Obama's almost Gay Marriage Stand

News Could Cause Panic for Obama Campaign

“By saying he was still against same-sex marriage but was "evolving" on the issue, Obama sought to avoid riling black voters while giving a wink to young voters hinting he shared their view.

He was in the position of the old-time pol who said, "Some of my friends are for the bill, and some of my friends are against the bill, and I'm always with my friends."”

Barron, the article’s author is pro-gay marriage.

As a supporter of same-sex marriage, I am glad that Obama took the step that Dick Cheney took several years ago. Like many Americans, he changed his mind at some point and supported a policy that almost no one backed a quarter-century ago.

The challenges of Gay Marriage are multiple. First, it is a recent fadish attack on America's Christian Foundations, rather than a Civil Rights issue. At no time in world history, nor in American history has it been accepted as a norm. Some deviations of history have taken place, like with polygamy, but that is it. It has always, in man’s history been unacceptable.

As Barron admits, 25 years ago, no one would have pushed this issue.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS has ruled many times that when the state seeks to change the normative, that it must demonstrate compelling reasons. Like with Roe v Wade, supporters do not try to show compelling reason, and rather pummel opponents with name calling and accusations.

This wins the day in Legislative Court, but it destroys the basis of our democratic governance and creates generationally destructive rifts that only separates from resolving more important and urgent issues.

No gay couple will die or be injured because they cannot be married. They can manage every single home issue virtually identically to a normal healthy couple. Inheritance, health care, etc. and they are better off in filing their taxes.

Yet, soldiers are dying every day in Afghanistan, children starve to death, disabled children die from denied medical care... and I can go on and on.

California is an example..... 62% of citizens voted for “one man + one woman”; 53% of Californians voted for our Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as “one man + one woman”. 

Obama’s issue is multiple, including these facts about anti-marriage acts (Courts rulings, not mine)

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878)

Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.

and

United States Supreme Court Declines to Legalize Polygamy (2003)

The United States Supreme Court... declined to hear an appeal by a Utah man who sought to have his bigamy conviction overturned

As a result, the state of Utah's bigamy law was upheld, even though it clashes with the religious beliefs of some in the state.

"Polygamy is no mere social taboo," Alliance Defense Fund Senior Counsel Chris Stovall said in a press release for the ADF. "It is destructive on multiple levels, and the court was right to turn down review of this attempt to attack appropriate protections of marriage."

Finally, the California Constitution still mandates:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1  DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 4.  Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without
discrimination or preference are guaranteed.  This liberty of
conscience does not excuse acts that are LICENTIOUS OR
INCONSISTENT with the peace or safety of the State.

Homosexuality has been ruled as these for all of California’s history. I do not recall a case and ruling changing this historic state position.

So, nothing has changed, except the way the wind blows. So, people who lack morals or principles just follow along, like a dead leaf, blown by a late fall wind.

Space - the Last Frontier!

DRAFT!!

During the Cold War, Space was clearly a defensive investment. Whoever controlled space, could militarily control the world.  Today, space of that nature is limited to satellites. 

So, why do we spend $20 bb every year for space exploration? Do we really think were going to mine gold in mars, and ship it back? And, of what economic value would that really be?

The truth is we are in space to find life.... alien life that would have evolved, because without which, Humanists will fail in their efforts to usurp America's Foundation. 

Evolution, today, while a valid science, has been pursued solely as a religious fundamentalism, for the purpose of forcing a new religion on Christian Americans, and all others who do not make up the 3% of radical Humanists.

While evolution is a valid science, it has been usurped by Anti-Americans for these purposes as clearly delineated in my commentary.

But, the next question is where does evolution stand today in purely scientific terms?

Today, evolution is failed, and disproved, scientifically.

Please read those words carefully and cautiously, because this does not mean the same thing that some die-hard Creationists will want to read it. But, it does mean what it says.

Today, every major step of evolution remains not only unproved, but disproved.

The universe is specifically 13.74 billion years old, for example, and thus, is young (relatively), and had a beginning. According to the immutable laws of thermodynamics, then if the world had a beginning, science mandates it had a Beginner. Period.

Hypotheses of the origins of life (spontaneous generation) are all completely disproved.  So disproved, that it will take a scientific miracle to resuscitate any one of them (premordial soup; lipid membranes, pre-RNA, RNA generation, underwater volcanic vents, sulphuric pregeneration, etc etc etc etc .

All interesting, all with some merit, and every single one proven to be IMPOSSIBLE.

Further, as the most prolific evolutionary biologists (Jay Stephen Gould and Ernst Mayr) have proven repeatedly, there remain no transitional forms in the fossil record. Otherwise, why would Gould so desperately offered his IMPOSSIBLE hypothesis of Punctuated Equilibrium? (it never made it to theory status....)

Today, after 6,000 recorded years of exceptionally intensive breeding, we have chihuahuas, golden retrievers and great danes and more.  Each extra-ordinarily different, each with severe mutation driven limitations and each very much a dog.... not a cat, bird or fish.   

Now, a kicker to throw back of humanists, Philosophy of Science... the dictums that drive how we view methods as being scientific, or not, clearly demand that atheism be excluded from any scientific conclusion. Just the opposite of what you are lead to believe as rabid humanists drool and sputter in our courts anytime any citizen attempt to require schools to teach science, rather than their religion.

That is right! Atheism is the only religious dogma that is discarded, carte blanche from science. The reasons are obvious, but I will let the discussions on that topic take their own life for now.

Science can accept Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, etc ... even lowly Christianity!

But, science can never evoke atheism. It is a fundamental tenet of the Philosophies of Science.
                                   
Finally, it does have to be fairly stated, while evolution is failed and disproved, today. WE do not know what genius tomorrow will bring. What new insights we will gain, or new data or knowledge that will come to fore to alter our current conclusions.

But, even if the currently impossible were to become possible, the final nail in the American Humanist coffin, is that even if evolution is proven, who can then say, God did not choose that system and methodology to create life and mankind?

This is why we spend $20 billion each year to explore space... .utter desperation of a failed religion and a failed coupe de tate.

I say stop all space exploration, SETI and these other wastes of public funds, and return those dollars to real science labs, which will look at real problems that will offer real solutions for mankind’s difficult world.

Is There a Silver Lining to the Gold Standard?

Gold Standard Truths and Fallacies

As people debate the Federal Reserve and the Gold Standard, it is helpful to have some real facts, to have a real and valuable debate.

The Gold Standard provides certainty of value to money, but only if if citizens do not “clip” coins.... a process by which metal based currencies become devalued. This is when individuals would shave the edges off gold or silver coins in order to accumulate greater personal wealth. This debases the currency and can be avoided only when gold currencies are provided only in gold/silver backed certificates, or electronically.  Today, marks the first time in mans history that this problem is manageable.

Thus is a real world with real uncertainties, the Gold Standard would provide some increased certainties.


Economic Cycles Defeat the Gold Standard

The Gold Standard has led to many of the great recessions and depressions in American history and in world history. The main issue is it is inflexible, in an economic world that requires adaptation.

The challenge of the Gold Standard is that it prevents expansive monetary policies required in recessions and depressions.                       

Overall the national gold standards died prior to World War II. This enabled nations to expand their money supplies to continue to float their economies. In short, abandoning the Gold Standard enabled most nations to survive WWII when the Gold Standard would have ended their economies.


The Gold Standard and the Great Depression

Prolongation of the Great Depression Some economic historians, such as American professor Barry Eichengreen, blame the gold standard of the 1920s for prolonging the Great Depression.[6] Others including Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman place some blame at the feet of the Federal Reserve.[7][8]  

The gold standard limited the flexibility of central banks' monetary policy by limiting their ability to expand the money supply, and thus their ability to lower interest rates. In the US, the Federal Reserve was required by law to have 40% gold backing of its Federal Reserve demand notes, and thus, could not expand the money supply beyond what was allowed by the gold reserves held in their vaults.[9]

In the early 1930s, the Federal Reserve defended the fixed price of dollars in respect to the gold standard by raising interest rates, trying to increase the demand for dollars. Its commitment and adherence to the gold standard explain why the U.S. did not engage in expansionary monetary policy.

To compete in the international economy, the U.S. maintained high interest rates. This helped attract international investors who bought foreign assets with gold. Higher interest rates intensified the deflationary pressure on the dollar and reduced investment in U.S. banks. Commercial banks also converted Federal Reserve Notes to gold in 1931, reducing the Federal Reserve's gold reserves, and forcing a corresponding reduction in the amount of Federal Reserve Notes in circulation.[10]

This speculative attack on the dollar created a panic in the U.S. banking system. Fearing imminent devaluation of the dollar, many foreign and domestic depositors withdrew funds from U.S. banks to convert them into gold or other assets.[10] The forced contraction of the money supply caused by people removing funds from the banking system during the bank panics resulted in deflation; and even as nominal interest rates dropped, inflation-adjusted real interest rates remained high, rewarding those that held onto money instead of spending it, causing a further slowdown in the economy.[11]

Recovery in the United States was slower than in Britain, in part due to Congressional reluctance to abandon the gold standard and float the U.S. currency as Britain had done.[12] Congress passed the Gold Reserve Act on 30 January 1934; the measure nationalized all gold by ordering the Federal Reserve banks to turn over their supply to the U.S. Treasury. In return the banks received gold certificates to be used as reserves against deposits and Federal Reserve notes. The act also authorized the president to devalue the gold dollar so that it would have no more than 60 percent of its existing weight. Under this authority the president, on 31 January 1934, fixed the value of the gold dollar at 59.06 cents. 

6      Eichengreen, Barry (1992) Golden Fetters: The Gold Standard and the Great Depression,
       1919–1939. Preface.
7      Speech by Ben Bernanke to the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman at University of Chicago,
        November 8 2002.
8      WorldNetDaily, March 19 2008.
9      The original Federal Reserve Act provided for a note issue which was to be secured ... 
        by a 40% reserve in gold
10     "FRB: Speech, Bernanke-Money, Gold, and the Great Depression -March 2, 2004". 
        Federalreserve.gov. 2004-03-02. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches
        /2004/200403022/default.htm. Retrieved 2010-07-24.        
11     "In the 1930s, the United States was in a situation that satisfied the conditions for a liquidity 
         trap. Over 1929–1933 overnight rates fell to zero, and they remained on the floor through 
         the 1930's."
12     The European Economy between Wars; Feinstein, Temin, and Toniolo

Source: Wikipedia 


In short, introducing the Gold Standard during America's greatest recession since the Great Depression does not seem like a great recipe for economic recovery, and should be rightfully relegated to the "Barney Frank School of Economics". 


Gold Standard Advocates Lack 
Global Monetary & Economic Understanding.

While few conservatives support global governance, we all seek to exert the greatest American power overseas, at the lowest cost, in order to stabilize our failed world that constantly exists on the brink of total self-destruction.  The pre-Barney Frank American Dollar did exactly that.

In fact, pre-Barney Frank, the global America dollar had a negative cost. That is, America was free, and in fact encouraged, to run trade and budget deficits to support expanding more dollars overseas which were required by nations with expanding currencies.

International trade requirements mandate expanding Dollar Reserves by nations by requiring all oil international purchases be done in American Dollars.  All IMF transactions must be done in dollars, etc. 

We saw this post Cold War when growing Eastern European and ex Soviet puppet states sucked up dollars like Hoover vacuums. Most used dollars to conduct most transactions because their own currencies had been destroyed by socialism. So, they needed free and easy dollar reserves, which we were happy to provide.

Thus, America had achieved what no other nation in history had achieved, a system of tribute for its international governance. Finally, America did so not by forcing begrudging member states, but by their encouragement and demands. 

Historically, when Bretton Woods collapsed, nations began pegging their currencies to the dollar - requiring higher dollar reserves - in order to stabilize currencies and trade.  This reduces trade risk and international risk exposure. This is Dollarization.

This fostered greater economic integration, and lower currency transaction costs, which also foster trade growth.

Dollar deficits means America is able to purchase goods and services from other nations, while incurring effectively no national costs, especially in today’s electronic currency environment.


Dollarization has One Requirement

Dollarization requires only that America be reasonably responsible in its economic and Federal Budgetary management.  It does not require America be exceptional, or even marginally as responsible as other nations.  America only needs to be one step above a drunken sailor ..... and maybe two steps above a Barney Frank.

America, governed by both Democrats and Republicans were able to do this for two generations, until Republicans gained true political control of Washington DC. At this point, they acted like Democrats, and Democrats turned treasonous for the sole purpose of regaining their political position.

Thus, Barney Frank was able to acheive what Osama Bin LAdin could only dream of.... destroying western economy and civilization by destroying the western financial system.


Keep The Debate Alive

We can readily see the failings of the Gold Standard. But, we should keep the debate alive. The issues brought up by politicians like Ron Paul are very real, and Americans now know the utter catastrophic failings of the “Barney Frank School of Monetary and Bank Management”.

But, politicians are like old dogs. They have to be reminded daily of their training, and responsibilities, lest they forget.  The threat of a Gold Standard kills Liberal Treason, because it prevents such scandalous waste.  For no other reason, than preventing such Barney Frank treason, should we keep this debate alive.

E Pluribus Unum!

The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen United States of America

The Unanimous Declaration of Independence
of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776 

The Big Three Conservative Candidates

Our Big Three Choices
October, 2011

Conservatives are in a good position to go forward with saving America. We have a line of good candidates, clear understanding of the changes required to Recapture and Re-establish a Free America, as well as Restore it to its glory as the Brightly Lit City on the Hill!

The current Patriot POTUS Primary choices are shaping up as:

 

1  Mit Romney - Liberal State Governor, able to work with Liberals, smart, good looking, articulate, good debater, Wall Street experience, saved Salt Lake City Olympics (no small achievement), private but apparently solid faith, well developed economic reformation, redevelopment and recovery plan, will provide IMMEDIATE ObamaCare Waivers for all 50 states (I do think he should make the few states that pushed ObamaCare go through with their wishes), healthy with no health problems.

Weaknesses - RomneyCare, Governor in Liberal State (numerous capitulations), abortion, position on government size unknown.

2  Rick Perry - Conservative State Governor, a moderate conservative, has direct Border experience, significant Illegal Alien experience, politically savvy, good looking, able to rouse emotions, poor debater, determined, supports Israel, espouses Christian Faith, clearly understands and supports smaller less intrusive government, healthy with no health problems.

Weaknesses - Gardasil, Border Strategy (to conservatives), In-state Tuition (to conservatives), no current economic reformation, redevelopment and recovery plan.

3 Herman Cain - Great business experience, knows Federal Reserve, able to work with others, very smart, good looking, articulate, inspirational, inspirational speaker, very solid faith, solid economic, simple easy to understand  reformation, redevelopment and recovery plan; clearly understands and supports smaller less intrusive government, hates ObamaCare and clearly understand its impact on workers and employers.  In short, what is there that is not to like, or respect about this great American Patriot?!

Weaknesses - No Political Experience, minimal international experience, recovered from Stage IV Cancer.

Unknowns - Governor Christie - A pragmatic Governor of a liberal state, an outspoken fighter, what we see is what we get. Leans very liberal on many issues.

Blessings to All American Patriots! Ours is a just and good fight!

What kind of tax governor was Rick Perry?

RE:  Gov. Rick Perry says he has a track record of not raising taxes
by Politifact.com         (Click on above link to read article)

"Perry's response: "Well, but I've got a track record of that too. We don't raise taxes."

Later, Smith asked: "So you don't believe that at any time that anybody reasonably could look over the last 10 years and identify anything where a tax went up?" Perry agreed.

We wondered whether Perry had accurately recited his track record as governor.

After asking his campaign to elaborate, we took up a basic question: Has Perry signed tax hikes into law?

Boy howdy, yes."


SILENCE DOGOOD's ANALYSIS:

"I rate this review as pathetic partisan ideological extremist BS."

After you read the summary below, tell me that he was not acting as a good and effective governor, properly and responsibly managing his State.

Like him or hate him, let’s just be honest. That is what responsible Patriots do.

Honest Patriots know that there is no free lunch. Like government or hate it, we need some government and it must be paid for. So, we all agree to be taxed and governed to some degree.  Now it is up to us to choose the individual who will be most responsible and effective in managing these twin-joined evils.

The article noted that Perry raised Cigarette taxes (oh, yeah, that’s a business killer! NOT!) A $1.41 a pack Sin Tax increase and the funds reduced School property taxes... so, if you really want to be accurate, it was revenue neutral. He then allowed applying the tax to smokeless tobacco... again that seems more like a fairness issue than a tax increase. That also pays for doctors to practice in rural areas.

Then he raised taxes on fireworks by 2% to pay for rural fire departments..... again... a necessary evil. (House Bill 3667, June 16, 2001)

Raised a 1% tax on nitrogen oxide emissions - stopping a serious pollution... ok, that’s an actual tax, but I classify as similar to a Sin Tax (Senate Bill 5), June 15, 2001 and modified this... House Bill 1365 (June 22, 2003). the net numbers remained nominal.

Reformed the franchise tax, and apply it to companies that avoided the old corporate franchise tax. Let’s face the fact, fairness is an important doctrine in taxes. Virtually everyone in a group must pay some taxes, if not similar taxes for similar benefits. And, this change was said to be a net decrease. I don't have numbers, but if that is true, that makes this articles belligerence bewildering.  Is it their job to report, or to unduly influence?

Perry reformed used car sale taxes, again making the taxes fair. Hardly abusive.

Now, with all these “increases” he also reduced property taxes. So, again, they are revenue neutral, positively fair, and they reduce property taxes which is highly beneficial.
       
Unemployment Insurance went up, but that is an auto-pilot program and happens regardless of who is governor...and, in fact, when unemployment goes down, so with this tax.

In short, this article is filled with baseless complaints. We might not agree with every action, but they increased fairness, reduced individual taxes and reduced property taxes, while being revenue neutral.

My analysis:         

"Perry acted as a good, responsible and competent governor in managing the necessary evil of taxes. "

Tea Party represents America!

Tea Party represents America 
says Gallop Poll!

A March 26, 2011 USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 28% of American adults support the Tea Party movement, while separately, 37% of Americans view the Tea Party movement favorably and 40% unfavorably, with 33% having No Opinion.

 While the Tea Party leans conservative and Republican, their demographics best mirror American demographics compared to liberal parties... by far!

Further, while the Tea Party came out against Big Government, Inc. and Obama’s Trillion Dollar pay-offs to Unions and Liberal Special Interests, they are nearly uniformly against ObamaCare (87%) and Abortion (67%) verses the average American who is 50% and 46% against these issues.

So, next time a Liberal attacks the Tea Party for their bias, note the radicalism of their own movement of hate and destruction!

 Original Poll Link:     Gallop Tea Party Poll

  In the 2008 Election Obama won:

        43% of the white vote
        67% of the Hispanic vote

as well as:

        95% of Black Vote
        66% of Under- 30's
        71% of First Time voters
        63% of Asian voters
        78% of Jewish voters
        66% of single voters

These numbers show how Obama has been backed ONLY by Special Interests, and naive-easily-mislead-young voters, while specifically attacking Christians and White America, and blaming each and both for all of America’s problems - an accusation promulgated by all tyrants and extremists (sic - Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, etc)

To better understand other hateful liberal lies about conservatives and their supposed prejudice look at these truth telling numbers:

Digging Deeper on Cable News Partisanship

by Silence Dogood, Patriot

Blessings, My Fellow Open-minded, America-Loving Patriots!