Quotes of the day

posted at 10:55 pm on September 1, 2011 by Allahpundit

“Earlier I reported on a super PAC ad run on behalf of the Bachmann presidential effort. The Perry team is not taking this sitting down. It has put out a statement that reads in part:

“FALSE CLAIM: ‘Rick Perry doubled spending in a decade.’

“TRUTH: State spending – the non-federal dollars state lawmakers can control – is six percent lower under Gov. Perry than it was under the two-year budget in effect when he took office, adjusting for population growth and inflation. In unadjusted amounts, state spending is $80.5 billion for the 2012-13 biennium compared to $55.7 billion for the 2000-01 biennium. Texas’ population growth plus inflation since 2001 is 54 percent. The current Texas budget funds the state’s vital needs by operating within available revenues and providing tax cuts for small businesses. Gov. Perry is the only Texas governor since World War II to cut state (general revenue) spending.”

***

“At a gathering of uncommitted social and evangelical conservatives at the Hill Country spread of mega-donor James Leininger, Perry spent several hours patiently answering queries on a range of issues, from his stand on immigration reform to the depth of his commitment to oppose abortion, people who were in attendance told The Texas Tribune…

“‘I can assure you that there is nothing in my life that will embarrass you if you decide to support me for president,’ Perry said, according to one of the participants, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

“Perry was asked to give his detailed views and thoughts on a variety of personal questions and hot-button social issues, including his recent back surgery, immigration, gay marriage, hate crimes, the extent of his anti-abortion views and the controversy over his 2007 executive order mandating that girls get vaccinated against the human papillomavirus, the most common sexually transmitted disease and the leading cause of cervical cancer (the Legislature overturned the order).

“Perry repeated the answer that he first gave to questions about the HPV flap after he announced for president on Aug. 13: He erred by trying to make the vaccine mandatory.”

***

“Many Republican Insiders acknowledged Perry’s appeal to conservatives but questioned his ability to win over independent voters. ‘Perry can fire up the base, but this election will be won in the middle, not on the fringes,’ said one. Said another, ‘Having trouble ID-ing a single independent who’d vote for Perry.’

“Democratic Insiders echoed that assessment by an even larger majority. ‘This election is sitting on a platter for Republicans if they do it right,’ said one. ‘Romney is probably good enough. Perry will get drilled by independent voters and women.’ Another quipped, ‘Rick Perry is all base and no swing.’…

“Insiders in both parties raised questions about Perry’s durability under the intense scrutiny of a presidential campaign. ‘As a conservative Republican, I love Rick Perry,’ said one Republican Insider, who added ‘but as a campaign strategist, I know the degree to which a few self-reinforcing oppo-hits can devastate a candidate.’ A Democratic Insider said plainly, ‘Perry’s mouth will do him in.’…

“One Democratic Insider [warned] against underestimating Perry. ‘It’s 1980 again. Some think Perry is too extreme, but it is his ability to appear genuine and confident that voters will remember.’”

***

“Perhaps this ideological moment is just different, in the same way the 1930s or the 1980s were different. Another dip into recession — a continuing, sputtering failure of the American job-creation machine — might do more than call three years of Obama policies into question. It might call seven decades of accumulating entitlement commitments into question. Can a modern economy remain energetic and competitive when it transfers increasing amounts from the private to the public sector, from young to old, from the productive to the retired? Will America need to break decisively from the European social model to avoid Europe’s economic fate?

“A sense of economic desperation expands the range of policy options. Reagan turned a fear of national decline into a radical revision of the tax code — reducing top tax rates from 70 percent to 28 percent. Today, a second round of recession and an accelerated European economic implosion could create a similar sense of decay and desperation. The normal rules of political realism might be suspended — this time on entitlements.

“It is hard to imagine Perry as the carrier of Reagan-like ideological transformation — though it was also difficult, at one time, for many to imagine an aging actor in that role. But Perry’s critics may find it is not sufficient to declare him outside the mainstream. The mainstream can change.”

***

Click the image to watch.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

But it’s always repeated here as if it’s Gospel. All. The. Time.

ddrintn on September 2, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Really?..LoL!..:)

Dire Straits on September 2, 2011 at 12:48 AM

Absolutely. Gotta win those independents. These Insiders ™ apparently think Perry can’t cut it.

ddrintn on September 2, 2011 at 12:51 AM

This Dream Act of Texas is a lame rebuttal against Perry. Seriously. If you are so against it, you are just pining for another candidate and not being tied to reality.

States SHOULD be able to enact legislation as they see fit. It is the federal government’s duty to secure our borders. They have failed miserably. If Texas decides to allow border states the opportunity to pay in-state tuition and it passes with a veto-proof majority and is signed into law, deal with it. It is not the job of Texas nor other border states (to Mexico) to protect the borders. It is in the constitution that the federal government should do this. The federal government is doing everything ancillary to this mandate of the constitution. Federal government needs to get their noses out of education, environmental issues, welfare for the democratic voters, etc. and secure the borders!
And if a state decides to be proactive and put in legislation to protect their borders, they are sued by the lazy-assed federal government for over-reaching. See Arizona and Alabama.
Seriously, hate Rick Perry for other things, but the Texas DREAM Act should not be one of them. Educate yourselves are be left behind.

carbon_footprint on September 2, 2011 at 12:52 AM

ddrintn on September 2, 2011 at 12:51 AM

I guess we will see..Perry is running..:)

Dire Straits on September 2, 2011 at 12:52 AM

The Aga Khan is a leading anti-Islamist figure

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 12:29 AM

“Islamist” is a PC term meant to deceive foolish infidels into thinking that whenever muslims do muslim things it’s really some total misunderstander of Islam doing them. Either Aga Khan is a Muslim or he is not. Either he is a follower of Mohammad or he is not. Has he ever denounced the mass murdering, torture loving, lying, thieving, misogynist, raper of little girls, and probably young goats when little girls were not available, camel dung eating sub-human monster named Mohhamad, Islam’s “Perfect Man”?

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Rick Perry did well in the Mark Levin interview..IMHO!..:)

Dire Straits on September 2, 2011 at 12:45 AM

Agreed, my smiling friend. :)

carbon_footprint on September 2, 2011 at 12:54 AM

carbon_footprint on September 2, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Just another conspiracy debunked!..:)

Dire Straits on September 2, 2011 at 12:56 AM

I used to like Geller, too, and Spencer. I hope you check out the couple of links in my post. I was doing research on this a week/10 days ago. Ace’s blog covered very in-depth, too.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 12:40 AM

In a dispute between Geller/Spencer and “ace”, “ace” took “ace’s” side and rambled on about it till he was almost at book length.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM

The entire “he can’t win the middle” argument is total horse sh1t of course.

Anton on September 2, 2011 at 1:00 AM

The entire “he can’t win the middle” argument is total horse sh1t of course.

Anton on September 2, 2011 at 1:00 AM

It is looking that way..:)

Dire Straits on September 2, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Here’s the links to Ace:

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/320657.php#320657

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/320661.php#320661

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/320680.php#320680

Geller was really under-handed in this by doctoring quotes and using guilt-by-association.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:02 AM

The entire “he can’t win the middle” argument is total horse sh1t of course.

Anton on September 2, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Agreed. It is “wishcasting”, as the kids say.

carbon_footprint on September 2, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 12:54 AM

Daniel Pipes is someone whom I have admired and learned from for the last 15 years posted that Aga Khan is a “leading anti-Islamist”.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:04 AM

The entire “he can’t win the middle” argument is total horse sh1t of course.

Anton on September 2, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Agreed. It is “wishcasting”, as the kids say.

carbon_footprint on September 2, 2011 at 1:02 AM

How’s he polling among indies?

ddrintn on September 2, 2011 at 1:08 AM

M-ercenaries Provided For OIL!!!

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Palin > Perry > Bachmann > my doormat > Romney > Obama

Pretty much my ranking right now.

Norwegian on September 1, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Nice. And very close to mine, with just a couple of additions:

Palin > Perry > Bachmann > my doormat > Huckabee > Romney > Obama > Ron Paul

And yes, I know Huckabee isn’t running. But neither is my doormat, and the point is the relative ranking.

There Goes The Neighborhood on September 2, 2011 at 1:09 AM

How’s he polling among indies?

ddrintn on September 2, 2011 at 1:08 AM

Don’t care. All I care about is how indies will vote for him over the polarizing and ti-tty baby Obama in 14 mos. if Perry wins the nom.

carbon_footprint on September 2, 2011 at 1:10 AM

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 12:58 AM

Ok, so you don’t like Ace. How about the other links I posted? Daniel Pipes didn’t agree with Geller and Spencer either. From my link earlier (David Stein’s site), here’s the exchange between Dr. Timothy Furnish (of mahdiwatch.org) and Spencer from 2010:

Furnish: I find myself in the curious (and somewhat uncomfortable) position of disagreeing with my friend Robert Spencer, for whom I have the utmost respect and with whom I almost always totally agree. However, on this issue of whether moderate Islam exists, I think Robert may be missing something. He is exactly right that Sunni Islam–whence comes directly Salafism, Wahhabism and jihadism–promotes violence against non-Muslims in order to make Islam paramount over the entire planet. I have no quarrel with that stance. But I would argue that this is largely because within this majority branch of Islam the only acceptable exegetical paradigm regarding the Qur’an is a literalist one: and of course when passages such as “behead the unbeliever” [Suras 47:3 and 8:12] are read literally the good Muslim had better reach for his sword–or be rightly accused of infidelity to Allah’s Word.

However, perhaps because Robert is so well-versed in the theology of Islam, as opposed to the historical record of how that religious theory has been acted out on the stage of history, he seems to overlook the key fact on the ground that certain minorities within Islam have developed a non-literalist, even allegorical, approach to reading the Qur’an. Foremost among these moderates are the Isma`ilis, the Sevener Shi`is, whose global head is the philanthropical Aga Khan. Isma’ilis may number only in the tens of millions (out of the total Muslim community of some 1.3 billion, second only to Christianity’s 2+ billion), but they do exist and they define, for example, jihad not as killing or conquering unbelievers, but as economic development and charity work.

Spencer: In all this my friend Timothy Furnish, whose work I admire, is entirely correct

Spencer now has done a 180 from this opinion and looks foolish.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Daniel Pipes is someone whom I have admired and learned from for the last 15 years posted that Aga Khan is a “leading anti-Islamist”.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:04 AM

It is still a PC term regardless of who falls for using it. If Einstein himself told me 2 + 2 = 6, 2 + 2 would still be 4.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:12 AM

I meant to hyper link Daniel Pipes name.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:13 AM

So a kid is dragged here by his parents, forced to integrate, wants a future for himself and is willing to work hard to learn English and out-achieve every other kid for a shot at education, and you’d say “tough luck, go pick tomatoes or get involved with the drug trade?” What if the kid served for a couple of years? What then?

I’m just trying to see your side.
John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM

I will still say, illegals are not welcome. Come via legal channels.

As for “serve”, we have enough citizens/legals who will die for this greatest nation on earth.

antisocial on September 2, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Leaving identity politics aside (since I hate it), this would be an ingenious ticket. Rubio is a star. A young conservative that will resonate within the party. And for those saying he needs to stay a Senator longer, no way. We need him now at the VP slot.

carbon_footprint on September 1, 2011 at 11:34 PM

I disagree. He is more important as a Senator and future POTUS candidate. Veeps are little more than first-string yes-men for the President, and don’t really do much of significance. I know there are exceptions, but they tend to be guys like Cheney who are highly respected for their long resumes, and have no plans at running for POTUS later.

Rubio would be forever tied to Perry’s policies, fair or not, which has the potential to damage him were he to make his own run for the White House. Besides, how many Veeps become President these days? It’s more likely that a Veep will either be tarred by the policies an unpopular President, or simply ignored by voters looking for fresh names after eight years of the same guys. I honestly think it would be wasting his future to run him as Veep.

holygoat on September 2, 2011 at 1:15 AM

How’s he polling among indies?
ddrintn on September 2, 2011 at 1:08 AM

hmm at this point I don’t know the numbers, but the poll today showed him beating O’jesus. But three things I have heard/seen over the last couple of weeks.
1. my lib friend in Austin hated him at first, but voted for him in the last election (first ever GOP vote and she is 36) and will vote for him if he is the nominee.
2. met a guy visiting out here in Puget Sound who was from just east of Galveston. He wishes Perry had done more re: the border… but said that though he wished he would stay as the governer, that the country needed him.
3. I saw his appearance on the Daily Show when pimping his book and thought that he did well in a venue where it is difficult to do so when espousing conservative values.

Anton on September 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM

There is no such thing as “moderate” Islam. Mohammad was not a “moderate”. Mohammad is Islam’s “Perfect Man”. No one can say not to do the kinds of things Mohammad himself did and demanded that his followers do and still be a Muslim. No more of this “moderate” or I will call Unicorns from the Heavens.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM

Dire Straits on September 2, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Hey!! Did you see our Canadian buddy was back tonight? Not too many comments though. Crazy internet service up there!

Cindy Munford on September 2, 2011 at 1:18 AM

holygoat on September 2, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Possibly, but Sarah Palin is not tied to John McCain’s policies. Granted, they did not win, but if the person is dynamic enough, they can easily go beyond the shadow. If anyone could do it, Rubio could. And Perry’s policies are not poison, BTW.

carbon_footprint on September 2, 2011 at 1:25 AM

VDH nailed the One’s azz.

The economy. If the current bleak picture stays the same or gets worse, Obama will be forced to argue, as did incumbent Herbert Hoover in 1932, that after four years his borrow/print/spend remedies still have not kicked in. And so he will claim that he needs eight years, not four, for Keynesian economics to finally work. Good luck with that silly argument.

But should things improve somewhat over the next year, Obama will insist that his spending tonic is at last working, and he deserves another term to further nurse the recovering economy.

It is that simple: Almost every campaign issue other than the economy either will be off the table or irrelevant — thanks largely to the past protocols of Barack Obama himself.

Schadenfreude on September 2, 2011 at 1:27 AM

Ok, so you don’t like Ace.

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:11 AM

I never said that. I said he took his own side in the debate and Geller and Spencer took theirs. I also said that ‘ace’ went on at rather great length about taking his own side, and he did that too.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:29 AM

Ok, so you don’t like Ace.

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:11 AM

I never said that. I said he took his own side in the debate and Geller and Spencer took theirs. I also said that ‘ace’ went on at rather great length about taking his own side, and he did that too.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM

So a kid is dragged here by his parents, forced to integrate, wants a future for himself and is willing to work hard to learn English and out-achieve every other kid for a shot at education, and you’d say “tough luck, go pick tomatoes or get involved with the drug trade?” What if the kid served for a couple of years? What then?

I’m just trying to see your side.
John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM

I need to know more details about this. It comes down to looking at the ‘why’ more than the ‘what’. Why do in state residents get in state tuition? Because they and/or (more likely) their parents pay state taxes that help support the state colleges. They get a ‘discount’ because they have already paid part of the amount of the ‘discount’ through their taxes.

It’s not a matter of them going to college or picking tomatoes. It’s whether they deserve to receive the in state discount that is there because of taxes paid even if they haven’t paid the state taxes or should they pay the same amount as the out of state students who also haven’t paid the state taxes.

miConsevative on September 2, 2011 at 1:31 AM

I will still say, illegals are not welcome. Come via legal channels.

As for “serve”, we have enough citizens/legals who will die for this greatest nation on earth.

antisocial on September 2, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Well tell that to our Founders and the Federal Government who’s responsible for securing the borders, per our Constitution.

Knucklehead on September 2, 2011 at 1:35 AM

Pesky Truth already added the “Perry’s too chummy with the Aga Khan” to his “List”

http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/seventeen-17-things-that-critics-are-saying-about-rick-perry-part-2/

I like this part

I’ve not found any evidence of Perry being supportive of any Muslim group other than the previously mentioned Ismaili group. And since the Islamailis are a persecuted Shia minority in Saudia Arabia, that probably means that the Saudis may not like Perry’s association with them either.

Doesn’t look like Perry is in the Saudi’s “good books”, lol!

Pesky Truth mentions a lot of the things Perry has done in support of Israel, too. It really is astounding (and it’s not even a complete list)!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:39 AM

Mohammedan morals consist in prostate like bowing 5 times a day in the general direction of some black stone in Mecca that is suppose to have fallen down from their moon-god, Allah, and attending mosque regularly at the appointed weekly time, and in breaking the ten commandments all the balance of the week. It comes natural to them to lie and cheat and kill and enslave in the first place, and then they go on and improve on that nature until they arrive at perfection. I never did dislike anyone as much as those Muslims and especially the Arabs, and, when Israel is pushed to war with them again, I hope America and England and France will not find it good breeding nor good judgment to interfere.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on September 2, 2011 at 1:41 AM

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM

And you’re still not addressing the other non-Ace links I posted.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:41 AM

The Levin piece is good stuff. I know there are some crazy Tancredo types that have immigration issues, but if you really are that worried about the situation you should just vote for Obama because he is killing the American dream that people come here in search of.

Southernblogger on September 2, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Perry has a lot of explaining to do if he has had and keeps any association with this Aga Khan creep. In an interview with Spiegel, the Aga Khan said there is not a clash of civilizations, but a “clash of ignorance,” for which the “Western world” is “essentially” responsible. Never mind all the jihad terror attacks. The problem is the West’s “ignorance.” He says that the West should negotiate with Hamas, and says that the cartoons of Muhammad should not have been published, so as to show “civility” to Muslims. Free speech? Forgetaboutit.

This Aga Khan creep sounds like a kinder, gentler version of that Osama bin Laden fellow, as he wants to hang us with a soft rope rather than a stiff one, and more slowly. How about Muslims showing some civility to non-Muslims for a change? To Jews? To Christians?. To Hindus? To Women? To somebody, anybody? To Dogs?. Even to other Muslims? Shiites to Sunnis? Sunnis to Shiites?

Aga Khan says; “that the cartoons of Muhammad should not have been published, so as to show “civility” to Muslims”? What? When did Muhammad ever show any civility to anyone? I mean, civility is not exactly what he is noted for, now is it, Aga Khan? There are many things Muhammad is noted for (mass murder, mass torture, raping little girls, and on and on), but that’s not one of them. Muhammad was about the most uncivil creature to ever walk the planet. He loved incivility and quite regularly practiced it. Why don’t you denounce the uncivil Muhammad, Aga Kahn? These never any reciprocity Muslim jackanap are becoming monstrous intolerable. They exceed even the most Democrat jackanap at being two-faced hypocrites, and that is no small feat. Long live Pope Urban II and Charles Martel!!

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:47 AM

And you’re still not addressing the other non-Ace links I posted.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:41 AM

You sound like you think you are obama and I am congress.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:49 AM

Sharia makes women property, receptacles for men. They can be raped, beaten, enslaved, you name it. Their prophet (that would be Mohammad – Aga Kahn’s ‘Perfect man’) was a pedophile who would practice “thighing” on his 6-year-old”wife”. He “consummated” the “marriage” when she was 9. Good ‘ole Mo practiced sodomy on babies. Yes, infants. The clerics try to lie and tell people that it is no longer acceptable, but even evil Khomeni in Iran wrote hadiths about this and wrote extensively about sex with babies and young children. Even boys are not safe. Apparently when they enter paradise, young boys like pearls will be there to serve them. Bahreini feminist Ghada Jamsheer spoke out about this child sex abuse during a television interview (it’s supposed to be on YouTube). She was quickly silenced, but at least people finally heard it out loud.

People wake up and start reading. They plan a global caliphate and this has been a constant for over 1,400 years. If and when they achieved their goal of conquest here, believe me, there will be no “moderate” muslims. Any who speak out now know that fatwahs will be placed on them. The Koran states that all unbelievers must be killed, their flesh torn, and to burn for eternity.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:53 AM

I continue to be astounded at the feckless accommodation of Islam in the name of multiculturalism and the use of politically correct, disingenuous terms such as “radical Islam”, ‘Islamists” and “Islamic extremism” to create a false dichotomy between terrorism committed by Muslims and the so-called, utterly non-existent “moderate Islam,” the infamous “religion of peace.” This failure to acknowledge that Islam at its core is a violent, hateful and expansionist ideology incompatible with modern, secular, western values, is as repulsive as the west’s appeasement of Hitler and the Nazi regime in the run-up to World War II. Indeed, Islam is Nazism dressed up as a supposedly legitimate religious ideology. Both ideologies thrive on vilification of the “other” — in the Nazis’ case — gays, gypsies, Jews, the disabled, the mentally ill — in Islam’s case — “apostates” and “infidels” (and of course, Jews and Christians) — basically, anyone who isn’t a Muslim. The Islamic goal is to convert non-Muslims by force and, if they are not receptive to such proselytization, to kill them.

Aga Kahn can go straight to Hell and take all his friends with him.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 2:00 AM

Foremost among these moderates are the Isma`ilis, the Sevener Shi`is, whose global head is the philanthropical Aga Khan. Isma’ilis may number only in the tens of millions (out of the total Muslim community of some 1.3 billion, second only to Christianity’s 2+ billion), but they do exist and they define, for example, jihad not as killing or conquering unbelievers, but as economic development and charity work.

Spencer: In all this my friend Timothy Furnish, whose work I admire, is entirely correct

Spencer now has done a 180 from this opinion and looks foolish.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 1:11 AM

A Trojan Horse by any other name would be just as subversive.

promachus on September 2, 2011 at 2:01 AM

Make no mistake — the west’s struggle against Islam and the violent, aggressive fascism it represents is the defining struggle of the 21st century. The fight against the Nazis was easier because that involved a crazy ideology adopted by a handful of states hijacked by strong-willed dictators. Here, the west finds itself up against a global ideology cloaking itself in the trappings of respectability and legitimacy as a time-tested religion, spreading itself daily from madrasas and mosques worldwide. This fight is going to be far more difficult and impossible if so many remain delusional with their belief in “Moderate Muslims”.

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 2:03 AM

Again it appears that some of us are searching for the mythical moderate Muslim. Not all Muslims are obligated by jihad to participate in acts of violence. There are many other ways that they can support jihad and one primary way is to donate money to provide funds to support the jihadists. They can produce propaganda – the Internet is literally full of Islamic propaganda. They can live in a target country and learn its ways and open their home to “guests” who are visiting the country. All of these activities are encouraged by The Koran, are perfectly legal and non-violent and are every bit as important to jihad as those who commit the violence.

The reason that you will NOT hear Muslims speaking out publicly against jihad is because to do so makes them an apostate and subject to death. While those who do not engage in the violent acts of jihad are clearly the majority of Muslims, this in no way means that they do not support jihad by other acceptable means. The jihad against Israel and the West is a sanctioned jihad and it is the DUTY and OBLIGATION of every Muslim to support it. EVERY MUSLIM.

At the risk of repeating myself, you have three choices:
1) Submit to Islam – The Koran requires that they offer you the opportunity to convert – bin Laden and others have made this offer to the US – this is in keeping with The Koran which every Muslim is obliged to follow – EVERY MUSLIM
2) You can accept the status of dhimmitude and pay the jizya – nice if you have reservations about converting and don’t mind being a second-class citizen – it’s in the Koran too
3) If you reject # 1 and #2, the sword will be put to your neck – again, this is in keeping with the Koran.
Another important point to remember is this: Islam sees Mohammed as the “perfect man” and The Koran as the “perfect and unalterable” holy book as received from Allah via the angel Gabriel as dictated to Mohammed. Reform is NOT an option.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on September 2, 2011 at 2:06 AM

Its just simply that easy.

astonerii on September 2, 2011 at 12:44 AM

No, it’s not. You’re punishing the child for the sins of the parents. Stop preaching immorality when the child is just trying to make his way in this world. And if he has talent, he should be promoted.

I’d like to see a cost-benefit analysis of how much it costs to be patrons of these talented kids vs. the amount of tax revenue it generates in better wages.

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 2:09 AM

As for “serve”, we have enough citizens/legals who will die for this greatest nation on earth.

antisocial on September 2, 2011 at 1:13 AM

Great handle. It fits.

You remind me of Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. You hate them until they clean your yard.

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 2:12 AM

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM

No one should benefit from illegal activity. Having said that, the rugrats aren’t the ones who drug their parents across the border…In Arkansas, there are scholarships given based on income levels. Many illegal immigrant children would qualify for those scholarships, maybe over residents…

It’d be simpler if the Fed’s enforced current laws…And if some states didn’t tolerate “sanctuary cities” within their borders…

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:14 AM

if you really are that worried about the situation you should just vote for Obama because he is killing the American dream that people come here in search of.

Southernblogger on September 2, 2011 at 1:43 AM

Hey, that could work. On second thought…/

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:18 AM

It’d be simpler if the Fed’s enforced current laws…And if some states didn’t tolerate “sanctuary cities” within their borders…

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:14 AM

That’s where all my ire is directed. It’s the Fed’s job to SEAL THE BORDER. They are epic failures, and sanctuary cities and all the rest are secondary infections.

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 2:19 AM

That’s where all my ire is directed. It’s the Fed’s job to SEAL THE BORDER. They are epic failures, and sanctuary cities and all the rest are secondary infections.

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 2:19 AM

Agreed…But we have to make it harder to cross illegally (including telling the Mexican govt’ to stop sending their people north) and do away with incentives to stay if they make it across…We’ll never stop it all but we can do what can be done…

Back in Cali?…

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:24 AM

We’ll never stop it all but we can do what can be done…

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:24 AM

Perry traveled the border with Greta and said that the fence will never work, we need boots on the ground. Okay, whatever works. Just seal the thing. Then we can deal with who is here.

We should kill the incentives, but even if we killed them all, they’d still be flooding in here because the wages are so good and there is work here.

But when we’re talking about the kids, I have a soft spot that is also utilitarian and pragmatic. I’d rather have them educated and contributing, rather than some quasi-slave class working for a dollar an hour.

Back in Cali apres-Labor Day. You can find me marching on the parade in Wisconsin, taking the tomatoes.

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 2:34 AM

JtL,

Some are already leaving due to the economy here tanking and the economy in Mexico improving…

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:39 AM

the economy in Mexico improving…

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:39 AM

The most awesome deportation possible. So let’s seal the border tight, because we’re headed into 16 years of conservative economic growth…

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 2:42 AM

John the Libertarian on September 2, 2011 at 2:42 AM

Hear, Hear!!!

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:50 AM

It also doesn’t punish the son for the sins of the father.

John the Libertarian

Not letting a kid have something they aren’t entitled to isn’t punishment.

xblade on September 2, 2011 at 2:58 AM

In short, Perry is an Islamist.

Reagan Republican on September 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Yeah right. And I’m a millionaire. What on earth are you talking about? None of your post about this makes any sense. You are like some kind of conspiracy nut or something. I’ve lived in Texas all my life and Rick Perry is not an Islamist.

Susanboo on September 2, 2011 at 3:12 AM

Mark “sharron angle is a gem and christine odonnell is wonderful” Levin. Levin co. just pander to the base. He sucks at forecasting general elections

swamp_yankee on September 2, 2011 at 5:48 AM

Some are already leaving due to the economy here tanking and the economy in Mexico improving…

Gohawgs on September 2, 2011 at 2:39 AM

i’ve always thought that the one way to solve the illegal alien problem was for mexico to export abject poverty to the US and for the US to export economic growth to mexico. It looks like that is working. It’s like osmosis.

ted c on September 2, 2011 at 6:19 AM

Aslans Girl on September 2, 2011 at 12:29 AM

I was going to say something about that, as I have been watching this “fight” going on between Ace and those two…RS McCain has weighed in on the subject also…so it is quite the bloggers battle going on now. THis is not the first time that Geller has gone off and not used good sources. I used to respect her–and Jihad Watch–now, not so much…

Lon Chaney on September 2, 2011 at 1:30 AM

Not only Ace is debating her…RS McCain is in on it.

lovingmyUSA on September 2, 2011 at 6:37 AM

Grr…stupeed laptop…enclosed wrong quote….

lovingmyUSA on September 2, 2011 at 6:37 AM

Reagan Republican on September 2, 2011 at 12:12 AM

So I guess that would make you a…Paulbot??

lovingmyUSA on September 2, 2011 at 6:42 AM

I see PBHO and Rick Perry, and there is no doubt in my mind who will make the better President…

Khun Joe on September 2, 2011 at 6:46 AM

I disagree. He is more important as a Senator and future POTUS candidate. Veeps are little more than first-string yes-men for the President, and don’t really do much of significance. I know there are exceptions, but they tend to be guys like Cheney who are highly respected for their long resumes, and have no plans at running for POTUS later.

Rubio would be forever tied to Perry’s policies, fair or not, which has the potential to damage him were he to make his own run for the White House. Besides, how many Veeps become President these days? It’s more likely that a Veep will either be tarred by the policies an unpopular President, or simply ignored by voters looking for fresh names after eight years of the same guys. I honestly think it would be wasting his future to run him as Veep.

holygoat on September 2, 2011 at 1:15 AM

I think the Cheney pick for VP was one of W’s greatest decisions. I would argue that Obama selecting Biden was a feeble attempt to choose a “statesman” who would not be hankering after his job in 2016. I am almost hopeful that this will become the new norm – choosing a running mate with no POTUS aspirations. If so, who would be a good fit? Bolton?

piglet on September 2, 2011 at 6:55 AM

morning joe being more of an idiot than usual trashing perry this am….

boy, he’s going to have to eat a lot of crow when perry or palin wins the WH….

cmsinaz on September 2, 2011 at 6:56 AM

too funny, just saw an ad about the upcoming debate….they say they will focus on afghanistan and the economy….you know they’ll focus instead on abortion and religious issues….guaranteed

cmsinaz on September 2, 2011 at 7:01 AM

How will he deny some of the charges put forth in this video, or has he already? Just curious.

spypeach on September 2, 2011 at 7:08 AM

http://youtu.be/XdsD_ckcD9Q

spypeach on September 2, 2011 at 7:08 AM

I hope the GOP tears Perry apart in the debate.

Because that is exactly what the DAMNS will do the next 15 months.

BTW, I bought my “OBAMA CLOCK” app. It is glorious!!!

506 days!!!!!

PappyD61 on September 2, 2011 at 7:09 AM

Exactly right, ma’am. Read this.

kingsjester on September 2, 2011 at 7:25 AM

Oops that previous message was for cmsinaz on September 2, 2011 at 7:01 AM

kingsjester on September 2, 2011 at 7:27 AM

kingsjester on September 2, 2011 at 7:25 AM

Amen KJ…

It’s the economy stupid!!!

cmsinaz on September 2, 2011 at 7:29 AM

kingsjester on September 2, 2011 at 7:27 AM

thanks buddy :)

cmsinaz on September 2, 2011 at 7:29 AM

cmsinaz on September 2, 2011 at 7:29 AM

You’re welcome!

kingsjester on September 2, 2011 at 7:31 AM

morning joe being more of an idiot than usual trashing perry this am….

boy, he’s going to have to eat a lot of crow when perry or palin wins the WH….

cmsinaz on September 2, 2011 at 6:56 AM

I tuned him out after another “Well, when I was in Washington……”
I can’t take anymore. I barely remember him in Congress and yet he was obviously the most important, the most powerful, the smartest Congressman who ever was. He must have been in the President’s office daily giving advice.

Marcus on September 2, 2011 at 7:33 AM

Joe is the type blowhard who when you go to a party/restaurant he’s all you hear, talking louder than anyone else. Yeah, that guy.

Marcus on September 2, 2011 at 7:35 AM

Marcus on September 2, 2011 at 7:35 AM

couldn’t agree more….

Marcus on September 2, 2011 at 7:33 AM

it’s getting more ridiculous as the campaign gets closer…

cmsinaz on September 2, 2011 at 7:39 AM

It’s not a matter of them going to college or picking tomatoes. It’s whether they deserve to receive the in state discount that is there because of taxes paid even if they haven’t paid the state taxes or should they pay the same amount as the out of state students who also haven’t paid the state taxes.

miConsevative on September 2, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Schools in Texas are funded by property taxes, sales taxes and the lottery (UT and A&M get royalties from oil due to a swindle that turned out in UT’s favor a long time ago, A&M was added much later).

Even Illegals who rent help pay the property taxes. They have been here, they have contributed. I think I have seen your moniker harping on this over and over. Tough, don’t support perry.

cozmo on September 2, 2011 at 8:11 AM

“TRUTH: State spending – the non-federal dollars state lawmakers can control – is six percent lower under Gov. Perry than it was under the two-year budget in effect when he took office, adjusting for population growth and inflation. In unadjusted amounts, state spending is $80.5 billion for the 2012-13 biennium compared to $55.7 billion for the 2000-01 biennium. Texas’ population growth plus inflation since 2001 is 54 percent. The current Texas budget funds the state’s vital needs by operating within available revenues and providing tax cuts for small businesses. Gov. Perry is the only Texas governor since World War II to cut state (general revenue) spending.”

These are all lies.

Actually, looking at the State of Texas’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (which detail actual, not budgeted, financial numbers), expenditures were $38.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2001 and $80.2 billion for Fiscal Year 2010. That is an increase of 106%. Over the same period, population growth totaled 18% and inflation totaled 19%. 108%, less 18%, less 19%, equals 70%.

So the State’s spending grew 70% during Perry’s tenure to date, correcting for inflation and population growth.

Also, Perry has never cut State (general revenue) spending:

2001: $38.8 billion
2002: $43.4 billion
2003: $45.2 billion
2004: $46.3 billion
2005: $48.2 billion
2006: $52.7 billion
2007: $57.8 billion
2008: $65.6 billion
2009: $72.9 billion
2010: $80.2 billion

steebo77 on September 2, 2011 at 8:14 AM

Actually, looking at the State of Texas’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (which detail actual, not budgeted, financial numbers), expenditures were $38.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2001 and $80.2 billion for Fiscal Year 2010. That is an increase of 106.5%. Over the same period, population growth totaled 18.2% and inflation totaled 18.7%. 106.5%, less 18.7%, less 18.2%, equals 69.6%.

So the State’s spending grew 70% during Perry’s tenure to date, correcting for inflation and population growth.

Corrected some typos and added a decimal place.

steebo77 on September 2, 2011 at 8:27 AM

Fiscal record = thread killer?

steebo77 on September 2, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Said another, ‘Having trouble ID-ing a single independent who’d vote for Perry.’

This is the problem with the GOP elite – they don’t understand realities.

Hey doofus – try identifying a non-fringe independent who’s going to vote for four more years of 10 percent unemployment.

Because that is what this election is about. It’s not about a Texan in a big hat – it’s about how the hell we can quickly get rid of this asshat in the oval office who’s destroying the economy!

THAT’S WHAT INDEPENDENTS CARE ABOUT

HondaV65 on September 2, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Said another, ‘Having trouble ID-ing a single independent who’d vote for Perry.’

This is the problem with the GOP elite – they don’t understand realities.

Hey doofus – try identifying a non-fringe independent who’s going to vote for four more years of 10 percent unemployment.

Because that is what this election is about. It’s not about a Texan in a big hat – it’s about how the hell we can quickly get rid of this @ss hat in the oval office who’s destroying the economy!

THAT’S WHAT INDEPENDENTS CARE ABOUT

HondaV65 on September 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM

Possibly, but Sarah Palin is not tied to John McCain’s policies. Granted, they did not win, but if the person is dynamic enough, they can easily go beyond the shadow. If anyone could do it, Rubio could. And Perry’s policies are not poison, BTW.

carbon_footprint on September 2, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Palin did not have to spend four years defending McCain’s policies. If she had, she would have to run far to the left of where she currently stands or answer why she supported certain policies that she now does not. That would be impossible to do.

I agree with you that Perry’s policies are not poison at the moment, but we don’t know for sure how he will govern as POTUS, and there is always the possibility of a scandal.

holygoat on September 2, 2011 at 10:46 AM

We’re all Republicans now. And if Bachman thinks she’s go9ing to fight Perry, then she should be aware she is out of her fighting class.

Queen0fCups on September 2, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2