Who Is Rick Perry?

Rick Perry at Texas A&M

This info is from alert reader David, who lives in Texas. Is Perry perfect? Of course not! But he seems like a real person. I especially like the part about the coyote 🙂

Who Is Rick Perry?
He is a fifth generation Texan, the son of hardscrabble west Texas tenant farmers – Democrats but conservatives through and through. He grew up in a farm town too small to be on the state map. Life was so hard that he was six years old before his house had indoor plumbing. His mother sewed his clothes, including the underwear he wore to college.

He is an Eagle Scout. After Paint Creek High School, he attended Texas A&M, graduated, and was commissioned into the Air Force where he became a C-130 pilot.

Now 61 years old, he has won nine elections to four different offices in Texas state government. In the first three elections he ran as a Democrat then switched to the Republican Party. He is currently the 47th governor of Texas – a position he has held for 11 years, the longest tenure of any governor in the nation.

He has never lost an election.

Rick Perry was the Lieutenant Governor to whom Governor George Bush handed over the office after winning the 2000 Presidential election. Since then, Perry won gubernatorial elections in 2002, 2004, and 2010, the last time by 55% against a field consisting of a Democrat, a Libertarian, a Green Party, and an Independent.

Since he became its Governor, Texas – “ a right to work state that taxes neither personal income nor capital gains – “ has added more jobs than the other 49 states combined. In the last two years, low taxes and little regulation led his state to create 47% of all jobs created in the entire nation. Five of the top ten cities with the highest job growth in the nation are in Texas. People follow jobs, so in the last four years for which data are available, Texas led every state in net interstate migration growth.

Perry signed ground breaking “loser pays” tort reform and medical litigation rules that caused malpractice insurance rates to fall. Some 20,000 doctors have since moved to Texas.

Texas boasts 58 of the Fortune 500 companies – “ more than any other state. Since May 2011 Texas resumed its pre-recession employment levels. Only two other states and the District of Columbia have done that.

Texas ships 16% of the nation’s export value. California trails at 11%. Of the 70 companies that have fled California so far in 2011, 14 relocated in Texas.

In this year’s Texas legislative season, Perry got most of what he wanted. With no new taxes, a fiscally lean state budget was passed leaving $6 billion in a rainy day fund even as other states around the country struggled to balance budgets and avoid more deficit borrowing. A voter ID bill passed that was designed to prevent ballot box fraud and illegal voting. A bill passed that makes plaintiffs pay court costs and attorney fees if their suits are deemed frivolous.

Perry scored points even in his legislative failures. He failed to get sanctuary cities banned – Texas towns in which police cannot question detainees about their immigration status. The blame fell on the legislature. Perry also failed to get a so-called “anti-groping” bill passed that would put Transportation Security Administration agents in prison if they touch the genitals, anus, or breasts of passengers in a pat down. Federal officials threatened to halt all flights out of Texas airports and the bill died in special session. That endeared Texans even more to TSA employees living in Texas.

Perry jogs daily in the morning. He has no bodyguard with him, but his daughter’s dog runs by his side and he carries a laser-guided automatic pistol in his belt. Last year while jogging in an undeveloped area, a coyote paralleled his jogging route, eyeing his dog. He drew his pistol and killed the animal with one shot, leaving it where it fell. “He became mulch,” Perry said. Animal rights groups protested, but Perry shrugged it off. “Don’t come after my dog,” he warned them.

Recently, Obama asked Perry to delay the July 7 execution of Humberto Leal in order to comply with the International Court of Justice in The Hague and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Perry refused. Therefore Obama asked the US Supreme Court to delay the execution because it would damage US foreign relations. The Court refused 5-4 and Perry ordered the execution to go forward as scheduled. Over the howls of diplomats, politicians, and the UN, Leal was administered a lethal injection at 6:20 p.m. Before he died, he admitted his guilt and asked for forgiveness.

The case has special implications for Perry, who is considering a run for the presidency in 2012. Even his critics resent federal interference in a Texas execution, which is related to a state, not a federal, crime – an alcohol and drug-fueled rape and murder 17 years ago by an illegal whose family brought him into the country 35 years ago as a child. The interference hinges not on the man’s guilt, which Leal’s advocates acknowledged, but on a technicality – failure to inform Leal that he could have gotten legal representation from the Mexican consulate in lieu of the court-appointed attorneys who represented him. Independent Texans saw Obama’s interference as another intrusion of federal power into the affairs of a state, which could cost Obama support in other states.

Needless to say, Perry is a hard-edged conservative and a ferocious defender of 10th Amendments rights (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”) – an explicit restriction of the federal government to only those powers granted in the Constitution. Perry accuses the federal government, especially the Obama administration, of illegal overreach.

Perry said “no thanks” to the feds whose stimulus offered taxpayer dollars for education and unemployment assistance. The strings on “free money” from Washington, he said, would restrict Texas in managing its own affairs. Perry even depleted all state funds to fight recent wildfires before asking Washington for disaster relief. His request has been ignored, which comes across as an unvarnished federal power play, further pitting Perry and Texans against the federal government.

Rick Perry Honing His Shooting Skills


About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

43 responses to “Who Is Rick Perry?”

  1. Lee says :

    “Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution”: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

    In principle, I agree with six. I would prefer to keep the income tax, though with reforms. The individual income tax serves to remind each American that they as individuals are part of the country, part of something greater than themselves. Thus, it can help combat libertardism and individualism.

  2. David says :

    One other thing Mike. I think you bash MNCs at a terrific risk. They are NOT what you think. They are made up of people. Lots of people. Workers, executives, subcontractors and stockholders. All have ‘individual’ feelings and concerns. However, they necessarily work and move based largely on 2 things; the arithmetic that pays them best and the environment their leadership enjoys. Both are good things, good reasons to allow them the latitude to do much of what they want. Why? Because both are predictable and profitable. Make them comfortable and buy what they sell, and they will treat you well with jobs, superior products and growth. Anti-corporate rhetoric and behavior will eventually yield only one thing. Empty buildings and unemployment. Sound familiar?

  3. David says :

    Y’all sure were busy earlier fightin over who’s gonna be VP. Is Perry that strong in your eyes? I think maybe so. My 2 cents:

    Perry pulls away and gets ‘all in’ support by December from every conservative on the planet.
    Perry picks Pawlenty as VP. Good governor from a hard to get state. Put him to work.
    Palin runs to fill Jon Kyle’s Senate seat in AZ. He is the best Senator in Congress in my mind.
    Everyone else holds their ground.

    • giliar says :

      Interesting scenarios, David! Pawlenty may be a good VP pick but I just can’t get fired up about him….not sure why. On the other hand, Chris Christie is one more firebrand from a hard-to-get state who could blow things wide open. But it appears he’s not interested – or is he? He keeps showing up in places where the national campaign spotlight shines.

      I’ve stopped trying to figure out what Palin is doing. Frankly at this point, I think it’s better if she stays out this time. If she did become a Senator in AZ, that would go a a long way in helping to secure her path to run for POTUS in the future.

  4. Nicole says :

    Another great post, Aunt Jill. I am proud to be a resident of Texas and intend to support Rick Perry in his campaign. As the saying goes, “you don’t mess with Texas” and I am hoping that if he is elected, that saying will also reach from coast to coast and “you don’t mess with the US” will become a new slogan.
    I am so sick of Obama apologizing for who we are and what we stand for. We need someone in office that believes that America is truly great and doesn’t make excuses for who we are or our Western way of life. I am anxious to see how this election goes.
    As for Palin, while I like her as a person, I really hope she stays in the background in this election. She is too polarizing and I think that potential independent or democratic voters will vote for Obama if they see too much of her on the Republican side.
    I am also proud to say that my hard-core Democrat Hispanic in-laws plan to vote for Rick Perry if he gets the nod.
    Looking forward to seeing you in October! Love to Mike as well 🙂

    • giliar says :

      Thanks, Nicki!!!!! Perry is “The Real Deal” and it’s interesting that your liberal in-laws plan to vote for him over 0bama. Hopefully, that’s a trend 🙂

  5. MikeHawaii says :

    Conspiracy: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. Why is it so hard for some to admit that conspiracies actually do exist, instead of crying “conspiracy theory” when they are unable to counter with sound reasoning? No reasonably intelligent person would say that conspiracies don’t exist. They happen all the time, especially in government, and in the media, as demonstrated below.

    • giliar says :

      MikeHawaii – it’s not that we think conspiracies don’t exist. Of course they do! In fact, if you really want to get technical a conspiracy is what founded this country….didn’t the Founding Father “plot” in an “unlawful” way (at the time) to overthrow British rule? And I would propose to you that they will continue to exist, even if Ron Paul were somehow elected (YIKES) as President.

      • MikeHawaii says :

        My point, exactly. Conspiracies do exist. Those which are founded on JUST and NOBLE causes, including those which advance individual freedom and the supremacy of the individual over the state are the bedrock of American idealism. True Americans could no longer renounce Individualism than a socialist could renounce collectivism.

        It’s not correct to say that patriotism is submission to the cause of the state regardless of the what the cause may be. Patriotism is the voluntary support of a just and worthy cause of the state. When a cause is NOT just and NOT worthy, it is the height of patriotism to without support of the cause and attempt to persuade others of its unjustness and unworthiness. When the government oversteps the powers granted to it by the people, the most patriotic thing one can do is point out its deficiencies. Blind submission to the cause of the state is to relinquish liberty, of which the government was created to protect in the first place. I have never claimed that the election of Ron Paul would end conspiracies. Those are your words, not mine.

        Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. “

      • MikeHawaii says :

        Gilia, regarding “Points well taken…” below…

        The first thing to clarify is that I am not a Libertarian, a Democrat, a Republican, a member of the Left or Right, a conservative or a liberal. I’m a private individual who wants to preserve our freedom and the private free enterprise system that built the United States. I think it would be helpful for all commenters to stop using these labels to describe other people. There are probably none of us who fit these labels in every regard and support all of the positions which these labels are meant to describe. They have frankly been promoted to divide us, making it easier for collectivist ideas to erode individual freedom.

        So, in regards to your disagreement about government being a check on corporate power, it’s important to reiterate that, by corporate power, I do NOT include all corporations big and small. By its nature, corporate power means large multi-national corporations. For example, It doesn’t mean local small businesses in general.

        In fact, I agree with your concerns about the over-regulation of business in general, especially that which emits from the executive regulatory agencies life the EPA, FDA, FTC, USDA, etc. What we need to understand, however, is that the big corporations control these agencies by the placement of former employees in these agencies in powerful positions. Many high-ranking members of these agencies also take jobs with the very same corporations they used to regulate. This is how the corporations reward these people for favorable treatment. Certainly you’re familiar with the concept of revolving doors at these agencies and the industry giants they supposedly regulate.

        These agencies originated in the New Deal era and some just after World War II. The real purpose of these agencies is not to protect the American people, but to protect the profits of the big corporations and to drive smaller competitive business out of business so the big corporations can expand their market share.

        The way this game works is that some costly regulation will be propagated by the regulatory agencies that affect all companies. The large corporations are normally not affected as much as their smaller competition because big corporations can afford the costs of compliance while smaller corporations have a more difficult time with the heavier paperwork burdens.

        This game is constantly, as regulations regularly drive smaller competition out of business. It’s collusion of big business with big government to the detriment of competition and small business, resulting in the eventual creation of monopolistic control of markets by big multi-national corporations. An excellent example is Obamacare and the exemptions given to major corporations like McDonald’s, which exempts them from having to provide medical insurance for their employees, while a local competitor is required to incur the cost of such health insurance for its employees.

        So I ask, If government should not be a check, what alternative would you propose to be a check on corporate power? Remember, government creates corporations. What other check could their be but the creator of the entity itself? Once we understand that it is, in fact, the collusion of big government and big business that is at the source of many of our problems, then we can understand that government is NOT playing its proper role as a check on corporate power.

      • giliar says :

        MIkeHawaii – you misinterpret my remarks as meaning there should be no checks on corporations. There should be, but not at the expense of limiting the free enterprise system you say you support. Government creates corporations? Not so – corporations create themselves. Sure there are instances where the two intermingle but the majority of corporations in this country (the backbone of our free enterprise system) are not created by the government.

        I agree with you on labeling people – I know I “cross over” in numerous areas myself. By the same token, we all have predominant beliefs that take precedence and thus we can determine for ourselves what school of thought describes us, with the understanding that very few people are 100% of a particular belief system.

      • Lee says :

        MH: “Conspiracies do exist. Those which are founded on JUST and NOBLE causes, including those which advance individual freedom and the supremacy of the individual over the state are the bedrock of American idealism. True Americans could no longer renounce Individualism than a socialist could renounce collectivism.”

        Sedition, pure and simple, coming from a fellow who believes America is a terrorist nation. He actually endorses criminal behavior for the furtherance of his agenda. “Supremacy of the individual over the state”? Such an ideology nullifies patriotism and establishes an earthly power over that of his country and the people.

        (And for the record, the American Revolution really doesn’t qualify as a “conspiracy” of the type being discussed. The Founders openly REBELLED, and had they failed, would have rightly been executed for treason. These White slave-holding males, regardless of individual motivations, justified their action by citing not “advanc[ing] individual freedom,” but rather violations and abuses by the monarch, ultimately appealed to divine authority, not this seditious concept, as the basis for their rebellion. Only their victory in the Bismarck’s “court of blood and iron” exonerated them and vindicated their cause.)

        So, in that one paragraph, we see how libertarianism is nearly as seditious as the Marxism of the Left and Islamist Jihad/Shariah law movement. Its only redeeming quality over the other two is that it upholds at least a few traditional values, such as private property, and doesn’t intentionally seek to subjugate America or its foundational demographic (give Ron Paul credit for his “Freedom Report”). That said, sedition is sedition, and we have his written confession.

        And on this, I’ll leave you with a quote from Commodore Stephen Decatur, an early hero in the war against Jihadism (that threat that MH refuses to admit exists). Though the exact phrasing is uncertain, the sentiment is clear, and it denounces the sedition of this individual:

        “Our country: In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong.”

      • Lee says :

        MH: Some readers here might know my personal position on economic and financial issues: “Just tell me how much fuel and ammo is gonna cost, and I’m done with economic matters.” That said, I have to wonder: If, say, Ford, which is developed by private parties, is run by private parties, makes a profit, and turned down government bailout money, is “government,” how is the Federal Reserve, which was set up Congress, is run by congressionally-appointed board members, has a 100-percent tax rate, and is serves a government function is a “private” corporation that conspiratorially controls our economy? Just a little inconsistency among the tinfoil hat-wearers.

        Gilia: When it’s said that government sets up corporations, it means that corporations receive a charter of sorts from a government entity, usually a state secretary of state’s office. This charter recognized a corporation as an “artificial person,” thus insulating members of the corporation–that is, the people who came together to form it–from personal liability in most cases. A corporation is not formed simply by a bunch of people coming together and forming a partnership. There is a government authorization involved.

      • giliar says :

        Lee – thanks for the clarification. I understand that there is a process involved in setting up corporations (and that the government has a role) but I think MikeHawaii is insinuating that corporations are government entities. (And evil…and kill people…and are part of a vast world-wide conspiracy.) At least that’s how I read it. Your example of Ford v. The Fed is a good one.

      • MikeHawaii says :

        Gilia… Nowhere have I ever insinuated that corporations are government. But, interestingly, virtually ALL government entities are corporations… 🙂

        I’m confused at why you and others have seemingly not read the actual comments that I have made on this blog, as quoted below.

        “I don’t deride honest businessmen. The overwhelming majority of small businesses are honest. The corporate interests I refer to are the multi-national corporations which hold NO allegiance to any nation but themselves.” –– MikeHawaii

        “So, in regards to your disagreement about government being a check on corporate power, it’s important to reiterate that, by corporate power, I do NOT include all corporations big and small. By its nature, corporate power means large multi-national corporations. For example, It doesn’t mean local small businesses in general.” –– MikeHawaii

        It’s a documented fact that many of our corporations, particularly those who compose the military/industrial complex, profit immensely from war and hardly anything from peace. To not consider that fact is to be blind to elements within those corporations, particularly the executive team and major shareholders, who may not have our best interests at heart.

      • giliar says :

        OK, if I misinterpreted your words then I apologize, But c’mon, MikeHawaii….’MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX”????????? Those were the words the goofball hippies & yippies used in the 70’s to protest the war in Vietnam. Those are words used by groups who – in reality – don’t want us to have a strong and dominant military. And so I’m reading between the lines in this latestpost that of course, not all corporations are bad, but some are……especially those associated with the military. I’m also reading between the lines that you think wars are started by our government to keep these bad “military industrial complex” corporations profitable (according to you, the “may not have our best interests at heart.”) Sorry, but I’m not on board.

      • Lee says :

        “… many of our corporations, particularly those who compose the military/industrial complex…”

        Deepening the web of conspiracy theories in his tinfoiled head of his. It can’t be that companies form to make money off of a demand. Noooo. It has to be a defined “complex”. The matter-of-fact way he says it shows that either he is disingenuous in the comment or is so sucked into his fantasy he can’t think in any objective terms.

        And notice this sentence:

        “To not consider that fact is to be blind to elements within those corporations, particularly the executive team and major shareholders, who may not have our best interests at heart.”

        Note that “team” is singular, as if he’s saying all these corporations are run by the same little cabal. Now perhaps that was a typo and he meant “teams,” in which case he can simply say so. But even so, he is clearly inferring a nefarious collusion in an overarching agenda he can’t prove and which runs contrary to any honest appraisal of human nature.

        I’m sorry. I was required by my coordinators to say all that. In truth, I for one am very thankful for the military-industrial complex. It’s wonderful that corporations can be involved in profitable business and at the same time contribute to the defense of the nation. And given this individual’s attempts to gut our security, it is that complex which may be the only thing keeping us alive today. It restrains the damage one Black nationalist Muslim and his Leftist allies can wittingly do, and a bunch of Teabrained amateur politicos can unwittingly do.

        If the result of the military-industrial complex is the American hegemony that lasted until this current administration, then bring it on!!!

    • Lee says :

      Yes, MikeHawaii, they happen all the time. The problem is that some like you believe they are all interlinked into a master conspiracy theory with some cabal manipulating everything.

      The truth is that the problems in America are caused by a selfish and individualistic populace. If Americans put cause and country ahead of person and preference, they would be using the political power they insist on having to prevent the socialism of the Left and the corruption of the business interests. But human nature gets in the way, which is what the Left counts on, and things go bad. Then people like you blame everyone and everything but the true culprits–the American people!

      The American people have essentially choked themselves on their freedom. Their focus on personal matters led them to be politically ignorant (e.g., Teabrainers), and opened the way for the social and economic movements of the Left. After all, the typical American is “busy,” “has a family,” and “has to work,” so how can they possibly be involved in politics or community matters? So they don’t get involved, the other side wins, and then they complain. They had essentially renounced their political power, used their freedom for indulgence instead of service, and wonder why things worked against them.

      Don’t talk to me about mere corporate corruption. That’s business, just like any other business at any scale. An “honest businessman” is like an “honest politician”–they’re both losers. Hold corrupt people accountable, but keep in mind that the corporate interests you so condemn are the ones who have enabled the high standard of living we enjoy. The “military-industrial complex” may right now be the only thing keeping our country alive by preventing the defense cuts called for by Leftists, Teabrainers, and Paultards. The imperialism you deride allows for us having “Press 1 for English,” rather than “Press THREE for English.” The common person has better living now than 20 years ago. How many then had cell phones and home Internet? I don’t care if corporate fatcats live even better in relative terms, and as a libertarian, neither should you! Drop the jealousy and desire for wealth redistribution.

      The truth is the world is the way it appears. You deny the world around you in favor of a fantasy and a gripe that exonerates you and others of any complicity or responsibility.

      It’s people like you that truly make this option one of the more appealing ones for me (Gilia, he’s gonna go nuts at this!): http://youtu.be/mhtzFMrpSvI

      • giliar says :

        “Fascism is Fun”? Just replace “Fascism” with “Marxism” and I see an 0bama 2012 campaign commercial.

      • Lee says :

        Think about it: A society where people can pursue their own interests in the knowledge that the country is secure, their heritage and culture are unthreatened, and THEY NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT POLITICS! No more political campaigns. No more purists and individualists acting to cause your side’s defeat. And all with people like me in charge!!! It really does fit what a lot of conservatives really want.

        Politics is to the Tea Partier and conservative what religion is the liberal: It’s out there, it has an impact, and sometimes you have to deal with it, but you don’t like it and honestly wish it would just go away.

      • giliar says :

        And everyone eats Soylent Green – perfect!

      • MikeHawaii says :

        Having confirmed that conspiracies actually do exist, it’s valuable to know that while ALL conspiracies are NOT directly inter-linked, many are related to achieving a common longer term end goal. Most people would agree that this would adequate describe a Communist conspiracy or the conspiracy of the “LEFT” as Lee calls it here in his comments.

        Although some may believe that the problems in America are caused by a selfish and individualistic populace, it could also be accurately said that they are caused by, what has become, the blind trust of the American people in a government that lies to them on a regular basis – a government that forcibly makes them pay social security taxes, then spends ALL the surpluses over the past 75 years, leaving the fraudulently-referrered-toi Social Security Fund insolvent for those who have paid into it throughout their lifetimes.

        The Bill of Rights was not ratified in 1791 to protect groups of people. It was ratified to protect individuals. Individual freedom means freedom of the individual. To say that Americans are not patriotic unless they renounce their individualism is a contradiction in terms.

        To be American is to believe in individualism; and individualism need not be selfish. It’s a well-known fact that Americans (apart from their government) are the most generous and caring people on Earth when it comes to individually contributing money and time to help victims of disaster around the world.

        Yes, I would agree that virtually all of us are responsible for our current plight because we have not paid attention to the warnings of those who have paid attention. But, I believe that this has been caused far more by mistrust of government instead of selfish individualism.

        I don’t deride honest businessmen. The overwhelming majority of small businesses are honest. The corporate interests I refer to are the multi-national corporations which hold to allegiance to any nation but themselves. Half of the top 100 economies in the world are corporations. They that have now grown to dominate and control our governments, the once-free press, our food supply, our health system, and education system.

        Corporations are entities that are granted existence by the people through their governments. The current situation could not have happened without the consent of the people through their governments. We need to understand that corporations the subservient to government and not the other way around. Governments should not be cooperating in the expansion of corporate power. It should be a check on corporate power, limiting the detrimental effects of such power on the people, especially their effects on the representatives of the people in government.

        Finally, to say that imperialism is necessary to protect the sovereignty of the United States is just pure nonsense. All of history has shown that imperialism inevitably leads to decay and bankruptcy, as we have experienced over the past 40 years with the debasement of our money supply by the Federal Reserve-induced inflation.

        One of the best presentations I’ve ever seen describing our current situation in American can be found in the following video:


      • giliar says :

        Points well taken, MikeHawaii. But I disagree that government should be “a check on corporate power.” In fact, that seems like an un-Libertarian thing to say because it sounds like you want MORE government control over business and corporations. I think there’s too much control now (witness the latest inane EPA regulations the 0bama administration is trying to push through.) I also think that Lee has it right when he talks about imperialism: if it’s not the U.S. as the world power, then it will be someone else. Are you comfortable with that thought? I’m not.

      • Lee says :

        Gilia, “It’s people!”

        But in truth, do think about it. How many Tea Partiers only got active in politics in 2009? If they really wanted to use their democracy, would they have only gotten involved after a Marxist Black nationalist, America-hating, White-hating Muslim of indeterminate origin was elected to the White House, with the votes of more than one Tea Partier? Would they be so ignorant of basic civics? Would they expect one election cycle to set everything right, so they could go back to sleep?

        Of course not, to all of those. They want to forget about politics. And as a result, they let the Left, composed of people who in larger percentages DON’T want to forget about politics to advance their anti-American agenda. The system described in the video creates a politically solid barrier to that.


        MH: “To be American is to believe in individualism; and individualism need not be selfish.”

        The emphasis on individualism was part of the original “American Experiment.” And it has proven to produce at best mixed results. By exalting the individual above the community–be it one’s local community, race, country, or whatever–the ability to face common threats and common concerns is diminished. With no government compulsion and a culture growing to do that, there is no drive for people to discipline themselves. When people focus on their own interests at the expense of community concerns (and I DON’T mean “charity”–the only reason for charity is so I don’t have to step on poor people when I walk down the sidewalk), it becomes selfish. And when “libertarianism” is the governing philosophy and not simply one approach among many, human nature is left unrestrained, and selfishness comes to be seen as a guaranteed right. This robs freedom of its moral basis.

        Freedom is good only when it is the freedom to do what is good, rather than evil. Evil should be tolerated only when necessary to guarantee the good (e.g., we must tolerate false religion in order to ensure that the true religion–whoever has it–can exist). Libertarianism, on the other hand, prides itself on tolerating evil, thus making the philosophy itself evil.

        Likewise, individualism is good only when it simply means respecting the individual on matters that are truly “individual.” You can generally wear your hair however you want it (unless in the military, that authoritarian, non-individualist entity your individualism depends upon). You can wear your choice of clothing. You can pursue any lawful line of work you want. And you are as a person respected as such, and not (merely) as a member of a community or demographic.

        On the other hand, matters that are “community” in nature must not have “individualism” as their governing authority or philosophy. The individual cannot survive without the community, no matter what Ron Paul says, but the community can generally survive without a given individual. Individualism as the philosophy weakens the community in dealing with community matters, such as defense against enemies. And when those enemies are not so individualist, it sets the community at a distinct self-imposed disadvantage.

        The Bill of Rights was in part a codification of ideas which had developed over centuries. It does indeed protect individual rights from the actions of the community. Yet only at the national level. States and localities were free to restrict those very rights. The idea was to prevent a central oppression of states (witness “states” mentioned before “the people” in the 10th Amendment) and the people.

        An individualist simply cannot be a patriot, for he or she will by ideology put the individual ahead of the country. Patriotism is the deprecation of the individual to the country. Our American freedom means that this deprecation should largely be voluntary. Hence my distinction between the “non-patriotic” libertarian and individualist, and the “unpatriotic” Left. Our culture does indeed limit what affirmative action can be demanded of a given individual. It can’t REQUIRE one to be patriotic. But for the person who philosophically places any earthly entity–including their individuality–ahead of their country and state to claim to be “patriotic” is a lie. They might not be traitors, but they aren’t patriots.

        Robert Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” demonstrates the difference. In his vision, to be a “citizen” with political power, one must have served and demonstrated that they make the well-being of society a personal responsibility. Others choosing not to do so–so-called, “civilians”–have no political power (though apparently they have freedom of speech).

        The parallel here is the moral difference between a patriot, whose philosophy deprecates their person to the community, and the non-patriot (like the libertarian and individualist). Such on-patriots, like Heinlein’s civilians, aren’t necessarily traitors (though they come close of late), but they certainly aren’t “patriotic”–at least not compared to those whose philosophy demands sacrifice for the good of the community.

        Libertarianism and individualism are simply unrealistic. America stands as one of the most liberty-ensuring and individual-respecting political efforts in the history of mankind. And as such, there will always be a streak of those traits in our culture and heritage that no feasible Rightwing American dictatorship* could ever eliminate. And personally, I like that very much. But–and this is a crucial “but”–unless we affirmatively seek to prevent that streak of “person and preference” from overpowering duty to “cause and country,” it will open the way to the defeat of the community to enemies, foreign or domestic, and hence the loss of that libertarianism and individualism. Hence, libertarianism and individualism are actually the keys to their own destruction.

        *”Rightwing”–As defined in political science, not some Teabrainer who “just kinda thinks” it means something else.


        A word about corporations: Corporations were developed to enable people to pursue business endeavors they couldn’t risk otherwise by erecting a liability shield for them personally. They are legally “artificial persons,” holding their own liability rather than the owners or officers, and much is needed to “pierce the corporate veil.” So much of our economy and standard of living today could never have developed without that protection. And today, corporations enable the common folk to literally own a share of major business concerns and share in their profits. So when it’s said that corporations dominate our economy, in reality it’s those shareholders who control it. I fully understand the legal argument about controlling corporations, but to control corporations is to control private associations, and a libertarian ought to be leery of that.

        Yet they don’t, which at least scratches against their own principles. The truth, of course, is that they need scapegoats to explain how their deprecation of duty and loyalty to the community failed to ensure that community did as they wished it to do. And corporations serve that role. Hence, libertarians and individualists vilify corporations, often not considering the long-term consequences–namely, driving away economic power and hurting the standard of living they cling to like an Obamian Christian NRA member does guns and religion.

      • Lee says :

        At least Paul’s not doing a “pot calling kettle black” thing.


        “Ron Paul: Perry Makes Me Look Moderate”

        Friday, 19 Aug 2011 09:59 AM
        By Newsmax Wires

        Federal Reserve critic Ron Paul has hit out at fellow Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, saying the Texas governor’s views make him “look like a moderate.”

        “I have never once said [Ben] Bernanke has committed treason,” Paul said, referring to comments that Perry made about the Fed chairman.

        Perry said on Tuesday that it would be “almost treacherous or treasonous,” if the Fed under Bernanke increased the money supply before next year’s election.

        Paul’s response: “He realizes that talking about the Fed is good, too. But I tell you what: He makes me look like a moderate.”

        MORE AT LINK

        COMMENT: Of course Paul doesn’t call Bernanke a “traitor.” Bernanke is doing nothing worse on the economy than Paul is trying to do on foreign policy and defense. Heck, maybe they should be best buds!

        But then, just about the only thing a Paultard might consider to be treason is supporting a strong, dominant, and victorious America. The crime of treason implies a duty of loyalty to the country that exceeds personal preference. Libertarians and individualists will have none of that.

  6. mrethman says :

    As much as I like Bachmann — and I like her a whole lot — Perry needs to gently sideline her.
    This is because Marco Rubio must be R’s VP nominee — he’s largely unassailable by the left and will bring lots of Latino votes with him unless Barry learns to speak Spanish in a major hurry and we find out he really spent four years in Mexico instead of Indonesia..

    • giliar says :

      Heck, maybe he was in both Indonesia and Mexico! After all, he is the Obamessiah 😉

    • Lee says :

      Doing an Affirmative Action hire with Rubio would be a huge mistake. He’s weak on illegal immigration, and any Hispanic chosen will have to at least be EXTREMELY pro-border security/immigration control. In addition, such pandering to Hispanics could backfire, especially at this time and in this case:

      1. Rubio is a “coconut”–brown on outside, white on inside. While not having the same effect as the “Oreo” label has with Blacks, it will limit vote gains.

      2. It might drive off Whites who see this as the final loss of their country.

      3. While not nearly as bad as a Herman “I’m Black and I made pizza, so I should be President while I apologize to sheetheads like my brutha” Cain candidacy would be, such pandering will forward the PC agenda toward the point where a White male conservative/Rightwinger need not apply for the Presidency.

      The ideal ticket for the opposition to Obama would be the following:

      1. All White, thought I’m intrigued with the very outside idea of an American Indian in the VP slot: This is no time for an Affirmative Action effort.
      2. At least one military male: A. Exploits that weakness of the Dem ticket; B. Military experience might come in handy in 2012.
      3. At least one serious Christian, preferably the President: Exploits Obama’s Muslim faith.

      Bluntly put, this is no time for going rainbow or Affirmative Action. Even a female would raise a question, but not nearly as big a one. If we are to have a(nother) minority in the White House, it needs to be one who legitimately qualifies as a quality executive and whose nomination and election won’t so negatively impact societal direction. For the conservative/Right to abdicate this point would hand the Left the victory it really wanted in 2008–the deprecation of the country’s foundational demographic.

      • giliar says :

        Lee, a big PLUS that Rubio has going for him is that he is a dynamic, powerful and inspiring speaker. I would LOVE to see him debate Joe “Gaffe Machine” Biden. Plus, Rubio is much smarter and capable than either Biden or 0bama, so I don’t see this potential VP pick as “pandering.” I also like that he’s not afraid to be IN THE FACE of the most plugged-in, senior members of Congress, like John Kerry. Watch him slap down Kerry during the debt limit debates. This video is just one showing Rubio at his best – no teleprompter, just speaking from the mind & heart, with minimal referral to notes. Pretty powerful stuff: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/30/video-marco-rubio-vs-john-kerry-on-the-debt-crisis/ My favorite line: “It is impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn’t have a plan.”

        I also disagree with your statement that Rubio would drive off white voters. Quite the contrary, I think that conservative whites would welcome a conservative Latino. Plus, I’m betting that many of the legal Hispanic immigrants (people who can actually vote unless 0bama changes it by next year) are conservative. They would not only welcome Rubio but would be relieved that their voices are finally being heard.

        Is Rubio perfect? No. But I think a Perry/Rubio ticket would be extremely powerful. In fact, they would have a landslide victory over Barry/Barack Hussein Soetoro/Obama.

      • Lee says :

        “I’m betting that many of the legal Hispanic immigrants (people who can actually vote unless 0bama changes it by next year) are conservative.”

        Wishful thinking. Hispanics vote 2-to-1 Democrat, and they proved in 2008 they could set aside their long-standing rivalry with Blacks for the “majority minority” status in order to win an election. The Cuban immigrants are the only heavily conservative elements of that population (remember Florida in 2000), and they are already very solidly GOP.

        The only way for Rubio to remotely have a chance to gain Hispanic votes is to emphasize his support of illegal immigration, which would assuredly drive off White voters. In addition, Rubio WILL be played as a “coconut” despite his immigration stance. “Heads they win, tails you lose.” You lose more votes than you gain, all the while conceding the PC point to the Left.

        Gilia, I understand your need for wishful thinking. Living in Hawaii, without it you’d probably go crazy(er) without that hope. But the reality is, most minorities will always lean liberal for reasons similar to why Blacks do–the redistribution of the goodies and shielding from threats from the majority (Jews vote liberal for the latter reason). And no amount of self-imposed unilateral “colorblindness” by our side will ever change that.

        If you really insist on an Hispanic running mate, check into REP Trent Franks of Arizona. Though he hasn’t won either statewide office or a war, he is White Hispanic, looks almost Anglo, has an Anglo name, is solidly conservative/Right, known for direct and sincere talk, and is solidly anti-illegal:

        “I will never support any Congressional legislation to reform our immigration system that does not effectively punish those illegal immigrants who have already broken our laws. That is amnesty, and I will not tolerate such a policy being reenacted in the United States (as it was in the 1980s).”

        Of course, those traits will also cancel out the appeal to Democrat-leaning Hispanics you seek, so there goes that.

        Playing Affirmative Action and pandering will gain us nothing and lose us a lot. Let your White Liberal Guilt rest during this election cycle. Let’s do what is necessary to gain power and reset the country in a better direction and with a more secure condition. We need to cancel out the PC advance of Obama’s election, Then we can consider such candidates as Rubio (though I really don’t like the guy), West (“sheer competence”), etc. Such consideration will not be the contrived, “See, we have a minority candidate now, too!” approach, but rather simply reality–finding quality and suitable people for the positions.

        So let’s drop the “White Christian conservative males need not apply” attitude. It’s not worth losing the election.

      • giliar says :

        OK, so now I’m saying it to you: YOU TAKE THAT BACK! “White Liberal Guilt?” I can assure you I have no such thing. No doubt there are many good potential VP candidates on the GOP side – much more than on the Dem side (Joe Biden?? What a joke!) And I’m not pandering, either. I truly like Rubio – he’s smart and savvy and happens to be Hispanic. The other important factor is that he is already well known and vetted and highly visible. I also think Allen West would be an amazing VP pick….and not because he’s Black. I want a GOP ticket of President and VP who are IN-YOUR-FACE with this current group of dofusses. I want the GOP candidates to go after them, and not be milquetoast like John McCain was. I want a no-holds-barred attack on their policies and what they have done to this country. So far, I’ve seen Rubio, West Bachmann (although she seems to use talking points too much), and Trump do that. John Bolton is also good, but he’s never held an elected office. If the GOP ticket really goes after 0bama (heck, all they need to do is repeatedly show him in his own words in their campaign commercials) they can’t lose.

        0bama’s approval rating on the economy is now at 26% approve and 71% disapprove. He’s incompetent. We need people who don’t suffer from the “White Liberal Guilt” you describe and will really go after him. No more John McCains…we have him to thank for getting 0bama elected.

      • Lee says :

        Link to Trent Franks quote above: http://franks.house.gov/pages/immigration

      • Lee says :

        I’ll take you at your word about the WLG, but you need to also be objective in your analysis. You might honestly conclude Rubio is, as a person, a good VP candidate. However, also consider the possibility that, at least at this time, he represents a net loss of votes for the GOP ticket (as explained above), and nominating him for 2012 would contribute to and confirm the diversity PC of the 2008 election. As I have said before, we are not “post-racial,” just WLG-driven “reverse-racial.” If you truly are WLG-free, you won’t write that matter off or consider it racist.

      • giliar says :

        Lee, I’m not denying that White Liberal Guilt exists, merely saying that my support of Rubio is not based on the fact that he’s Hispanic – if his name was Marc Rubin I’d still support him. I like him because he’s smart, articulate and not afraid to take on the establishment fat cats in DC (e.g. Kerry.) And that’s what we need in 2012!

      • Lee says :

        I understand that. My only point is that I hope you won’t let PC force you to willfully ignore the racial component or assess it in a way that unilaterally disarms or deprecates your race identity. “White pride” is just as valid as “Black pride,” “Yellow pride,” “Red pride,” “Brown pride,” and “Green pride” (just in case any Martians are reading this).

    • MikeHawaii says :

      Bachmann is likely to disappear off the radar very quickly now that we have learned that ship distributed 6,000+ free tickets to a Randy Travis concert at the Iowa Straw Poll vote and received 4,000 votes in the straw poll. Without the free tickets in exchange for votes, she’s going to disappear from the radar without requiring even a gentle push. What a joke!

      • giliar says :

        OK, MikeHawaii, I agree that the Iowa straw poll was close enough between Bachmann and Paul that it truly was a dead heat. And if Bachmann hadn’t had these “bought” votes, Paul would have won (just wondering why this story isn’t plastered all over the mainstream media – they hate Bachmann too. Hmmmm.) So what? Ron Paul is the “top tier candidate”???? No way, Jose. Ron Paul is dangerous and will NOT be the nominee. Sorry, but he needs to go away.

      • Lee says :

        So it’s possible both top vote getters bought their votes. Bachmann supposedly paid with country music tickets, but I wonder what Paul gave his pothead supporters. Hmm. Maybe DOOBIE Brothers tickets? You know, a show with lots of DOOBIE.

  7. Lee says :

    Perry jogs daily in the morning. He has no bodyguard with him, but his daughter’s dog runs by his side and he carries a laser-guided automatic pistol in his belt. Last year while jogging in an undeveloped area, a coyote paralleled his jogging route, eyeing his dog. He drew his pistol and killed the animal with one shot, leaving it where it fell. “He became mulch,” Perry said. Animal rights groups protested, but Perry shrugged it off. “Don’t come after my dog,” he warned them.

    Good enough for me.

    So, with Bachmann taking the “hottie-chick” role and Perry taking the “gun-toting governor of big rural energy state” role, I am officially predicting the one called “the Arctic Fox,” “the Cuda,” and “Caribou Barbie” (http://youtu.be/yG9LqX6xGpQ) will NOT run for President. Months ago Palin basically limited herself to running if no one else suitable did. While not impossible, it would be a difficult proposition to justify running against those two.

%d bloggers like this: