Rick Perry calls Texas legislature back into session to vote again on late-term abortion ban

posted at 6:01 pm on June 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

A mob in the statehouse didn’t beat Scott Walker on labor reform and it’s not going to beat Perry on abortion. Bring ‘em back:

Gov. Rick Perry today announced a Special Session of the Texas Legislature will begin at 2 p.m. Monday, July 1.

“I am calling the Legislature back into session because too much important work remains undone for the people of Texas. Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state. Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn. Texans want a transportation system that keeps them moving. Texans want a court system that is fair and just. We will not allow the breakdown of decorum and decency to prevent us from doing what the people of this state hired us to do.

Is it relevant that a plurality of Americans, as well as a majority of Texans, support banning abortion after 20 weeks? It should be, but is it? America’s courts reliably strike down regulations on abortion, even though not even Roe itself declared this subject categorically beyond the bounds of legislation, so this one’s probably DOA even if it passes. And calling the legislature back creates another prime opportunity for grandstanding by Wendy Davis, who, given the amount of media slobber over her this morning, appears to be some sort of left-wing cross between Jefferson Smith and Jesus. (She even got a write-up in People magazine, because momentarily stopping the patriarchy from challenging the world’s Kermit Gosnells is so inspiring that even entertainment pubs will pick it up.) Needless to say, pro-lifers hooting down a blue-state legislature trying to hold a vote to expand abortion would be treated in the press as some sort of putsch; pro-choicers doing it to a red-state legislature that’s trying to make baby-killing a little bit harder is as patriotic as George Washington farting “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Abortion really is, as Carl Cannon said during the Gosnell coverage, journalism’s most sacred cow. The silver lining is that it may be leading myopic abortion-warrior liberals into strategic mistakes.

Via Mediaite, here’s Monica Crowley and pro-life Democrat Kirsten Powers reflecting on what it means for our political culture that the president of the United States, a staunch defender of abortion under pretty much any circumstances, felt obliged to tweet his support for this clusterfark last night. Exit quotation from John Hayward: “Let the word go out from coast to coast: Barack Obama endorses filibusters and mob rule.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

I like the story Ace has up about that chick at the Washington Post who rationalized not covering Gosnell because it was a local crime story but she was all over the Texas session on abortion. She was even poetic.

Sarah Kliff @sarahkliff

Clear Eyes, Full Heart, Can’t Stop Talking.
10:51 PM – 25 Jun 2013

Cindy Munford on June 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Cindy Munford on June 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Liberals…They are what they are. And that is endlessly needy.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Cindy Munford on June 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Liberal always demand something, it’s never-ending spiral. We Conservatives just want to be left alone.

But liberals will never give us that simple, basic, undemanding thing.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Cindy Munford on June 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Liberals…They are what they are. And that is endlessly needy.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Needy, maybe.

Lying
obfuscating
cheating
denigrating
kissing a$$ bending over to despots
controlling

I could go on, but you get the point.

cozmo on June 26, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Obama doesn’t run @BarackObama anymore. Seriously. It’s all Organizing for America’s baby now.

Yeah, right.

yesiamapirate on June 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Three cheers for Rick Perry!

Stoic Patriot on June 26, 2013 at 7:09 PM

I could go on, but you get the point.

cozmo on June 26, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Liberals are always in need of something, forever demanding.

They are never satisfied, even when they get what they want.

There is always some no ’cause’, some new ‘injustice’ that needs to be ‘fixed’.

There is something very seriously wrong about that. Liberals are chronic nags.

I don’t know about you, friend, but nags don’t work for me.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 7:14 PM

At a boy Perry.

ritewhit on June 26, 2013 at 7:16 PM

cozmo on June 26, 2013 at 7:07 PM

If liberals got everything they demand, they’d find something new.

If every problem was to be fixed as liberals demand, there would no longer be a need for liberals.

Liam on June 26, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Why? What’s the point after today’s SCOTUS ruling that the voted will of the people of a state doesn’t count if it’s not PC enough.

That’s not the ruling made by Roberts. In Texas, the Legislature would be the body bringing the suit to the SC if the abortion law were struck down by a judge. The legislature of a state has standing to bring the suit to the SC. (And since they had passed the law, they will support it).

In California, the State legislature refused to support Prop 8 after it was struck down by a judge. That’s why the suit was brought to the SC by the backers of Prop 8 instead of the legislature. Roberts is saying correctly that a citizen or group of citizens don’t have standing to bring this suit to the Court.

It’s really not controversial and has nothing to do with the substance of the issue. It reflects the fact that the legislature will normally support what the people in the state want, or the people will elect a new legislature. This is common sense, and as such apparently does not apply in California.

str8tface on June 26, 2013 at 7:18 PM

America’s courts reliably strike down regulations on abortion, even though not even Roe itself declared this subject categorically beyond the bounds of legislation, so this one’s probably DOA even if it passes.

well, except why then is the Left so agitated. 1. It is Fun! (cf. Alinsky. 2. They want to call out a ‘thought crime’ and prevent future thought crimes. 3. Agitation is always a good way to raise Cash or 4. Because, even tho they know that scotus has their back, they are the front line storm troopers that suppress nascent movements

r keller on June 26, 2013 at 7:24 PM

cozmo on June 26, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Thanks! I will.

The one that I have stored…….isn’t printable. LOL!

avagreen on June 26, 2013 at 7:27 PM

That’s not the ruling made by Roberts. In Texas, the Legislature would be the body bringing the suit to the SC if the abortion law were struck down by a judge. The legislature of a state has standing to bring the suit to the SC. (And since they had passed the law, they will support it).

In California, the State legislature refused to support Prop 8 after it was struck down by a judge. That’s why the suit was brought to the SC by the backers of Prop 8 instead of the legislature. Roberts is saying correctly that a citizen or group of citizens don’t have standing to bring this suit to the Court.

It’s really not controversial and has nothing to do with the substance of the issue. It reflects the fact that the legislature will normally support what the people in the state want, or the people will elect a new legislature. This is common sense, and as such apparently does not apply in California.

str8tface on June 26, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Almost, but not even close. The SC absolutely did invalidate the people’s right to defend their own law. In California, it wasn’t the legislature because the law passed was a referendum. Therefore it was the attorney general who refused to perform his constitutionally mandated duties. Thus, effectively leaving the people without a voice. The SCOTUS simply drove in deeper the knife placed by the CA AttGen.

Nutstuyu on June 26, 2013 at 7:30 PM

Hell yeah, gimme a T for Texas!

celt on June 26, 2013 at 7:32 PM

That’s not the ruling made by Roberts. In Texas, the Legislature would be the body bringing the suit to the SC if the abortion law were struck down by a judge. The legislature of a state has standing to bring the suit to the SC. (And since they had passed the law, they will support it).

In California, the State legislature refused to support Prop 8 after it was struck down by a judge. That’s why the suit was brought to the SC by the backers of Prop 8 instead of the legislature. Roberts is saying correctly that a citizen or group of citizens don’t have standing to bring this suit to the Court.

It’s really not controversial and has nothing to do with the substance of the issue. It reflects the fact that the legislature will normally support what the people in the state want, or the people will elect a new legislature. This is common sense, and as such apparently does not apply in California.

str8tface on June 26, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Did you actually read the decision? The default setting of SCOTUS is only the state attorney general’s office has automatic standing to defend a state’s laws/constitution in federal court. The legislature must have previously passed a law giving itself or certain officers the ability to defend the state’s interest with respect to a law or constitutional provision in a court to automatically have standing in federal court, and that disappears when the persons holding the authorized office ceases to hold said office.

What SCOTUS did here was strike down, for the purposes of standing in federal court, the ability of states to assign its interests in defending a law or constitutional provision to private citizens.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2013 at 7:33 PM

It’s about time that the USA sec.eeded from TX.
Charlemagne on June 26, 2013 at 6:19 PM

I’ll bet Sibelius would find a way to seal that border. To keep us from getting to Texas.

yesiamapirate on June 26, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Good. Now try to do it actually according to the rules this time. Instead of trying to say that mentioning planned parenthood is straying off topic in a filibuster about an abortion bill. Instead of trying to say that mentioning the states women’s health budget is straying off topic on a filibuster about an abortion bill. Instead of trying to say that mentioning Texas’s ultrasound before abortion law is straying off topic in a filibuster about an abortion bill. Instead of using those as somehow rules “violations”, which you’d be outraged about if it went the other way, to stifle your opponents right to representation themselves.

And especially instead of calling the representative putting on her back brace a rules “violation”, and then trying to vote after the deadline then trying to go back and falsify the congressional record and time stamps on your votes in order to illegally try to sneak it through anyway when all your other ploys didn’t work out.

Do it right this time, Texas. Then do WHAT’s right.

Genuine on June 26, 2013 at 8:18 PM

Go Rick Perry!!!

bitsy on June 26, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Exit quotation from John Hayward: “Let the word go out from coast to coast: Barack Obama endorses filibusters and mob rule.”

Pretty much.

INC on June 26, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Genuine on June 26, 2013 at 8:18 PM

I won’t hear you complaining about “doing what’s right” when

Obamacare was passed
The CA governor & AG wouldn’t defend Prop 8
“Immigration reform” will pass the Senate

Now kindly go away. Adults only allowed here.

22044 on June 26, 2013 at 8:28 PM

I won’t hear you complaining about “doing what’s right” when
Obamacare was passed
The CA governor & AG wouldn’t defend Prop 8
“Immigration reform” will pass the Senate
Now kindly go away. Adults only allowed here.
22044 on June 26, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Actually, I wasn’t a registered member yet when Obamacare was passed so you can mark that one off your list since you have no clue what you’re talking about.

There’s no law that states that a state’s attorney general must defend in court any contested thing that comes across the board, whereas there are very solid and steadfast rules in the running of a congressional chamber and debate. However, as Prop8 WAS voted on by the citizens of that state, a governer or ag who actually had defending the will of the majority of its people would have stepped up to defend it. And I am on the side of those allowing same sex marriage.

And as for immigration reform possibly passing the senate. If you’d read my posts on the topic you’d notice a very clear and repetitive drumming that none of what they’re doing or trying to pass has ANYTHING to do with actual immigration and EVERYTHING to do with special interests controlling the situation, on BOTH sides. Big business loves it on the R side, all the “immigrant’s first” lobbyist organizations love it on the D side. And the American people and the millions of well meaning immigrants are all just stuck in the middle.

So… Gfy, Mr. “Adult”. It’s not my fault you lack the ability to be objective and bark everytime your masters in the media say, “Speak boy! Look at the BAD guys!”. That’s your own fault and failing.

Genuine on June 26, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Now kindly go away. Adults only allowed here.

22044 on June 26, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Doubtful. Trolls troll.

cozmo on June 26, 2013 at 9:31 PM

Yay, Governor Perry!

butterflies and puppies on June 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM

What might have been…

SouthernGent on June 26, 2013 at 9:45 PM

Genuine on June 26, 2013 at 8:42 PM

LOL – you protest too much.

Now once again, go pound sand!

22044 on June 26, 2013 at 9:50 PM

*slaps forehead*
I give up.

avagreen on June 26, 2013 at 6:44 PM

…here!…let me!
.
.
.hi Liam!…sorry!…posted like a troll…and ran out for chores…

KOOLAID2 on June 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM

And when it passes, the courts will strike it down like they have done to every other similar law. So it’s a waste of time, a waste of money, and… what’s the third?

HeroesforGhosts on June 26, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Is it relevant that a plurality of Americans, as well as a majority of Texans, support banning abortion after 20 weeks? It should be, but is it? America’s courts reliably strike down regulations on abortion, even though not even Roe itself declared this subject categorically beyond the bounds of legislation, so this one’s probably DOA even if it passes. And calling the legislature back creates another prime opportunity for grandstanding by Wendy Davis, who, given the amount of media slobber over her this morning, appears to be some sort of left-wing cross between Jefferson Smith and Jesus.

AP…Rick Perry isn’t too concerned about a pissant liberal like Wendy Davis…Nope.

workingclass artist on June 26, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Click…If you dare.

It was mentioned earlier that it might have been a conspiracy to have the session end the way it did.

Its a more believable conspiracy than most others.

cozmo on June 26, 2013 at 6:09 PM

That story says Davis filibustered for 13 hours.

She filibustered for five and there were interruptions while they argued about how she wasn’t filibustering properly.

It was a mess.

workingclass artist on June 26, 2013 at 11:08 PM

My daughter and I were just discussing this topic earlier at our local smokehouse. She said then that there was no way that Perry wouldn’t call another session. I can guarantee most Texans are outraged by looney mobs.

Sending spitty raspberries to Wendy Davis as I type…

jazzuscounty on June 26, 2013 at 11:09 PM

I feel Lt Gov Dewhurst knew there would be another session and let the kooks show their stuff.Texans don’t buy into the mob scene and Wendy baby has to answer to her district in 2014.

docflash on June 26, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Yep.

workingclass artist on June 26, 2013 at 11:11 PM

And when it passes, the courts will strike it down like they have done to every other similar law. So it’s a waste of time, a waste of money, and… what’s the third?

HeroesforGhosts on June 26, 2013 at 10:12 PM

I think Gosnell changed that.

Most of these clinics are not supervised and that is the case Texas is making….

workingclass artist on June 26, 2013 at 11:14 PM

I have to assume this is why Cruz won?

Cindy Munford on June 26, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Cruz was Cruz throughout the entire campaign. Dewherst was a jerk who wouldn’t state clear policy goals or even lower himself to debate other candidates. Then he went dirty.

cozmo on June 26, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Yep.

Cruz won because he won over Texans and he’s been an outstanding conservative senator so far.

workingclass artist on June 26, 2013 at 11:18 PM

Wendy baby has to answer to her district in 2014.

docflash on June 26, 2013 at 6:16 PM

True, true. I have emailed her to tell her that I can’t vote against her, but I will contribute to whomever challenges her. It will be money well spent.

jazzuscounty on June 26, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Good for Gov. Perry. Follow Scott Walker’s lead and do not back down from the left-wing mobs.

Doughboy on June 26, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Um, you got that backwards. The dems in Texas fled the state long before Wisconsin dems did. Texas dems even paid a price for what they did.

cozmo on June 26, 2013 at 6:26 PM

True that…Perry’s been doin this rodeo in Texas a long time.

Perry chasin the yellerdogs was epic.

workingclass artist on June 26, 2013 at 11:23 PM

TSRA is emailing to try again to get concealed campus carry onto the special session agenda. It was filibustered in the senate, but in the special session it would automatically go to the floor and pass. Its way past time to get this passed. I tweeted and Facebooked the governor, and I’m calling him tomorrow.

juliesa on June 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Almost, but not even close. The SC absolutely did invalidate the people’s right to defend their own law. In California, it wasn’t the legislature because the law passed was a referendum. Therefore it was the attorney general who refused to perform his constitutionally mandated duties. Thus, effectively leaving the people without a voice. The SCOTUS simply drove in deeper the knife placed by the CA AttGen.

Yeah, I know it was a referendum. I’m pretty sure I said so. The idea is that the state will defend the referendum, they didn’t. So the Prop 8 supporters brought the suit and the Chief said they didn’t have standing. They don’t.

Nothing in your post invalidates my point.

str8tface on June 27, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Did you actually read the decision? The default setting of SCOTUS is only the state attorney general’s office has automatic standing to defend a state’s laws/constitution in federal court. The legislature must have previously passed a law giving itself or certain officers the to defend the state’s interest with respect to a law or constitutional provision in a court to automatically have standing in federal court, and that disappears when the persons holding the authorized office ceases to hold said office.

What SCOTUS did here was strike down, for the purposes of standing in federal court, the ability of states to assign its interests in defending a law or constitutional provision to private citizens.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Did you read the opinion? I’m not even a lawyer (as should be obvious) but it’s clear that the CJ is merely restating an obvious precedent re standing. There’s nothing in your statement that refutes my argument which is, again,

that when state officials refuse to support the citizens who have brought a successful referendum, the citizens do not have standing to bring this case to the SC.

The normal remedy for this is to vote out the scoundrels. Apparently you in California are not able to do this. Possibly you should direct your *genius intellect* to fixing this, and leave the rest of us alone.

str8tface on June 27, 2013 at 12:19 AM

What SCOTUS did here was strike down, for the purposes of standing in federal court, the ability of states to assign its interests in defending a law or constitutional provision to private citizens.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2013 at 7:33 PM

What if the authorization was part of the referendum?

alwaysfiredup on June 27, 2013 at 12:34 AM

The legislature must have previously passed a law giving itself or certain officers the to defend the state’s interest with respect to a law or constitutional provision in a court to automatically have standing in federal court.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Sorry, quoted the wrong part. Can this be fixed through drafting?

alwaysfiredup on June 27, 2013 at 12:35 AM

Well, it will last until the next Texas AG from the Party of the Rat or the Roberts Court fully reinstates Roe v Wade.

Steve Eggleston on June 26, 2013 at 6:17 PM

I get the Texas AG regarding Prop 8; but I think your Roe comment is wrong. I suspect Allah knows the specifics, but didn’t address them explicitly (so I will… I’m bored).

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Roe_v._Wade.html

Roe protects abortion for any non-viable fetus. And fortunately it VERY explicitly defines viabile.

The Court later rejected Roe’s trimester framework, while affirming Roe’s central holding that a person has a right to abortion up until viability.[2] The Roe decision defined “viable” as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid,”

* Emphasis and bolding mine

We have evidence of a fetus delivered at 21 weeks 5 days surviving outside the womb with artificial aid.

(Freida Mangold 2011 in the UK and James Elgin Gill 1987 in Canada; both were that premature if you want to research that claim further)

And the language is not “likely” to live; the language is “potentially able” to live. Again, very clear wording.

20 weeks might be too little. 21 weeks seems plausible allowed under the specific wording for Roe v Wade. 22 weeks is self-evidently acceptable (with a fetus actually surviving, the potential can’t be questioned, can it)?

If I were trying to write a law I could easily defend in court against a Roe v Wade claim; I’d go with 22 weeks, not 20… but I suspect a 20 week argument could be made given the verbiage in Roe v Wade of “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid,”.

gekkobear on June 27, 2013 at 1:35 AM

Via Mediaite, here’s Monica Crowley and pro-life Democrat Kirsten Powers reflecting on what it means for our political culture that the president of the United States, a staunch defender of abortion under pretty much any circumstances, felt obliged to tweet his support for this clusterfark last night.

FYI, AP, Kirsten Powers is a Democrat, but she is NOT generally pro-life, and has no trouble supporting abortions earlier in pregnancy. She WAS disgusted by Kermit Gosnell’s treatment of women and late-term babies, who could be viable outside the womb.

Kudos to Rick Perry, for not allowing protesters to disturb the normal legislative process by running out the clock. And if Wendy Davis wants to make a fool of herself again trying to defend the Kermit Gosnells of the world, let her!

Kermit Gosnell was convicted of three counts of MURDER by a court of law, and Perry and the Texas State Legislature want to ensure that such practices are illegal in Texas. By praising Wendy Davis’ efforts, the president of the United States has officially taken the side of a murderer. In his own words, he “acted stupidly”, and would have been wise to vote “present” and not intervene in this debate.

Steve Z on June 27, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Good work governor. That crow of triumph just turned into a gagging choke!!!!

MaiDee on June 27, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Yes, Rick Perry has a “SET”

One of the VERY FEW Males left in the Republican Party
I can say that about.

ToddPA on June 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Give ‘em hell Perry . . . no quarter for those snot nose, brat liberals.

rplat on June 27, 2013 at 12:46 PM

From a potential presidential selection, we don’t need Sen Chuck Schumer’s emasculated houseboy, Mario. Let’s pick Rick!!

MaiDee on June 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM

“Some rare good news for the rule of law:

Texas Gov. Rick Perry Wednesday called for a second special session of the Texas Legislature to reconsider an abortion bill that failed following a filibuster — cancelling the small victory the bill’s opponents thought they had won following a marathon filibuster by a state senator Tuesday night.

The new special session will start July 1 at 2 p.m. and will run for no more than 30 days.

“I am calling the Legislature back into session because too much important work remains undone for the people of Texas,” Perry said in a statement. “Through their duly elected representatives, the citizens of our state have made crystal clear their priorities for our great state. Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn.”

Mob rule will not win the day.

Well done, Governor.

UPDATE: Here’s how the always hackish L.A. Times portrays last night’s events:

Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 8.03.47 PM

There was a vote held, and the bill passed 19-10, but due to chaos in the chamber by a mob of Democrats, the bill was not signed.

That is portrayed as Davis and her allies “defeating” the bill.

They’re liars at the L.A. Times. That’s all they are, folks. Just liars…”

http://patterico.com/

workingclass artist on June 27, 2013 at 1:19 PM

If you have got the time, drop by Rick Perry’s facebook page and show him some support. Every liberal troll in Texas is there complaining about using taxpayer money for a second session. Hah.

bitsy on June 27, 2013 at 1:28 PM

If conservatives didn’t eat their young, Perry would be President and this would be a non-issue…

right2bright on June 27, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Yes, Rick Perry has a “SET”

One of the VERY FEW Males left in the Republican Party
I can say that about.

ToddPA on June 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM

but…but…he stumbles in debates…

right2bright on June 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Liberalism is a mental disorder. It’s as if they support Gosnell. well, in fact they do and they are now showing their true colors.

Ta111 on June 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Perry! Perry! Perry!

claudius on June 28, 2013 at 9:01 AM

In California, the State legislature refused to support Prop 8 after it was struck down by a judge. That’s why the suit was brought to the SC by the backers of Prop 8 instead of the legislature. Roberts is saying correctly that a citizen or group of citizens don’t have standing to bring this suit to the Court.

str8tface on June 26, 2013 at 7:18 PM

This makes no sense.

In both of the cases you described above, a citizen voted for a law… but in one case that citizen DOES have standing, and in the other that citizen DOESN’T have standing.

The California legislature HAD NO STANDING in Prop 8 because THEY DIDN’T PASS THE LAW. Citizens passed the amendment to their Constitution. The only question that needed to be asked by the SC to the backers of Prop 8 is… “Did you personally vote to pass this amendment?” If so, then they had standing. What you are trying to argue is that normal citizens have no right to defend their vote before the SC.

But then to some, certain animals are more equal than others…

dominigan on June 28, 2013 at 9:07 AM

Give ‘em hell Perry . . . no quarter for those snot nose, brat liberals.

rplat on June 27, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Perry! Perry! Perry!

claudius on June 28, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Yay, Governor Perry!

butterflies and puppies on June 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Go Rick Perry!!!

bitsy on June 26, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Three cheers for Rick Perry!

Stoic Patriot on June 26, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Got to admit, back during the 2012 primaries, I thought Rick Perry was a stumblebum, but the more I see of him since, the more I think he’d make a hell of a great President.

MrLynn on July 1, 2013 at 9:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2