My Meeting with Herman Cain

I had the opportunity today to attend a Herman Cain rally, and also had the privilege of meeting Mr. Cain personally.  The energy surrounding the meeting place was definitely contagious!  There were so many people there in whom it was clear to see their passion for defeating President Obama in 2012.  My only slight complaint about the rally was having to stand in the sun waiting for his arrival!  Once he did arrive, though, everyone in the crowd errupted.  He gave a roughly twenty minute speech, in which he addressed the many issues facing our nation today.  He also gave a clear description on his feelings toward Israel, and it was one that I completely agree with:  "If you mess with Israel, you're messing with the United States of America." 

Mr. Cain said in a later interview that he felt this current administration might not react if Israel were to be attacked by an opposing country.  He said that President Obama is the first president since Harry S. Truman to, as Mr. Cain believes, "not support Israel."  Most of what Mr. Cain said was nothing out of the ordinary; I didn't hear anything I haven't heard before.  However, he definitely does know how to energize a crowd.  There were a couple hecklers there who were seeking to trip Mr. Cain up, but they did not succeed; they were shut down by the crowd almost immediately, even though it appeared that the camera-man for a news agency that was there sounded like he was encouraging him. 

I had the opportunity to also meet many of Mr. Cain's top staffers and loved talking with them; all of them are very, very nice people.  My impression of Mr. Cain is that he is a very confident and nice man.  He went around to the crowd and signed some of the things he was asked to (others, he refused to, stating that they "didn't work too well" with the sharpies).  While he is solid on most of his points, he is not all of them, but no candidate will be.  Anything can change in this race, though; that much has been proven.  Mr. Cain was very strong on his points today and I greatly enjoyed his speech!  One of my favorite parts was hearing the people chant "9-9-9" during his speech-- not necessarily because I agree with it completely, but because after hearing that chant on television so many times, it was really neat to hear it in person!

One year away

One year from today marks Election Day, 2012.  Many people are looking forward to that day, for different reasons.  Some are just against President Obama and are anxious to cast their vote against him.  Others have a real excitement for one of the GOP candidates and are anxious to cast a vote for them.  Others, well, they are just anxious to cast a vote for another Obama term.  I believe, though, regardless of whether I agree with President Obama's policies, we need someone who is actually qualified to run this country in the White House in 2013.

President Obama had been a member of the United States Senate for less than one year before he took office as President of the United States.  Yes, he had been involved in his state legislature for a few years before that, but he virtually had no executive experience before being elected President.  In 2008, people were anxious to make history with that vote, and they did.  It just didn't happen in the ways they were expecting.  President Obama was the first President in a long time to actually keep his campaign promise:  To fundamentally transform America.  He has done so largely through the legalization of abortion.  This was not legal when this country was founded; rather, it was a foreign concept that people didn't even think about.  In 2008 our economic crisis was, really, just beginning.  We did not need a fundamental transformation.  We needed a strong leader with a proven record of getting things done.  We needed someone who knew how to lead and take a stand for what they believed was right.  Instead, we were given someone with almost no experience who, in attempting to solve our nation's problems, has only made them worse.  Some of these new issues were directly his fault, and some were not.  Either way, he will ultimately be blamed for all of them because he was the President.

Many people believe that President Obama will be defeated in a landslide in 2012.  I do not believe this.  I think that if the GOP crowd does not get behind one candidate soon, President Obama will have a greater chance to win.  We do need to be picky about our nominee, not only because they will be the one we believe in to get us out of this hole, but we need someone who can definitely come out strong against President Obama.  We need someone with a proven record who can put his (or hers) up next to President Obama's and clearly show the American people the difference between a proven leader and an inexperienced leader.  Yes, having someone who is totally outside the Washington elite would be nice; but if we choose someone with absolutely no executive experience, I believe we might as well be handing the victory to President Obama.  While we don't want another typical politician in power, we do need someone who knows what they are doing, here at home and around the world.  Even if we defeat President Obama in 2012, if we elect someone with less experience than he had, we won't be doing ourselves a huge favor.  Even someone with little experience will not be able to fully bring America back from the edge it is on. 

2012 is critical.  Literally, every vote will count.  By someone saying, "I don't like the nominee, so I won't vote", they are giving their vote to President Obama.  We need to come together as a nation and take a stand for the next generation.  If we do not, we will become a socialist nation just like every other one in the world.  By sitting on the sidelines, we allow distant politicians in Washington to determine our futures for us.  By standing up and getting into the middle of the fight, we ensure that nothing can happen without "We the People"'s approval.  Those in Washington need a wake-up call to once again be reminded why we elected them.  November 6th, 2012, will be our next, and possibly last, chance to do so.

Sarah Palin Announcement

Sarah Palin announced through a statement, read by Mark Levin, this week that she will not be seeking the GOP nomination in 2012.  The reasons, she said, were family related, and she also believed that the title of president would somewhat "limit" her, and that she would somehow be prevented from being a "maverick."  This was a huge disappointment for many, many people, as huge numbers of them have been avid followers and fans of hers since she gave her RNC speech in 2008.  Governor Palin does have a patriot's heart, and it is obvious that she loves her country dearly.  I do believe she will one day be in a high office.  Perhaps not President, but a Cabinet position would not be at all surprising.

As much as I believe she would have made the race a bit more exciting, I think there are pros and cons as to her decision.  Cons, of course, are what I said above -- a true patriot who cares about fixing America's problems.  Pros could be, the fact that if she had announced her candidacy, nearly every media source would have hounded in directly on her.  It would have taken a huge amount of coverage from the rest of the candidates.  It also may have taken the spotlight from some of the very important issues being discussed within the race right now, since the media has shown repeatedly that they find Gov. Palin an open target (wrongly-- everyone should be vetted, but hers was just a bit much).

Sarah Palin fans everywhere are now deciding what to do next.  Many of them may wait to see if Gov. Palin endorses a current candidate.  If she does that, there is a very good chance that many of her supporters would turn to that candidate.  Some of them will turn toward other evangelical, grassroots Conservatives in the race, such as Governor Rick Perry or businessman Herman Cain.  Either way, those votes will now be divided up and could help choose the actual nominee.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie also announced that he is not running-- again.  He has said it repeatedly for the past year, but decided a few weeks ago to "reconsider" a run after being implored by so many.  Since he has kept the same decision for so long, I don't think anyone was really expecting him to change his mind in a week.  I personally do not see Gov. Christie the way most people do, in that they believe he would be the perfect candidate to come in and shake things up.  I believe that if he really did run for president, as he will probably do in the future, issues will come up regarding his past, just as they have for every other candidate.  No candidate will be perfect-- regarding their past, or in other areas such as speaking.  The longer someone has been in a high leadership position, such as governor, the more mistakes they will have in their resume.

Letter from Representative Wayne Christian endorsing Rick Perry

Representative Wayne Christian was named the most Conservative State Representative in Texas by the 2011 State Legislator Rankings released by the Texas Eagle Forum, receiving a score of 100%.  Below is a letter from him in which he endorses Governor Rick Perry for President and also clears up a bit of the rumor that has been started about the Trans-Texas Corridor that was once proposed.  He praises Governor Perry's leadership skills and says that he believes Governor Perry is the best Conservative fit for the job and the one who can beat President Obama in 2012.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I believe Governor Rick Perry would be dynamite (which means "great" in Texas) as President of the United States. Having served approaching two decades in the Texas House, I have worked with Rick Perry during his service as Agriculture Commissioner, Lt. Governor and Governor of the State of Texas, and have come to appreciate his style of leadership, responsiveness to constituents, and character.

He has consistently presented an open door to this representative from rural East Texas. More than once, he has been willing to listen to my ideas, and then as a result of his endorsement and personal involvement, rules were changed, laws were instituted and funding was made available that benefited my constituents and all of Texas. Many times he opposed more powerful individuals and groups who could provide him much more financial support and power than could the "common folk." These common folk were the good people of Texas who depended only on his integrity to simply do the right thing.

Governor Perry is in no way perfect. He has made errors. As we say in Texas, the only person who was perfect was crucified a couple of thousand years ago. With that being said, after a quarter century in politics, Rick Perry's record shines better than most. Of course he was once a Democrat and Republicans may criticize him for that. However, the Governor is not the only Texan, who after entering into public service, experienced the Democratic Party's dramatic shift away from principles consistent with rural, conservative values, and chose to do something about it--He became a Republican.

I was the first Republican from East Texas to enter the Texas House and remained the Republican with the most Democratic district in the Texas Legislature for three sessions. Many times folks in Republican circles are quite taken aback when I do not raise my hand when asked, "Who has always voted in a Republican primary?" Fact is, as recently as a couple of decades ago, we had no Republican primary in my part of rural Texas. Thus, Governor Perry, who entered state politics farther back than me, was courageous enough to take a stand early on and join other statesmen like Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm in acknowledging that the Democratic Party had left their conservative beliefs behind.

Much has been criticized of Governor Perry's initial support for the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC). As President of the Conservative Coalition of the Texas Legislature, I was deeply involved in that entire process. My rural district was directly in the path of the TTC and the project was largely viewed by my constituents as an abuse of the governmental power of eminent domain.

Truth is, the TTC started as a expansion on the I-35 corridor. The plan was added to legislation by the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) as a new "branch" of highway that ran from south Texas to the north right through my district. TXDOT presented facts that upon the completion of the Panama Canal expansion many of the trading freighters, which currently only serve the West Coast, would be able to bring their cargo to Texas ports. It was anticipated that this would place a tremendous burden on the current highway system as it heads north. However, the flawed TXDOT presentation of the plan and threats to private land ownership were not handled well. Citizens throughout Texas were insulted by the methods of potential property seizure, foreign control of Texas properties and other abuses. It was wrong, and when presented with the will of Texas citizens, Governor Perry put a stop to it.

While driving my daughter back to begin a new semester at Baylor University, I received a call from the Governor's office requesting that I invite a group of my fellow Texas Conservative Coalition legislators to his office to meet with him and TXDOT leadership. The following week several of us met with Governor Perry and the TXDOT Commissioner and Executive Director to share the frustration and opposition of our constituents across the state to the TTC. After a lengthy meeting, Governor Perry did something that has made me respect him as I have no other leader which I have observed or served alongside. He sat back in his chair, gave our arguments thought and said, "Tell your constituents you talked to the Governor, and the Trans-Texas Corridor is no more." To this day, the handful of legislators in attendance at that meeting have respected Rick Perry--a man who was confident, honest, and exhibited absolute integrity to his citizens. He often does not receive the proper recognition and credit he deserves for his decisive response to the will of Texas citizens against the TTC. When presented with their objections and opposition, he brought a halt to the ill-conceived TTC. This is in stark contrast to our current President who sees the destructive results of his policies and has no intention of admitting fault or changing course, but instead blames everyone else for his errors in judgment.

From his action to end the TTC to his signature on legislation to protect the rights of coastal property owners struggling to recover and rebuild in the aftermath of a hurricane, Rick Perry has responded to Texan landowners' concerns about private property rights. I was one of those 125 landowners who faced a loss of property to be determined by a governmental agency's assessment of where grass grew before and after a hurricane. I applauded Governor Perry as he stood with the Texas House and Senate (and eventually the Texas Supreme Court) against some very vocal opposition to sign into law Rep. Hamilton's bill preventing a potential land grab by the state. In this past session, Governor Perry declared eminent domain reform legislation an emergency item and saw it all the way through the legislative process until he signed it into law, strengthening the rights and protections of private property owners across Texas.

If ever there was a day we needed a leader in this country who does not place his pride and ego ahead of what is proven to be the will of the people and in their best interest...this is the day. A real leader who puts what is best for his citizens ahead of personal pride and opinions is what America needs.

Governor Perry stood against the temptation to use two of the worst hurricanes in Texas history to increase taxes and unnecessarily increase the burden on Texas families and businesses. He led by proposing to utilize the Obama stimulus funding for one time expenditures only (ie. to address hurricane damages), and avoid the creation or expansion of programs that future Texans would have to fund. Handing out the bacon would have been the response of many politicians who were given the opportunity to appropriate billions of federal dollars, but Rick Perry did not choose that course, and even refused federal money that had strings attached for future state spending obligations. He proved to be a leader who thought first of the impact to taxpayers in the future above the opportunity to start more government programs.

The single accomplishment that earns more of my respect for Rick Perry than any other is that he has vetoed more bills than any other Texas governor (and not because of how long he has served). As a legislator, I realize how hard and expensive it is to get a bill passed. From one committee to another to the House floor to Senate committees, to Senate floor and back to the House again--passage of any piece of legislation is a long, costly road with a great investment of money, time, expertise, and reputation. Governor Perry has vetoed a particular bill of mine that I still believe was extremely important, and to this day, I respectfully disagree with him. Yet, his individual courage and strength to stand alone on principle against the majority of the Legislature and powerful, rich special interest groups who can turn political contributions on and off proves the character of this man and that is why I want him in the White House.

I can give example after example of times when Governor Rick Perry stood on the side of "the little guy" over government expansion. There are many paths to more financial support and more power that are achieved with much less effort than standing with the common man over the rich and powerful. As Representative of a poor, rural district I can tell you Governor Perry has stood for us and what was best for Texans many times.

As I mentioned at the start of my comments, Perry isn't perfect, but unlike many politicians, he is brave enough to stand firm when he believes he is right, and courageous enough to admit when he is wrong. There can be no doubt that Texas under Governor Perry's leadership has done something right over the past decade, as we are undoubtedly the leader in jobs and business opportunities in the Free World. Texas has seen an increase of 1 million new jobs during Rick Perry's tenure as governor, while the rest of the nation has seen a loss of 2.5 million jobs, and over 70% of our job creation is in the vibrant and growing private sector of Texas. That stewardship is sorely needed in D.C.

The quote from President Harry Truman, "the buck stops here," is true of any great leader. Governor Perry has proven that when the buck stops at whatever desk he is sitting, there's a heap more good than bad. Our nation would be well-served to have a leader like Rick Perry as our President, a man who has proven his ability to successfully foster a job-creating economy while reining in government growth, as well as someone who has learned from past errors and demonstrated the genuine desire to be responsive to the people he represents.

Thank you for your time,
Wayne
-----------------------------------------------------------


By David Bellow, http://texasgopvote.com/2012-presidential-election/most-conservative-state-representative-texas-endorses-rick-perry-president-expla-003248.

ObamaCare

March 23rd, 2010, was the day that ObamaCare was signed into law.  Although it would cost outrageous amounts of money, President Obama assured the American people that this would give every American citizen the right to healthcare insurance.  It was passed by a Democratic House and Senate.  Now, a year and a half later, this bill has done more harm than good.

The first thing that should be clear is that if our economy wasn't so low, and if the unemployment rate was lower, most people would have the money to pay for their own healthcare.  It should not be the government's job to produce that for them.  I think that instead of trying to give everyone insurance right away, President Obama and his advisors should have used that nearly $1 trillion to boost job-creation.  Apparently, President Obama hasn't learned how to do that yet. 

That money could have been of better use elsewhere.  With so many Americans out of work, we needed that to be spent creating jobs.  It was not.  Now let's look at the downside to ObamaCare. 

This law has already cost more than $1 trillion, and that number is sure to go up.  $5 billion of that is being spent to "protect" the "temporary high-risk pools"-- people with pre-existing conditions that cannot afford health insurance-- until the actual healthcare benefit kick in, in 2014.  By the way, not all of this money will even be spent for this, which I'll discuss later.  While everyone should be covered to a certain extent, healthcare is not one of the "inalienable rights" we as American citizens are given.  If someone is in the hospital and cannot afford the care that will save their life, they should not be deprived of it.  People do not need the government to pay for their health insurance.  Because, it is not really the government who is paying for it.  It will be the tax-paying, hard-working Americans who are doing all they can to continue to provide for their families in this tough time.  Their taxes will be raised in order to pay for healthcare for those who, in some cases, may just be too lazy to actually go and find a job.

One thing ObamaCare was supposed to do was to protect the elderly's health benefits.  Nearly $3 billion was spent on ObamaCare advertising in September and October of 2010 to "educate the public" on ObamaCare.  These ads included actor Andy Griffith.  In them, he tells his fellow senior citizens, "like always, we'll have our guaranteed [Medicare] benefits."  In reality, ObamaCare is going to result in benefit cuts for one group of Medicare beneficiaries: those who are in Medicare Advantage plans. 

Another thing President Obama promised about his healthcare law was that none of the money given to it would fund abortions.  This was also a lie.  The bill that was given to the House to pass along included restrictions on the money funding abortion through the Stupak-Pitts Amendment (designed to prevent federal abortion funding).  The one that got passed from them to the Senate did not include restrictions.  Here is why: Instead of choosing to place tremendous pressure on Senate Democrats to include this Amendment in their bill, the Obama Administration instead chose to place pressure on the House Democrats to remove it from their bill.  They wanted no restrictions whatsoever.  Nearly all House Democrats did as they were told, even the small amount of pro-life members among them.  This was never told to the public before the signing of ObamaCare.

All of that means, ObamaCare will be funding abortions, whether they say so or not.  Some of this money will go to "Community Health Centers", many of which will be run by Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood is an organization that performs millions of abortions. 
Remember that $5 billion that will go to protecting those with pre-existing conditions?  Not all of that money is actually going toward that.  This money is going directly to the states and be administered by them.  This gives them the right to do whatever they choose with the money.  Without abortion restrictions, they will be free to use the money for abortions if they feel like it. 

President Obama said that this would be a job-creator.  How it could possibly be one, I don't know.  It has not created jobs.  It has even affected how private corporations do their business.  Many businesses do not want ObamaCare as their healthcare provider for employees.  Some of them have already filed for the right to keep their current insurance, and have been granted it.  The Virginia Attorney General has ruled that ObamaCare is unconstitutional.  Why is it still accepted as okay?

ObamaCare is a huge mistake.  It needs to be repealed immediately.  It has already cost us $1 trillion, and all of its benefits are not even in place yet!  Imagine what the costs will be in 2014 when everything is set.  The government does not need to provide healthcare for everyone.  That is not their responsibility.  It should be left up to the states.  The Tenth Amendment is there for a reason.  The states should be able to provide their citizens with health insurance if they need it.

The media and the 2012 election

The 2012 Presidential election is going to be a huge turning point for our country.  We are in an economic recession.  Nearly 10% of the population is out of work.  Many, many new programs have been initiated and old ones discarded in hopes of changing things.  Nothing so far has worked; if anything, it has been made worse.

The thing that will determine our new direction or lack of one after that election is going to be the person who is elected– whether that person is our current president or the GOP candidate.  All of the current GOP candidates are claiming to have their own plans to restore and rebuild America.  They say that they know exactly what we need to do in order to return to our full potential.  In the end, only one of them can win the Republican Party’s nomination. That person will square off with President Obama in the general election.
I’m sure you already knew all that.  Here is something you might not know: There are people out there right now who want to brainwash your thinking concerning this election.  Brainwash you into voting for who they think should be our president in 2012.  These people are the media.  Not all of the media wants to do this; but a good number of them do.  Many news stations today are very biased to one political party over the other.  Some of them openly admit it, but more of them do not.  They present their opinions to you as fact.  Some examples of this biased attitude are CNN and MSNBC.  Both of these stations are known as liberal stations.  They try to say their positive opinions toward the Democratic candidate for president, which in this case will be President Obama, are the only true facts and therefore you should believe them.  FOX News is a more Conservative-leaning station.  In some cases I notice both of them trying to define the line between opinion and fact.  The daytime shows are, for the most part, straight facts with an opinion only thrown in here and there.  The nighttime shows are more opinion-based.

The biased attitude is not always a bad thing.  People are entitled to their own opinions, even news anchors.  The unacceptable thing is that they try to tell you that their opinions are the only things that are true.  People should be able to go to the media for accurate news that they can use to form their own opinions.  They should not be so influenced by biased opinions passed off as fact that they have no choice but to agree with it.  This goes right along with my previous post on freedom of the press.

News shows are not the only way that the media can try to shape peoples’ opinions.  In fact, they do not even have to be actual “media” to influence people.  Normal people such as bloggers or online journalists can have just as much impact, especially if they operate a frequently visited website.  There are many blogs out there that are giving positive coverage to some candidates and are giving too much negative coverage to others.  People are allowed to campaign for their favorite candidate, but if they want to call themselves a real “news” website and not mostly an opinion website, they need to remain unbiased in their writings.  It is simply not right to try to turn peoples’ minds against one candidate just because the candidate they support is threatened by that person.  While we should try to support who we feel is most qualified for the job of President, we should also be careful not to give lies as truth about these people just because they may take some of your candidate’s support.

The person we elect as President in 2012 should be the person who is best qualified for the job.  It should not be the person who can give the best speeches, or has the best fundraising abilities.  It may not even be the most well-liked person in the race.  It needs to be the person with the best track-record who will know how to lead America back to its full potential.  The media needs to give the American people the chance to figure their opinion on that out for themselves.  The American people will also need to have the common sense to be able to discern what is truth and what is a lie.