Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Scary Perry #2
Monday, August 15, 2011 3:12 PM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:For seventeen of the past forty-eight years, a Texan has lived in the White House. Current Texas governor Rick Perry hopes to make that twenty-five of the past fifty-six years. The favorite son of Paint Creek, Texas announced Saturday in South Carolina that he is all in for the 2012 GOP presidential race. He promises Americans: “I will work every day to make Washington, D.C., as inconsequential in your lives as I can.” In his book Fed Up!, Perry lays out a world view that may remind some people of George W. Bush:Quote:"We are now confronted with the rise of new economic and military powerhouses in China and India, as well as a Russia that is increasingly aggressive and troublesome to its neighbors and former satellite nations that are struggling to maintain their relatively newfound independence. There is no reason to believe that armed conflict with any major power is imminent, but the world is rapidly changing, and the United States must be prepared for the ramifications of shifting balances of power." "North Korea and Iran, in contrast, are utterly unpredictable and present an imminent threat with their nuclear ambitions…Leftists in Latin America are threatening democracy, and Hugo Chavez is harboring communist rebels in Venezuela. All of these issues require our attention and investment in defense capabilities."Fed Up! doesn’t say much in the way of specifics about what Perry would do about these threats. The Bush-Perry foreign policy parallels continue. To prepare for the campaign, Perry met with Doug Feith and William Luti, both of whom held senior level positions in DoD under Bush. Who helped organize the strategy session? None other than Donald Rumsfeld. Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy’s “The Cable” spoke with a foreign policy adviser familiar with Rick Perry who said that Perry’s foreign policy will be “hawk internationalist,” and that “he has no sympathy for the neo-isolationist impulses emanating from some quarters of the Republican Party.” Following President Obama’s May speech on the Middle East, Perry joined other prominent Republicans in slamming what he had to say (and grossly mischaracterizing it along the way):Quote:"President Obama’s speech…continues a misguided policy of alienating our traditional allies, in this case Israel, one of our strongest partners in the war on terror. As someone who has visited Israel numerous times, I know that it is impracticable to revert to the 1967 lines. President Obama is asking our Israeli friends to give up too much security and territory as a prelude to a renewed peace process."Perry has spoken more about foreign policy in recent months. In June, he criticized organizers of a flotilla seeking to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, he wrote:Quote:"As an American citizen and governor of one of its largest states, I write to applaud your recent efforts to warn and discourage those who have supported or plan to support a flotilla intended to interfere with Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip."He added:Quote:"More importantly, I write to encourage you to aggressively pursue all available legal remedies to enjoin and prevent these illegal actions, and to prosecute any who may elect to engage in them in spite of your preemptive efforts."On July 12, just two days after the White House announced that it planned to withhold $800 million in aid money from Pakistan, Perry met with former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. The two chatted about ways to improve the Pakistani economy as well as the fraught Pakistani-American relationship. Musharraf had requested the meeting in order to “exchange notes” about Texas’s economic success and ways to translate that success to Pakistan. The 1,241 mile-long border that Texas shares with Mexico has given Perry good reason to worry about the success of Mexico’s war on drug traffickers. Last year, Perry suggested that sending U.S. troops to the border was one possible option.Quote:"I think we have to use every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military. Any means that we can [use] to run these people off our border and to save Americans’ lives, we need to be engaged in."Nonetheless, Perry parts from many Republicans on the question of tighter immigration laws. He generally opposes them. In 2007 he called for completely open borders with Mexico, urging the “free flow of individuals between these two countries who want to work and want to be an asset to our country and to Mexico.” He pushed for building the Trans-Texas Corridor, a toll road that would run from Mexico through Texas and be managed by both governments. Perry has also defended Texas’s policy of giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, opposed building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border, criticized Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law, and dismissed the prospect that verification systems like E-Verify will substantially reduce illegal immigration. Perry has traveled overseas numerous times during his governorship, visiting China, Mexico, Iraq, Italy, Qatar, Turkey, France, and Sweden among others. Not surprisingly, most of these trips focused on encouraging trade with and investment in Texas. Like many other Republican candidates, Perry will make President Obama’s supposed disdain for American exceptionalism a prominent part of his critique of Obama’s foreign policy. Early in his announcement speech Perry declared: "We don’t need a President who apologizes for America." A few moments later, he put the point even more bluntly: "What I learned in my 20’s traveling the globe as an Air Force pilot, our current president has yet to acknowledge in his 50’s - that we are the most exceptional nation on the face of the earth." http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/15/rick-perrys-bushian-foreign-policy/?hpt=hp_bn2
Quote:"We are now confronted with the rise of new economic and military powerhouses in China and India, as well as a Russia that is increasingly aggressive and troublesome to its neighbors and former satellite nations that are struggling to maintain their relatively newfound independence. There is no reason to believe that armed conflict with any major power is imminent, but the world is rapidly changing, and the United States must be prepared for the ramifications of shifting balances of power." "North Korea and Iran, in contrast, are utterly unpredictable and present an imminent threat with their nuclear ambitions…Leftists in Latin America are threatening democracy, and Hugo Chavez is harboring communist rebels in Venezuela. All of these issues require our attention and investment in defense capabilities."
Quote:"President Obama’s speech…continues a misguided policy of alienating our traditional allies, in this case Israel, one of our strongest partners in the war on terror. As someone who has visited Israel numerous times, I know that it is impracticable to revert to the 1967 lines. President Obama is asking our Israeli friends to give up too much security and territory as a prelude to a renewed peace process."
Quote:"As an American citizen and governor of one of its largest states, I write to applaud your recent efforts to warn and discourage those who have supported or plan to support a flotilla intended to interfere with Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip."
Quote:"More importantly, I write to encourage you to aggressively pursue all available legal remedies to enjoin and prevent these illegal actions, and to prosecute any who may elect to engage in them in spite of your preemptive efforts."
Quote:"I think we have to use every aspect of law enforcement that we have, including the military. Any means that we can [use] to run these people off our border and to save Americans’ lives, we need to be engaged in."
Monday, August 15, 2011 3:28 PM
Quote:Texas Governor Rick Perry grabbed headlines over the weekend as the latest Republican to announce a run for President. He is also making news for some extreme political positions, including his claim that Social Security is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court resolved this question 74 years ago, but Perry and some other Republicans are raising the possibility that the courts could one day strike down the Social Security Act. Perry has taken a number of stands that might be described as outside of the political mainstream. He has questioned the wisdom of the 17th Amendment, which took the power to choose U.S. Senators away from state legislatures and gave it to voters. He has also mused about the possibility of Texas' seceding from the union. Last week, the Daily Beast released the transcript of an interview with Perry from last fall. He was asked about his assertion in a book he had written that Social Security is a "failure" that "we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years." Perry called Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" and pressed for a "legitimate conversation about let[ting] the states keep their money and implement" their own version of it. Perry not only argued that Social Security is bad policy but also questioned whether Congress ever had the power to enact it. He argued that the Taxing and Spending Clause allows Congress to levy taxes and spend money only in limited areas. He said he doubted that when the founders gave Congress this power they were "thinking about a federally operated program of pensions." The idea that Social Security is unconstitutional has long had a following on the far right, and other elected officials have made a similar case. Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a fellow Republican presidential candidate, has also argued that Congress did not have the power to enact Social Security and that the constitutional law on this point "has been mistaught in our schools" for a long time. But if Perry's candidacy takes off, the attack on Social Security could reach new levels of prominence. Social Security critics do not like to talk about the fact that the Supreme Court definitively put the question to rest in 1937. After Congress adopted the Social Security Act at President Franklin Roosevelt's urging, it was challenged on constitutional grounds. In Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court upheld the act by a 7-2 vote. Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for the majority, said the Taxing and Spending Clause authorized Congress to levy taxes and spend money to advance the "general welfare" and that Congress was within its right to find "that the award of old age benefits would be conducive to the general welfare." In its opinion, the Supreme Court also powerfully reminded people of why Congress had passed the act. "The hope behind this statute," Justice Cardozo wrote, "is to save men and women from the rigors of the poor house, as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near." Many people today do not realize what the Supreme Court and the general public understood in 1937: before there was Social Security, most elderly Americans were condemned to live their final days in abject poverty. After they stopped working, many old people were forced to move in with family and friends. Others had to move into poorhouses. One study of Massachusetts almshouses in the early 20th century found that 92% of the residents were over the age of 60. Even if most Americans do not know these details, they believe that Social Security is vitally important to the general welfare. In a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted earlier this year, more than three-fourths of respondents said they did not want to see Social Security benefits cut. This support has, at least so far, put a political force field around Social Security. In 2005, President George W. Bush began his second term with an initiative to try to privatize Social Security. It went nowhere. At the outset of the recent spending fight in Washington, there were calls from Republicans and some Democrats to cut Social Security, but they, too, failed to gain traction. The overwhelming popular support for Social Security, and the failure of political assaults on it, may explain the attacks on the program's constitutionality. Conservatives used to oppose "judicial activism" and argue that courts should not use the Constitution to overturn the will of the elected branches. But lately, on issues like campaign finance and affirmative action, conservative courts have been striking down liberal laws. Some Social Security critics may believe that their best chance of ending the program lies not in Congress but in the Supreme Court. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2088599,00.html help us if this guy ever gets power! Surely once all this stuff starts coming out, he's a goner. Isn't he??
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL