history). One might call him "The Blamer in Chief."

On his desk one might expect to find a sign that reads: "The Buck Stops Anywhere but Here!"

One might call him, President Bart Simpson.
Reporter: "Mr. President, how do you explain the historically high unemployment figures given that you have spent so much tax-payer money on a stimulus bill intended to create jobs?"

President Bart Simpson: "I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything!"
Yeah, that sounds about right.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!