COLT Is Relocating To North Texas

From: CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

A firearms company that makes AR-15 style rifles for the iconic brand Colt, will open a plant in Breckenridge in Stephens County. Oregon company Bold Ideas confirmed the development Friday.

Bold Ideas goes by the name Colt Competition, making high accuracy rifles for competition shooting.

The company has not officially announced the opening, but employment applications are already available at the Breckenridge Chamber of Commerce. A non-specific, help wanted ad appeared in the local newspaper classifieds earlier in the week.

Sources say Colt Competition will move into a large vacant industrial space on the north side of town, previously used by Karsten Homes to manufacture mobile homes.

The move by Colt Competition into Breckenridge comes as the CEO of Colt Manufacturing in Connecticut has said there will soon be few good answers to keep his company in the state. Connecticut passed some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws this week.

It also comes weeks after Governor Rick Perry reportedly sent letters to gun companies, encouraging them to move to Texas. Perry sent a message on Twitter to Colorado company Magpul as recently as March 21, saying “Come on Down to Texas.” The Governor’s office did not confirm Friday if it had sent a recruitment letter to Colt Competition.

Rumors swirled for weeks in Breckenridge that a major gun company was coming. Butch Spencer, who owns E-Z Pawn and Gun, said he figured when he heard the name Colt referenced that someone had just made a mistake.

“I’m tickled to see em get something like that,” he said. “I think that’d be a lot better than a mobile home factory.”

Custom gun and ammunition manufacturer Jim Mitchell said the move has the potential to draw more companies to the state, with a political climate that’s friendly to firearms.

“We’re in line to help em, and do the best we can, and they’ll be of great benefit to the community,” he said. “We’ve already got people going, hey I’m moving to Breckenridge.”

An American Catholic's Rebuttal to Supporters of the Mandate

This is likely to be the first of many commentaries on this matter, but I feel compelled to address specific points that have been made to support President Obama's unconstitutional mandate upon Catholic affiliated institutions.

Firstly, supporters of the mandate defend the proposition because as they say most Catholics do not agree with the Church on the matter of artificial birth control. Jehmu Green, on Fox News no less cited polling that 98% of Catholics oppose the Church and have used contraception. Juan Williams, also on FOX, cited a FOX NEWS poll that showed 61% of all Americans agreed with the Presidents' mandate.The Green and Williams position is that if a majority of the faithful do not adhere to the precepts of their faith, then the government is justly empowered to enforce that majority opinion upon the entire faith.

Let us suppose that these polling numbers are accurate and not skewed by faulty inquiry. If it really is 98% that oppose the Church and a mere 2% that abide by its teaching I am compelled to ask: SO WHAT? This argument in defense of the mandate is pathetic precisely because it seeks to delegitimize faith if it does not conform to majority will. If I am part of the 98% am I justified in marginalizing the 2%? Are those 2% who comply with the Church's teachings to be denied protection under the First Amendment? Are we now to extend the protections of that First Amendment exclusively to those whose lives are in contravention to the tenets of their faith? That is the logical conclusion to draw by those who cite polls to justify intruding upon religious liberty. It is however the citation of the outcome of public polling to defend this unconscionable act that is more profoundly disturbing because it undermines the heart of the First Amendment. Freedom to Worship and by extension the conscience of one's faith as outlined in the First Amendment does not exist to serve the will or conscience of a 98% majority, it is there expressly to serve and protect the minority from the will of the majority. This historic reality is absent among those who recite polls to defend the President and is therefore wholly invalid in its construction. Catholics and only Catholics are free to debate and seek to alter the precepts of their faith. Many liberal Catholics have pleaded with the Church to change its policy. It is an example of Dialogue among the faithful and in the United States of America the government is not justly empowered to take up the cause of a faction in an internal debate amongst the flock. Catholics make the rules for Catholicism and no one else. It is true of all faiths and the faithful in America.

The second defense of the mandate goes like this: Because Catholic affiliated schools and hospitals hire non Catholics, those non Catholics are not bound to the teachings of the Catholic Church and therefore any affiliated institutions depriving them of health care plans without contraception are effectively coercing them to compromise their health and principles. It is therefore held by this defense that government is justified in compelling those institutions to compromise its faith and provide such services. This is absurd.

First of all if you are a person of one or no faith working at an institution run by a contrary faith it then stands as common sense that your faith as the employee does not dictate itself to your employer. If your values are so offended by the tenets of the Catholic Institution that employs you then you are free to pursue employment with any alternative enterprise that meets your values. For that matter, as an American Catholic if you are so profoundly dissented with the faith, you are free to find peace amidst a new flock that matches your values. Simply put: The Door is open and you are free to leave.

As to the issue of coercion of non Catholic employees. Let us imagine for the moment that I am the President of the University of Notre Dame, the most prestigious Catholic University in America. In that capacity I publicly declare that we will only consider Catholic applicants for employment and furthermore be discharging all present non Catholic employees and shall only take applications from Catholics and thereby exclude non Catholics from employment in this new hiring practice. If such an action were taken the Justice Department would seek to prosecute the University for violation of federal anti discrimination laws. I use this example to illustrate how this defense is a "Catch-22". On the one hand Catholic institutions like Notre Dame are obligated by law to consider all qualified applicants and cannot prohibit by practice the employment of non Catholics. This legal reality undoes the "coercion" defense. Because the Church abides the law regarding employment, they are now compelled to violate its conscience as a result of its compliance? On the one hand the institution cannot discriminate and because it cannot by law discriminate, they are now compelled by the mandate as the employer to conform to the values of the non Catholic employee as defined by Kathleen Sebellius, that Quisling residing at Health and Human Services. What a fine legal mechanism that erodes religious liberty. 

The third defense is worthless but needs mentioning. They argue "it's about women's health,not religious liberty". This is just plain dishonest. First of all, health care as a whole, women's needs or otherwise is not a right as defined by the Constitution. Freedom of Worship is. How can something that is not a right, trump the very first amendment ratified by the thirteen original states? This defense is merely a facade, given the abundance of evidence however anecdotal that Rick Perry was right when he said there was a "war on religion". There is a clear and definable segment of American society represented in this crisis of faith that are intent upon subordinating all people of faith to what they deem to be the greater moral authority, that of course being an all knowing, all powerful, wiser and beneficent federal government. They seek as evidenced in this matter, however subtle and incremental to compel people of ancient faiths to worship their newly constructed Golden Calf, an altar to honor their secular God as they seek to consign the Faith of Our Fathers with an eye towards oblivion.

I am by temperament inclined to believe that people are well intentioned in their dissent on issues of substance. On this matter I cannot bear as the evidence mounts to extend such a presumption. The assault on religious liberty in this mandate is unprecedented. It is just the beginning and the most notable chapter in a litany of lesser known efforts to diminish individual fidelity to faith. Whatever one's faith or values, this mandate is a direct assault on faith, but indirectly its greatest victim is the "Spirit of America" itself, a spirit that cherishes individuality and the freedom to define our lives on our terms as dictated by our conscience whether inspired by the divine or a choice to ignore his voice in the conducting of our life.

DEFEND YOUR FAITH
FIGHT FOR THE CONSTITUTION
PRESERVE THE "SPIRIT OF AMERICA"

Complete Video of Meet the Press Debate

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Romney leads Paul in Des Moines Register Iowa Poll; Santorum surges

FROM: DES MOINES REGISTER

Mitt Romney tops the latest Des Moines Register Iowa Poll in the closing days before the Iowa caucuses, but Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are poised within striking distance.

The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, shows support at 24 percent for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts; 22 percent for Paul, a Texas congressman; and 15 percent for the surging Rick Santorum, a former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

But the four-day results don’t reflect just how quickly momentum is shifting in a race that has remained highly fluid for months. If the final two days of polling are considered separately, Santorum rises to second place, with 21 percent, pushing Paul to third, at 18 percent. Romney remains the same, at 24 percent.

“Momentum’s name is Rick Santorum,” said the Register’s pollster, J. Ann Selzer.

Another sign of the race’s volatility: 41 percent of likely caucusgoers say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.

Selzer & Co. of Des Moines conducted the poll of 602 likely Republican caucusgoers, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. In the final two days of polling, 302 likely caucusgoers were interviewed, with a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6 percentage points.

Rounding out the field, in results from the full, four-day poll: former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, 12 percent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 11 percent, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, 7 percent.


The first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, which take place Tuesday evening, kick off voting in the presidential nominating process. The Iowa Poll, a Register exclusive since 1943, is a much-watched indicator of how candidates are faring in the leadoff caucus state.

The first three Iowa Polls of the 2012 caucus cycle, conducted in June, October and November, featured a different leader each time: first Romney, then retired business executive Herman Cain, then Gingrich. Other candidates took turns in the top tier, too. Bachmann was in second place to Romney in the June poll and won the Iowa straw poll in August. But her support plummeted this fall.

Gingrich surged to the lead with 25 percent support in the late November poll, but slid to 12 percent in the new poll.

Now, it’s Santorum’s time to rocket to the top tier. He has campaigned in Iowa more than any other candidate, stumping the state more than 100 days and conducting more than 300 events since the last presidential election. Next closest is Bachmann, at 80 days.

But until recent weeks, Santorum has struggled to escape single digits in state and national polls. He has campaigned as both a strong fiscal and social conservative, but social conservative voters had remained undecided or split among several candidates.

Romney campaigned lightly in the state until December, but he benefits from the network he built as a candidate four years ago, when he campaigned constantly and poured $10 million into a heavy advertising schedule and a big campaign organization.

Full coverage and analysis of the Iowa Poll will be published in the Des Moines Sunday Register and posted at DesMoinesRegister.com/caucus.

Mitt Romney's $10,000.00 Blunder

Huckabee Presidential Forum Rick Perry

Rick Perry: Creating Jobs

Perry Proposes 20 Percent Flat Tax

From: National Journal.com

Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry unveiled a sweeping economic agenda Monday highlighted by a plan to level a voluntary 20 percent “flat tax” on all taxpayers who will accept it in place of what they’re paying now.

The plan, outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed column a day before the Texas governor was set to unveil it in South Carolina, also calls for capping federal spending at 18 percent of the country’s GDP while allowing younger earners to privatize their Social Security accounts. Taxpayers who don’t want to pay a 20 percent flat income tax, he said, can keep their current rate.

Perry offers several proposals that appear designed to sweeten the offer – and to counter criticism that the flat tax is regressive, taking a proportionally bigger bite from smaller incomes. His plan would preserve popular deductions for mortgage interest and donations to charity for households earning less than $500,000 a year. It would increase the standard deduction to $12,500.

Calling his agenda “Cut, Balance and Grow” -- a clear nod to congressional Republicans, who have proposed a “Cut, Cap and Balance” budget bill -- Perry says his proposal is the best way to cure the nation’s ailing economy.

“Cut, Balance and Grow strikes a major blow against the Washington-knows-best mindset,” Perry said. “It takes money from spendthrift bureaucrats and returns it to families. It puts fewer job-killing regulations on employers and more restrictions on politicians. It gives more freedom to Americans to control their own destiny. And just as importantly, the Cut, Balance and Grow plan paves the way for the job creation, balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility we need to get America working again.”

Romney's Remedy

Rick Perry apologizes for 'heartless' comment on immigration question

From: The Hill's Video

Rick Perry said Wednesday that he was sorry for saying at last week's Republican debate that those opposed to providing an in-state tuition break to the children of illegal immigrants "did not have a heart."

“I was probably a bit over-passionate by using that word and it was inappropriate,” Perry said in a interview with Newsmax. “In Texas in 2001 we had 181 members of the legislature – only four voted against this piece of legislation – because it wasn’t about immigration it was about education.”

But Perry stood by his argument that building a fence along the entire Mexican border was unwise. The Texas governor said that the fence would likely be expensive, ineffective, and violate the property rights of those who owned land on the border.

“In the metropolitan areas where the fencing actually can play a positive role, absolutely,” he said. “But you have to have boots on the ground… having an obstacle without observation is no obstacle at all. So just the idea of building a fence and saying, ‘That will take care of it, let’s just build a fence,’ has never worked in the history of mankind.”

Other candidates seized on Perry's support of the tuition credits - and arguments against a fence - in an attempt to discredit him at the debate. Michele Bachmann argued that taxpayer dollars shouldn't benefit those here illegally, while Jon Huntsman suggested his position on the fence might be "treasonous." But while Perry walked back his 'heartless' comment, he insisted that his experience as governor of a border state best prepared him to handle immigration issues.

As Texas governor, a border governor, you have to deal with these issue, you can’t just talk about them and say, ‘Oh, let’s build a wall from Brownsville to El Paso and that will take care of it.’ We have to live with reality," Perry said.

He also reiterated criticism of the federal government for what he considers a failure to protect the southern border.

"We wouldn’t be having these conversations today, whether it’s about in-state tuition for illegal immigrants or whether it’s the Arizona law or whether it’s voter-ID which we passed in Texas, or sanctuary cities and the banning of those… None of those would come up if the federal government had simply done its job through the years to secure our borders," Perry said.

Rick Perry Says I have No Heart

I have desperately been waiting for a true conservative to step up to the plate and win me over. I had thought Rick Perry was the guy. On the issues as a whole I’m in Perry’s corner. I would prefer his position on the issues to go forward as our standard, but then there was his defense of Texas’ “Dream Act”.

I respect Rick Perry defending his position on illegal immigration. He stuck to his guns despite its being a liability in Republican primaries. Most voters disagree with him, but he defended it. Ok. That’s why we have debates after all.

It was his concluding statement that has infuriated me. He defended his position by stating that those who oppose his position “have no heart”. Really? No heart? Rick Santorum jumped on this to his credit.

Rick Perry is free to defend his position as he sees it on the merits, but to suggest his critics are heartless is right out of the liberal textbook. As conservatives it is bad enough that we must endure such assaults from liberals and their acolytes in the mainstream media, but we’ve come to expect that and have effectively rebutted this view. But from Rick Perry? A conservative Republican Governor of Texas to criticize a dissenting view to label his conservative critics “heartless”? I would expect that from Barack Obama or Bill Clinton or Michael Moore, but from the front runner in a contest for President?

When it comes to politics, I can be as jaded and as cynical as they come in spite of an overall sense that we can overcome every obstacle. What Rick Perry said was an affront, an insult to every conservative who has ever had the indignity of being called “heartless”. I don’t agree with Rick Perry on the policy in question, so in his world I have no heart. That’s not politics, that’s personal to me. If Governor Perry insists upon employing liberal talking points to further his agenda, then maybe he should’ve remained a registered Democrat and stopped wasting my time in a Republican primary.

Rick Perry Taken To the Woodshed Over Forced Vaccinations

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney On Social Security

Rick Perry's Strategic Debate Blunders

It has taken me a couple days to fully compose my thoughts on Wednesday's GOP debate on MSNBC. Like most, I was looking forward to seeing Rick Perry perform on stage for the first time. I like Rick Perry and would gladly support him, but he made two obvious blunders as far as I can see. One can be fixed, the other is his to own. I was and am still hoping that Governor Perry can improve himself as I am no great fan of Mitt Romney. While I prefer Rick Perry on the substance of the issues he failed to demonstrate a level of political acumen I believe is essential to success and to that end an ability to advance conservative principles. The video to watch is here:



As we all know,the part considered controversial is Governor Perry's "Doubling Down" on his labeling Social Security a "Ponzi Scheme". Rick Perry is substantively correct about the soundness regarding the financing of Social Security. He deserves credit for bringing the issue to public attention. It is a genuine profile in courage, given the historic demagoguery of liberals whenever the subject is raised. Members in both parties and across the ideological divide acknowledge the numbers don't add up for Social Security and it needs to be corrected. Reforming Social Security will be complex and require extraordinary political skills to get it done.
 
Rick Perry's insistence on describing it as a "Ponzi Scheme" is a near fatal if not fatal error in judgement both politically and as a matter of public policy. Rick Perry is not off base in his analogy. The current fiscal structure of Social Security has a parallel with a Ponzi Scheme. There is however a fundamental distinction. First and foremost a Ponzi Scheme is a criminal endeavor intent on defrauding its investors. By contrast Social Security is a fully transparent public program freely supported by the American people with their tax dollars for over seventy years. And it has been repeatedly endorsed with results at the ballot box. A free choice by definition is not the same as being victimized by a fraudulent scheme.

The other issue I have is the politics and policy implications of his statement. In the aftermath of the debate are we discussing the long term viability of Social Security as currently structured? NO! Instead, we are debating whether or not it's a Ponzi Scheme. Issues are often reduced to cliches or hyperbole by politicians and on most issues it is acceptable because most issues are transitory and have no long term relevance except in the moment. But Social Security is not the flavor of the week as issues go, it is a perennial issue that has been debated for generations and any modifications have long term ramifications for American society. On matters of such consequence Rick Perry was ill advised to use hyperbole to illustrate his point. Furthermore, it emboldens left wing demagogues who believe that  raising taxes on everyone else is the proper remedy. If we are going to have a vast public debate on Social Security it must be on the merits.

The other portion of the exchange that bothers me is the one that can be fixed. On the morning of the debate, Karl Rove stated that it was "TOXIC" to call Social Security a Ponzi Scheme. Dick Cheney also declared it to be inaccurate. As conservatives we have had many issues with big government policies and excess spending during the Bush years, a fact that is all too often ignored. We tend to view the Karl Rove's of the GOP as "establishment", and therefore not purely conservative, more interested in power than governing on principle. This is a valid criticism on many occasions, but I must point this out. Whatever one thinks of Rove or the "Bushies", we must have everybody on board in the effort to defeat Barack Obama. Don't let the numbers give you false hope. He can still win.
   
Rick Perry chose to "slap down" Rove and by inference could be accused of calling Cheney a liar in his response. Political junkies might find it entertaining but it must be said that if Rick Perry is our nominee, he as is true of all such nominees is confronted with the William Wallace moment from "Braveheart". Near the end of the movie, Wallace has been beaten, he's on the run and he agrees to a meeting, a meeting that leads to his betrayal and execution. He turns to his friends and says "We need the nobles". He was right. Fortunately this is 21st Century America and not 14th Century Scotland, but my point is that we will need the Karl Rove's committed in this fight, otherwise he'll spend the money elsewhere and we're going to NEED THE MONEY.

When Karl Rove said it was "Toxic" prior to the debate, he was giving Perry political advice disguised as analysis. Perry misinterpreted the remarks and was critical in kind. Rove is correct on the politics. Perry is wrong. Perry could have used his ill advised remarks in his book as an impetus to debate the genuine flaws in Social Security and walked back his talk of "Ponzi Scheme" at the same time. He could have suggested his remarks were intended to shine a spotlight on the the present state of the entitlement. Had he said anything to that effect we would be debating the formula for Social Security as opposed to the politics of Ponzi Scheme labeling.
 
In taking a shot at Rove he perpetuated another underlying narrative. It is quite evident that talk of a feud between the Perry and Bush people is very real. And in this respect Perry again dropped the ball. Prior to the debate, anyone affiliated with the Bush Administration have repeatedly been quizzed about this "feud". Dana Perino was pressed hard by Megyn Kelly, but only had nice things to say about Perry. JEB BUSH on "HANNITY", also debunked the notion of a feud. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have both denied there was a rift. The Bush supporters, recognizing the real possibility of Perry as GOP standard bearer were clearly not being forthright, but towed the line rather than undermine Perry publicly as the potential nominee. Did Perry or his people not notice this? Do you think contributors to Bush didn't notice? The Bush supporters and the former President himself understand the politics of the nominee distancing themselves from Bush. They won't take it personally. In fact they have been extending olive branches. If Rick Perry is the nominee, he's going to want the former Bush contributors on his side. Whatever his problems with the "Bushies", this is the big leagues man, swallow your pride and play ball, because we all need to get with the program. The title of the program reads: "WE MUST DEFEAT BARACK OBAMA". Anything else is unacceptable.

I want to support Governor Perry and I would be quite annoyed if Romney is the nominee, but how can we defeat  Barack Obama if we insist on alienating important people necessary to the cause of victory? The next debate is on CNN on Monday. I hope Perry is better prepared, because I WANT to support him because he is correct on the substance and in concert with my core beliefs and principles. But political skill and temperment are essential qualities in a candidate and as President. For quite a while it has been suggested that Perry is the perfect nominee because he unites every faction of the party. His debate performance has put the lie to that expectation. He has the correct principles, but his presentation is hurting the cause.

Napolitano tells Rick Perry to ask Congress for money to house illegal immigrants

From: Rick Perry

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said today that Texas Gov. Rick Perry should ask Congress — and not the Obama administration — for money to cover the cost of incarcerating illegal immigrants.

At a breakfast meeting with reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Napolitano, a former federal prosecutor and Arizona governor, said she sympathizes with border state governors who are seeking to offset some of the costs of illegal immigration. But she added that Congress must supply the funding to transfer money to the states — and the GOP-controlled House and Democratic-controlled Senate have declined to make such aid available.

“This is not something Congress has been willing to appropriate for,” she said.

Napolitano said she made a similar reimbursement request of the George W. Bush administration when she, too, was running a border state a few years ago.

“I think he copied our letter when I was governor of Arizona,” he said.

In an Aug. 10 letter to Napolitano, Perry blamed the federal government for failing to secure the border and burdening county jails and state prisons with the costs associated with housing illegal immigrants.

“Therefore, on behalf of all the taxpaying citizens of Texas, I am respectfully submitting a reimbursement request in the amount of $349,283,453 for state and local costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants who are in the United States as a result of the federal government’s failure to properly secure our international borders,” Perry wrote.

Napolitano, who failed to get her requested assistance from the Bush administration, said she has sympathy for border governors who bear the costs of federal immigration policy.

“I get it,” she said.

Rick Perry: “I Love My Country More Than I Care About Obama’s Feelings"

From: Boston Herald

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, campaigning in the Granite State next door to Mitt Romney’s home state and Barack Obama’s preferred vacation spot, fired broadsides at both of his top rivals yesterday — with a jab at Romneycare and an unrepentant vow to keep speaking his mind no matter what the president thinks about it.

“The rhetoric will probably get heated. I’m going to be outspoken, I’m going to be passionate, I’m going to be calling it like I see it,” Perry told the Herald in a one-on-one interview, as he shrugged off Obama’s recent scolding that he should be “more careful” about what he says.

“And if I hurt the president’s feelings, well, with all due respect, I love my country and I love future generations more than I care about his feelings,” the 61-year-old governor added.

Perry, who embraced the Tea Party even before GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann, also brushed off Democratic attempts to paint him as a marginal candidate.

“It’s the height of hypocrisy for this president to call anyone a marginal performer. If anyone is a marginal performer, it’s him. He has downgraded the good name and credit of this country,” Perry said. “Talk about someone who has marginalized America.”

Perry, who nabbed front-runner status in one national poll Tuesday, has been riding a whirlwind since joining the crowded Republican field thanks to his Texas-sized fund-raising network and solid job-creation chops.

He urged voters yesterday to compare his record with Romney’s while touring his top rival’s backyard. Perry also took aim at what conservatives see as a bull’s eye on the former Bay State governor’s back — the universal health-care plan he pushed through in Massachusetts that is widely viewed as the blueprint for Obamacare.

“I’m not a fan of that health-care plan that was passed in Massachusetts,” Perry told the Herald. He said he supports state officials’ right to pass their own health-care plans, but he rejects the president’s plan.

“This one-size-fits-all concept has got to go,” said Perry, calling the law, “devastating in its cost.”
He also challenged Romney’s jobs record.

“Look at our records. He was the governor of Massachusetts, I’m the governor of Texas. You can look and see what the jobs record was there,” said Perry, referencing the fact that the Bay State ranked 47th out of 50 states in job creation during Romney’s tenure.

Perry, who succeeded George W. Bush as governor in 2000, trumpeted the Lone Star state’s booming job growth.

“When you have Facebook and eBay and Caterpillar and Toyota all moving to Texas, they didn’t move there because we have good barbecue and warm weather in December,” Perry said. “They came because they knew they wouldn’t be overregulated.”

A Romney spokesman did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Romney has touted his experience as an investor and jobs creator at Bain Capital versus Perry’s 27 years as an elected official in the public sector. Romney has also criticized Obama’s health-care reform on the campaign trail, saying he would repeal the law if elected president.

Rick Perry Announces For President At Red State Gathering

Video streaming by Ustream

Why Is Drudge Linking To Alex Jones's "Info Wars" Site?

As I normally do on a daily basis I visited the Drudge Report. On the left hand column there are three links regarding Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The first link is this: National Journal: Perry Road Tests Stump Speech

The second link is this: NBC NEWS:Perry: Stand Up and Stop Apolgizing
The third link? Infowars.com.: Bilderberg Approved Perry Set To Become GOP Frontrunner

This is apparently not the first time Drudge has linked to that charlatan Alex Jones, but this piece is absolutely ridiculous. Drudge loses credibility by linking such crap on his site.

First there's the title. Rick Perry if he gets in will be formidable,but does anyone really think he becomes the automatic front runner? He's well known with conservatives and in Texas, but relatively unknown to most Americans. Most polls that include Perry have him in single digits.

The lead paragraph:

"Every indication suggests that Bilderberg-approved Texas Governor Rick Perry is set to become the front runner in the Republican race to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency, illustrating once again how a shady, secretive and undemocratic global elite holds the reigns of true power while Americans are distracted by the delusional notion that they have a genuine choice in 2012."

 Isn't it great to know that the world's most trafficked website (?) is perpetuating Alex Jones's absurdities that our Republic is a sham?

 There's more:

"Texas Governor Perry, a protégé of Karl Rove, is very good at acting like a down-home populist, but that’s all it is – an act. Perry is George W. Bush 2.0."

 I may not be an expert on Texas politics but I have a clear impression that the Perry's and the Bush's don't care for each other. Have we ever heard Karl Rove's name mentioned in connection with Perry's tenure as Lt. Governor and now Governor? In point of fact, Karl Rove actively supported Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison in her primary effort to defeat Rick Perry's bid for a third term just last year. Perry crushed her and Rove and his Bush supporters went down to ignominious defeat at the hands of Perry in the GOP primary. I'm quite certain G.W., Rove and Senator Hutchison (who's retiring) would not categorize Perry as Bush 2.0.
 
The rest of the article goes on with Jones's usual conspiracy nonsense even suggesting that Perry's participation in an Istanbul conference violated the "Logan Act".
 
Oh and of course the conspiracy to nominate Rick Perry is to stop Ron Paul's momentum.

Matt Drudge does yeoman's work sifting through items for our perusal, but someone needs to call him on this crap. It's embarrassing to intelligent and thoughtful discourse.What a waste.

Rick Perry Wows Them At RLC