Let Americans Not Forget the Evil of Al Sharpton, another Black Racist “Reverend”

Scott Johnson of PowerLine, wrote the following article:

     AL SHARPTON FINDS HE HAS GROWN

“Although Al Sharpton is accorded an absurdly respected role in the Democratic Party, he is easily one of the most vile men active in American public life. Jay Nordlinger reviewed Sharpton’s record as of early 2000 in his brilliant National Review feature article “Power Dem.” Jay updated his take on Sharpton in his Impromptus column “Words from Pope Al.”

From his promotion of Tawana Brawley’s hoax and his defamation of Steven Pagones and Robert Abrams, to his defense of the Central Park “wilding” rapists, to his role in the pogroms leading to the murders of Yankel Rosenbaum in Crown Heights and eight victims in Freddy’s Fashion Mart in Harlem, Sharpton has compiled a record that should result in his excommunication by decent people from civil society.

Here is Sharpton on the accidental death of Gavin Cato in Crown Heights in August 1991:

The world will tell us that [Gavin Cato] was killed by accident….What type of city do we have that would allow politics to rise above the blood of innocent babies?…Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights….All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise. Pay for your deeds….It’s no accident that we know we should not be run over. We are the royal family on  the planet. We are the original man. We gazed into the stars and wrote astrology. We had a conversation and that became philosophy….We will win because we are right. God is on our side.

Writing in the Village Voice in December 2004, Wayne Barrett proclaimed Sharpton to have hit “a new low.” And Sharpton of course contributed to the miscarriage of justice represented by the dismissed rape charges brought against the three Duke lacrosse players. In an April 2006 interview with Bill O’Reilly, Sharpton said (among other things): “This case parallels Abner Louima, who was raped and sodomized in a bathroom like this girl has alleged she was. That’s the case and just like the Louima case, you have people saying she fabricated it. They said he fabricated it — two guys in jail right now for that.”

Only last year Sharpton appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show peddling the Democratic Party’s line tarring opponents of Obamacare and Obama’s program of national socialism as racists. Sharpton told O’Reilly that he had seen the (non-existent) tape showing Tea Party protesters abusing black congressmen with racial epithets. In the video above, O’Reilly calls Sharpton on his bald-faced lie.

Today in the New York Daily News column “What Crown Heights taught me,” Al Sharpton reflects on the events in Crown Heights 20 years ago. Sharpton finds that, 20 years on, he has grown.

One wonders. Has Sharpton grown since the Tawana Brawley hoax? Since the rape hoax perpetrated against the Duke lacrosse players? He must be one of the largest men of our times.

It should be noted that Sharpton presents his contribution to the events in Crown Heights through a gauzy filter. He alludes to rather than quotes his remarks on Gavin Cato’s death. And he omits any reference to his taunt: “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”

The evidence that this particular tiger has changed his stripes is, shall we say, lacking.”

Perpetual Graduate Student, Obama, the Con Artist, Selling Green Jobs

Feeding The Masses On Unicorn Ribs

Walter Russell Mead

 ”Besides healing the planet and returning the rising seas to their natural beds, then-Senator Obama promised that his administration would create beautiful green jobs: well paid, stable, abundant jobs, unionized, with full benefits and making the earth healthier and the American people richer. As President, he stayed on message: even after the truther-enabling “green jobs czar” Van Jones left the administration, green jobs have been one of the President’s signature policies for putting the American people back to work.

Obama promised to create 5 million green jobs within ten years. Investors’ Business Daily has a list of that plan’s successes so far.

- On his recent jobs tour Obama stopped at a Johnson Controls plant in southern Michigan, which received $300 million in green grants and plans to create a whopping total of 150 jobs, at a cost of $2 million per position.

- Evergreen Solar Inc., which received unknown amounts of green stimulus funds on the hope that it would create “between 90 and 100 jobs” two years ago, filed for bankruptcy this week, $485.6 million in debt. Their Massachusetts plant once employed 800 people; in March it was replaced with a factory in Wuhan, China.

- Green Vehicles, an electric car “maker” in Salinas, California, took $500,000 from the city and almost $200,000 from the state but has failed to produce even one car.

- And as reported earlier on this site, Seattle was one of a handful of cities that received $20 million in federal grants as part of Retrofit Ramp-Up, a program designed to refit houses with more energy efficient materials. Unfortunately, as KOMO4 of Seattle reports, after more than a year “only three homes had been retrofitted and just 14 new jobs have emerged from the program.”

I’ve posted about this failing strategy before; it’s nice to see (h/t Instapundit) that the New York Times has also figured it out that the administration’s green jobs initiative is an embarrassing mess.

As the paper of record reports,

Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter…

The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.

The belief that green jobs would drive a new era of American prosperity was — like the large majority of green policy chat — intellectually incoherent.  The goods that drive renewable energy industries, like so much else in this world, are far cheaper to construct in Asia. As the NYT piece describes, SolFocus, a widely-celebrated solar power company based, only has 90 employees at their San Jose headquarters. The solar panels are assembled in China.  Whether a product is an ordinary t-shirt or an admirable piece of world saving green technology like a wind turbine has zilch, zero, nada influence on the mind of the manufacturer trying to decide where it should be made.

There are perhaps some green jobs that would be exceptions; we could eliminate all forms of welfare and food stamps and offer the unemployed minimum wage jobs pedaling stationary bicycles hooked up to electric generators, solving our budget, poverty, obesity and energy independence problems all at once — but these are not the jobs either the President or his supporters have in mind.

It’s understandable and even forgivable that a political candidate would talk about green jobs on the hustings, especially when the Democratic Party is divided between job hungry blue collar workers and fastidious greens who break out in hives in the presence of coal.  What worries me isn’t that the President’s team advised him to make a few speeches on this subject; if a candidate can’t throw chum to the base now and then what’s the point of having elections?  What worries me is that they didn’t understand that making something this bogus a central plank of his actual governing plan on an issue as vital as jobs would have serious costs down the road.

Many liberals want green jobs to exist so badly that they don’t fully grasp how otherworldly and ineffectual this advocacy makes the President look to unemployed meat packers and truck drivers.

Let me put it this way.  A GOP candidate might feel a need to please creationist voters and say a few nice things about intelligent design.  That is politics as usual; it gins up the base and drive the opposition insane with fury and rage.  No harm, really, and no foul.

But if that same politician then proposed to base federal health policy on a hunt for the historical Garden of Eden so that we could replace Medicare by feeding old people on fruit from the Tree of Life, he would have gone from quackery-as-usual to raving incompetence.  True, the Tree of Life approach polls well in GOP focus groups: no cuts to Medicare benefits, massive tax savings, no death panels, Biblical values on display. Its only flaw is that there won’t be any magic free fruit that lets us live forever, and sooner or later people will notice that and be unhappy.

Green jobs are the Democratic equivalent of Tree of Life Medicare; they scratch every itch of every important segment of the base and if they actually existed they would be an excellent policy choice.  But since they are no more available to solve our jobs problem than the Tree of Life stands ready to make health care affordable, a green jobs policy boils down to a promise to feed the masses on tasty unicorn ribs from the Great Invisible Unicorn Herd that only the greens can see.

Here in particular Senator Obama as he then was would have benefited from a less gushing, more skeptical press.  If his first couple of speeches on this topic had been met with the incredulous and even mocking response they deserved, he probably would not have married himself so publicly to so vain and so empty a cause.

The cost is not simply the stimulus funds wasted on “investments” that don’t produce any jobs.  It’s not just the opportunity cost as more practical and reasonable job creation agendas were shoved aside to make room for the unicorn hunt.  It’s the credibility cost.  The President cannot successfully make the case for stimulus so many of his supporters would like him to make when the opposition can cite figures like $2 million a job, or point to jobs shipped overseas and companies shut down.  Worse, the failed unicorn barbecue undermines the President’s ability to convince the American people that he knows how to create jobs.  Thirty months of poor job numbers while the White House was off chasing unicorns and hyping green jobs as a national strategy means that the administration has forfeited public confidence on the jobs issue.  That is no small handicap in times like the present.

The green jobs fiasco is not the only failure sapping the President’s credibility as an economic policy maker.  The administration was clearly caught off guard by the weakness in the economy this year, and only belatedly discovered how poorly constructed its stimulus really was.  Not even administration spokespersons attempt to defend its housing policy when it comes to topics like mortgage relief.

A quick return to economic growth would put all these concerns in the background, but on the more probable assumption that the economy will still be struggling well into if not all the way through 2012, the White House needs to figure out how to change course — and how to communicate that change of course to a country that has come dangerously close to tuning out the President when he talks about jobs.”

Obama man Warren Buffet, “Tax me. I can take it”…….

Let’s just let rich liberals pay higher taxes — by Deroy Murdock [   
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/128042668.html
  ]
Some rich Americans will not rest until Washington boosts their taxes.

Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, Earth’s second-wealthiest inhabitant, complains that last year he paid $6,938,744 in federal income taxes, just 17.4 percent of his taxable income.

Twenty of his staffers earned much less than he did, but “their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent,” Buffet recently wrote (“Please Tax Me. I Can Take It,” August 16). Rather than work to cut his colleagues’ taxes, the $50 Billion Man wants Uncle Sam to hike his liability.

Other loaded luminaries lust for higher taxes:

• “George Soros says he agrees and congratulates Warren Buffett,” the financier’s spokesman told Reuters.

• “I really don’t mind paying more taxes,” Academy Award winner Matt Damon told video journalist Nicholas Ballasy on July 30. “Why don’t you just tax the really rich — guys like me — or raise it to 50 percent after $50 million?”

• A group called Patriotic Millionaires demanded last month that Washington further squeeze incomes above $1 million. “Please do the right thing for our country. Raise our taxes.”

This plutocratic taxophilia springs from a myth as enduring as theLoch Ness Monster.

Assistant House Democratic Leader James Clyburn of South Carolina echoed it faithfully when he told MSNBC on July 25 that “98 percent of the American people are carrying this [tax] load while the other 2 percent seem to be getting away Scot-free.”

The facts torpedo this unsinkable rubbish.

In 2008, the latest Internal Revenue Service figures confirm, the top 1 percent of tax filers earned 20 percent of adjusted gross income and paid 38 percent of income tax revenues. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of AGI and paid 58.7 percent of income taxes.

The top 10 percent earned 45.8 percent of AGI and paid 69.9 percent of income taxes. Meanwhile, as the Tax Foundation’s analysis revealed, the bottom 50 percent earned 12.75 percent of AGI and paid 2.7 percent of income tax revenues.

Regarding all federal taxes (capital gains, corporate, death, dividends, excise, income, payroll) an April 2009 Congressional Budget Office study found that for 2006 (the latest numbers), the top 1 percent paid 28.3 percent of all federal taxes.

The top 5 percent paid 44.7 percent, and the top 10 percent paid 55.4 percent of taxes. The bottom 40 percent paid just 4.9 percent of all federal taxes in 2006.

Rich liberals seem frightfully ignorant of these serious data that demonstrate how taxes soak the wealthy while the economy’s bottom half escape scot-free.

“It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice,” Buffet whimpered the other day. Why wait, Warren? Make that sacrifice today!

Like any American, Buffet can underwrite a federal fund called “Gifts to the United States.” As a Treasury website explains, “This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States.”

While these millionaires and billionaires bellow their desire for higher taxes, virtually none bothers to pay extra. In Fiscal Year 2010, this gift fund received a whopping $1,527,313.54 — enough to fuel the federal leviathan for literally 13 seconds.

Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., would make life even more convenient for these tax lovers.

“I have been the author of the ‘Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act,’” Campbell wrote in the Jan. 12 Washington Times.

“This simple bill would add a line near the bottom of Page 2 of all Form 1040 tax returns, which would let any taxpayer voluntarily and very easily pay more tax than the law requires.”

The Buffet Brigade could decide if a 50 percent or even 90 percent tax rate would ease their pain. Then they could send it in.

If rich liberals truly crave more taxes, Campbell’s measure would help them keep paying without forcing new or higher taxes on nonmasochistic Americans. Fresh revenues without coercion? At last, an idea that Democrats and Republicans should love.

* * *

Deroy Murdock is a columnist with Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University.

C.S. Lewis had Obama types, the Lefty sanctimonious in mind when evaluating tyrannies

Lisa Rich, California friend and conservative, sent me the following C. S. Lewis quote she picked up from “Classic Quotes:”

 

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

C. S. Lewis
English essayist & juvenile novelist (1898 – 1963)

Dennis Prager reminds us that whatever the Left touches  rusts and rots………usually in the name of ‘doing good’.

Reflections: 1991 Marxist Coup against the Russian Glasnost and Obama’s Coup against America

Michael Gorbachyev was the last  General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, perhaps the most complete  fraud over a 70 year period of human history ever to curse Planet Earth.

It is a fraud ignored by today’s college, university and Democrat Party Marxists including president Barack Hussein Obama.    They are all playing with Marxist matches.

I picked up General Secretary Gorbachev’s reflections of the Marxist counter coup  attempt  against the shaky new Russian democratic experiment in govenance August, 1991 at HotAir.    Gorbachev wrote:

“Twenty years ago this weekend, a group of Communist Party Politburo members and Soviet government officials attempted a coup d’état. They created an unconstitutional “committee on the state of emergency,” isolated the Soviet president and removed him from power.

The events of that August were the result of fierce political struggle during the final stretch in our efforts to reform the Soviet Union.

During the years of perestroika, major changes transformed our country. The people supported glasnost; free, contested elections; and the beginning of the transition to market economics. But the bureaucracies of the Communist Party and the government eventually saw in those changes threats to their position.

Changes on such a scale in a country that is so vast, multi-ethnic, militarized and totalitarian were not easy. Admittedly, we leaders of perestroika made our share of mistakes. We acted too late to reform the Communist Party, which became a brake on perestroika instead of being its engine; its bodies launched an attack on me as its general secretary that reached its peak at the party’s central committee meeting in April 1991. The attack became so vicious that I announced my resignation.

The announcement surprised the organizers of the campaign against me, who thought they could force me to approve emergency measures to resolve the severe problems that we faced in the process of reforms. After meeting for several hours, the Politburo asked me to withdraw my resignation and return to the session. I now think I made a mistake agreeing to their request. I should have gone all the way, since attempts to oust me, in one form or another, were ongoing.

In July, Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov, Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov and Vladimir Kryuchkov, chairman of the KGB, addressed the legislature, calling for emergency measures and for transferring some powers of the president to the prime minister. They did it in my absence: I was at a meeting at the president’s official residence of the commission preparing the new Union Treaty between the Soviet republics.

The next day I told the legislature that I was against “emergency solutions,” and its members supported me.

In an open political fight, the opponents of perestroika lost. People had become citizens; they supported change even when the going got tough. We had prepared an anti-crisis economic program, which all the republics, including the Baltic states, were ready to implement. The draft Union Treaty was to be signed on Aug. 20. A special congress of the party was scheduled to convene in the fall, and it was likely to divide the party between reformers and conservatives.

We planned, after the Union Treaty was signed, to conduct elections, and we were planning major changes in the Soviet Union’s leadership. I discussed this with Russian President Boris Yeltsin and President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan right before leaving for a brief vacation in the Crimea in early August.

I was burned out from months of tough battles, but I underestimated the resistance of reactionary forces. I should have postponed my vacation.

 Aug. 18, I spoke by phone with my assistants and with Yeltsin to finalize details of the treaty ceremony. I was planning to fly to Moscow on Aug. 19 to attend the signing, but an uninvited group showed up at my residence. Minutes before the delegation of the coup plotters arrived, all my phones — the city line, official telephones and the strategic communications line — went dead. I was totally isolated. It became clear that my opponents in the Politburo and the government had chosen the path of a coup d’état.

I told my family that the situation posed grave dangers to our country and ourselves and that I did not know how things might end. I said that I would not agree to any collusion with those people. My wife, Raisa, and our family said that they would stand by me come what may.

The delegation demanded that I temporarily cede my powers to Vice President Gennady Yanayev or resign. I categorically refused and demanded a convening of the Congress of People’s Deputies or a session of the Supreme Soviet.

 

Some have alleged that I was trying to wait it out, hoping to win regardless of how things went; these allegations are false and slanderous.

My reply to the coup plotters dealt the first blow to their plans. Equally important was the fact that they were unable to intimidate the people. Our society had learned to resist, to protest and make demands. President Yeltsin took a strong stand, condemning the putsch and calling the actions of the plotters a coup d’état. I appreciated and praised Yeltsin’s actions during those days.

Participants in the conspiracy said, and some still say, that they wanted to save our union. But, as I said from the start, they ended up destroying the country. Although the coup collapsed three days later, it damaged the principle of a common state, speeding the republics’ “run on the Union” — a process that Russia’s leaders had initiated long before the putsch. One after another, the republics began declaring independence.

The situation we faced was indeed grave. But we were able to convene the Congress of People’s Deputies, which approved preparation of another draft of the Union Treaty, based on the concept of a confederative state. We ran into all kinds of problems, but we soon had a new draft and began presenting it to the republics.

Once again, the prospect existed that we could work together to end the crisis. Had it not been for the collusion of the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, meeting at Belovezhskaya Pushcha, the new treaty could have been signed before the end of 1991. The union, which would have been known as the Union of Sovereign States, would have been saved — in a different form, and with much greater rights to the republics.

Had that happened, I am convinced that economic reforms would then have been less painful, the collapse of industrial production would have been avoided and the dangerous decline in Russians’ living standards would not have occurred.

Over the past 20 years, Russia has gone through many hardships. The price of freedom turned out to be much higher, and the road to it much more difficult, than what we assumed when we embarked on that path. Even now, we are only halfway to stable democracy. But we have no other course.

The coming years must become a period of faster movement forward. To make it happen, we must unite all those in our society who support further political, economic, social and cultural change in Russia.

I believe it is possible. The opportunity is at hand, and we must not miss it.

The writer, the former president of the Soviet Union, heads the International Foundation for Socio-Economic and Political Studies, a Moscow-based think tank.”

(Correction to the above article printed  at HotAir:   Mr. Gorbachev was never president of the Soviet Union.  There was no such office during the  seven decades of tyrannical rule in the good old USSR.   He was General Secretary of the Communist Party  from 1985-1991……..That was the center of power in the old Soviet Marxist dictatorship.) 

Comment:   I visited the good old Red Empire in the summer of 1966 when it still was an authoritarian Marxist concoction, and again in October of 1990 when this concoction was tumbling to the ground from which it should never have risen.   But, Marxists will be Marxists in their determination to micromanage citizen life whether in the USSR or the USA.  

In the Soviet Union Marxists grabbed their power through mass bloodshed by wiping out millions of people ‘in the way’ of creating the Paradise of the Equal,  the goal of your and my  present American president and his entourage of leftists in Washington DC and throughout the American communications, educational,  and entertainment establishments.

All Marxists rely on deceit and stealth to obtain their single objective…..to gain unchallenged power to run a society.   The Obama variety is no exception.

As Dennis Prager claims, there is nothing Marxists touch that isn’t ruined, sooner or later, whether the Marxism is born by blood or Obama sweet talk to the public to war against the alleged “rich”.

Class warfare and atheism are the two legs upon which Marxism is built with the legs of totalitarianism’s police and education control eventually inevitably added to secure and preserve Marxist power.   Marxism is the religion of anti-religion.   Its leaders replace God.

The most moving two-week experience in my life was the two weeks I spent in Kiev while in the USSR in 1990.   That country was already swept up in a convulsion of fresh air.  I was not prepared for it but allowed myself to enjoy every minute of it.  

I had heard there had been a ‘student’ strike, a tent out established around near the base of the Lenin memorial statue in central Kiev.   Countless tanks were on the ready less than a mile from the tent out.    Crowds of people, day and night, ranging from a few thousand to countless thousands surrounded the tent people, all young in late  teens and early twenties settling down for the duration in challenge to Moscow Marxist authority. 

Every night the thousands bore testimony to the losses of their loved ones during this horrid Marxist regime…..fathers, brothers, husbands, entire families disappeared in the dark of night never to be seen again.   Pictures after pictures of the disappeared were exhibited by the survivors each engulfed in tears as they  listed the names with each picture of the slaughtered.  

I could understand and converse freely with those who told  their stories in Russian.

It was a far cry from the police state I visited in  1966 and today’s Putin regime.  

If you think this writer has hate in his bones for even the Obamalight Marxism our president and his class hating and bating fellow Marxists of today’s Democrat Party are foisting on free America……you are right!

Obamarule is a Marxist rule based on lies and hate.  Listen to him carefully and measure what he does.    Half of America, the Obama half,  is so entitiled it pays no federal income tax at all  yet  joins Obama’s hate messages to gouge from those who earn enough to be taxed.     Marxists pay the entitled very well, in favors or other benefits.

I do not yet hate in my mind, after all I am a Dennis Prager fan, and even before I met Dennis, I was wary of the post Vietnam War Marxists who were nesting throughout America’s educational systems years before Obama bought his Chicago house from a crook…..before Obama ever showed up in Springfield to vote ‘here’ as Senator……before Obama worked for the black panthers and studied community organizing, Marxist Saul Alinsky style and before Obama ever lied about his father figure and preacher Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright’s  sermons at his  hate America church in Chicago  Obama attended for 22 years.

Obama may still  be a babe in the Marxist world, but our United States of American should never toy with suicide, babe or no.

 

 

 

An American Thinker blogger bets Perry will Bury Barry in 2012…..and Tells Why

Conservative blogger, Bruce Walker at the American Thinker is betting on Barry being buried by Perry in 2012.   For the sake of America, I hope he is right.

“PERRY WILL WIN BIG”……by Bruce Walker at the American Thinker

You read it here first: Rick Perry will amble to the Republican nomination and will win the presidential election easily.  In June I wrote an article — “Is Perry the One?” — suggesting that Rick Perry may be the best nominee for Republicans.  His personal life is spotless.  His policies reflect his political beliefs and have worked the way conservatives intend.  

Talking like a tough Texan is the worst thing anyone can say about him, but that attack will fail.  The unpopularity of George W. Bush in his last two years created a false notion among leftist elites that America does not like cowboys.  Wrong: we love leaders who look confident and act decisively; we love our frontiersman and cowboys.  We like straight talk and straight shooting.  Most Americans also sense that we desperately need a tough hombre in the White House in 2013.

We also want heart.  Perry’s long and happy marriage shows that heart.  His hard work on the family cotton farm shows that too.  Perry’s honorable and significant service in the military shows the courage of a true patriot.  His love of America’s most noble private organization, the Boy Scouts, shows that heart too.  Perry’s unabashed faith in God will hurt him only in Manhattan or in San Francisco. 

In stark contrast is our current president.  Has Obama ever really worked a day in his life?  Did he walk out of church when Reverend Wright damned America, as Perry would have done?  Can anyone even picture Obama as a Boy Scout?  Does anyone believe that Obama, who did not give an Easter measure and who in private parties sneers at Americans clinging to their faith, believes only in anti-Americanism? 

Perry, even at what more nuanced conservatives may consider his rough edges, stands in dramatic contrast to Obama.  In a nation which, according to Gallup, is more conservative than at any time in twenty years and in which every state has more conservatives than liberals, the Republican Party needs a conservative — not a “compassionate” conservative — to run straight at Obama. 

Why is Washington D.C. more economically upbeat than any other part of our nation?  Our nation’s capital is doing so well because politicians have made the federal government our biggest growth industry.  The attacks on Perry by flacks like  David Axelrod — Texas’ economic growth is because oil — will backfire on the left: yes, extracting oil, coal, and natural gas can create millions of high-paying jobs, make the dollar stronger, and increase tax revenues without raising tax rates.  Yet that is what clueless leftists will accuse him of trying to do. 

Perry is not Reagan but he is more like Reagan than any Republican in the last fifty years.  He is physically strong.  He honed his speaking skills as a young salesman, and those who worry about him talking like Bush should listen: he sounds more like Reagan.

Perry, like Reagan, governed the second-largest state in the Union for multiple terms.  He also has had the chance to connect with other Republican governors, arguably the strongest force in the party.  Several governors have come close to endorsing Perry already and more will openly support him.  His message of genuine federalism is vital to these governors.  Strong support from conservative Republican governors will make winning the nomination much easier.

Next year anyone touched with the deficit deal in Washington will be damaged political goods.  Republican political leaders who have created prosperity at the state level will look much better.  Rick Perry in 2012 will not just be able to run against Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, whose leaders have appalling bad approval ratings, but Perry will be able to run against the federal government itself.  He will run as the longest-serving governor in America running a state (as large as a nation) which works. 

Polls already show Perry leading the Republican field, ahead of a much better-known Romney who has been campaigning for years.  Gallup shows a very high intensity level for Perry as well.  As other conservatives drop out, their support will inevitably gravitate to Perry.  A united Republican Party in 2012, led by a sitting governor, will sweep to victory.  An America given the choice between an unapologetic conservative and a clear liberal will give that conservative a landslide. 

In 1979, enclaves of pundits were feverishly analyzing the candidates.  It was very clear what would happen: the popular conservative big-state governor would win the nomination fast and then crush the bitter but smiling one-term leftist in the White House.  That is exactly will happen next November 2012. 

We also want heart.  Perry’s long and happy marriage shows that heart.  His hard work on the family cotton farm shows that too.  Perry’s honorable and significant service in the military shows the courage of a true patriot.  His love of America’s most noble private organization, the Boy Scouts, shows that heart too.  Perry’s unabashed faith in God will hurt him only in Manhattan or in San Francisco. 

In stark contrast is our current president.  Has Obama ever really worked a day in his life?  Did he walk out of church when Reverend Wright damned America, as Perry would have done?  Can anyone even picture Obama as a Boy Scout?  Does anyone believe that Obama, who did not give an Easter measure and who in private parties sneers at Americans clinging to their faith, believes only in anti-Americanism? 

Perry, even at what more nuanced conservatives may consider his rough edges, stands in dramatic contrast to Obama.  In a nation which, according to Gallup, is more conservative than at any time in twenty years and in which every state has more conservatives than liberals, the Republican Party needs a conservative — not a “compassionate” conservative — to run straight at Obama. 

Why is Washington D.C. more economically upbeat than any other part of our nation?  Our nation’s capital is doing so well because politicians have made the federal government our biggest growth industry.  The attacks on Perry by flacks like  David Axelrod — Texas’ economic growth is because oil — will backfire on the left: yes, extracting oil, coal, and natural gas can create millions of high-paying jobs, make the dollar stronger, and increase tax revenues without raising tax rates.  Yet that is what clueless leftists will accuse him of trying to do. 

Perry is not Reagan but he is more like Reagan than any Republican in the last fifty years.  He is physically strong.  He honed his speaking skills as a young salesman, and those who worry about him talking like Bush should listen: he sounds more like Reagan.

Perry, like Reagan, governed the second-largest state in the Union for multiple terms.  He also has had the chance to connect with other Republican governors, arguably the strongest force in the party.  Several governors have come close to endorsing Perry already and more will openly support him.  His message of genuine federalism is vital to these governors.  Strong support from conservative Republican governors will make winning the nomination much easier.

Next year anyone touched with the deficit deal in Washington will be damaged political goods.  Republican political leaders who have created prosperity at the state level will look much better.  Rick Perry in 2012 will not just be able to run against Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, whose leaders have appalling bad approval ratings, but Perry will be able to run against the federal government itself.  He will run as the longest-serving governor in America running a state (as large as a nation) which works. 

Polls already show Perry leading the Republican field, ahead of a much better-known Romney who has been campaigning for years.  Gallup shows a very high intensity level for Perry as well.  As other conservatives drop out, their support will inevitably gravitate to Perry.  A united Republican Party in 2012, led by a sitting governor, will sweep to victory.  An America given the choice between an unapologetic conservative and a clear liberal will give that conservative a landslide. 

In 1979, enclaves of pundits were feverishly analyzing the candidates.  It was very clear what would happen: the popular conservative big-state governor would win the nomination fast and then crush the bitter but smiling one-term leftist in the White House.  That is exactly will happen next November 2012.