Threats, Persecution and Potential Prosecution Over Religious Beliefs

It seems every day there’s another story about gay marriage.  States are being forced to allow and recognize the marriages of two men or two women.  The courts that are calling state bans on such unions unconstitutional are pointing to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution as the reason why these state laws are out of line.  The 14th Amendment was added to the supreme law of the land to ensure freed slaves were equally protected in our country by all laws.  It has been interpreted as a protection for everyone – with which I agree.

To that end, the states wisely didn’t ban gay marriage, they simply said marriage is between one man and one woman.  This simple difference is why the claims these laws violate the Constitution are dead wrong.  Think about it.  Do these laws address the idea of love at all?  No.  Do these laws address which gender those who desire to marry are attracted to or prefer to sleep with?  Nope.  Therefore, can any man marry any woman in those states?  Yes.  Any man, no matter his preferences, can marry a woman.  And vice versa.  But, what if he didn’t want to?  Then, DON’T!  Therefore, these laws DO, in fact, offer equal protections as required by the 14th Amendment.  That doesn’t mean you must marry a woman if you’re a man or vice versa.  But, you are certainly allowed to.

This is an opinion on the clearly written 14th Amendment and the clearly written marriage laws in some states.  You might feel I’m wrong and feel gays should marry.  You’re allowed.  But, I understand English and find the 14th Amendment easy to understand.  I also understand the clearly written laws in these states.  This needs to be heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States.  If they’re ruling by the letter of the law and on what’s written clearly, the state laws should be held as legal.

Having said that, it’s en vogue for state and appellate courts to deem these state laws unconstitutional.  Gays are allowed to marry in a growing number of states.  Forgetting the cogent argument I made above as to why there’s nothing illegal about state laws defining marriage, and allowing for the fact that gay marriage is increasingly legal, is the result what we really want America to be?  Do we really want individuals in our great land to be forced into taking part in things with which they don’t religiously or morally agree?  Also, if you’re gay, why on Earth would you want people like that to be forced to take part in this, your special day?  You wouldn’t.

Case in point, an Oregon bakery whose owners decided not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple has been ordered to bake the cake.  I believe the owners have every right to refuse to take part in a ceremony they deem a sin according to their religion.  The 1st Amendment would seem to agree with me.  A court ruling saying one must bake a cake in such a circumstance is a clear infringement of their ability to worship as they see fit without government persecution or prosecution.   The bakery has been forced to close its store front and the owners have moved the operation into their home.  (  The overriding question I have in cases like this, why on Earth would gays desire to have this bakery make the cake for their happy day?  It’s not about the quality of the cake or that this baker does something no one else does.  When I got married, had there been a bakery that made it clear they hated or didn’t want to make cakes for those of Italian heritage.  I would never have considered suing them in an attempt to for them to make my cake.  I would tell them, “you just lost a lot of money,” before going down the street to give my money to someone else.  This is about forcing ones beliefs on others.  This is about trying to force this country, which is overwhelmingly filled with people whose religious beliefs see homosexuality as a sin, to accept gay marriage as somehow normal and exactly the same as traditional marriage.  No matter what the courts decide, that’s not going to happen.

Court orders, threats, fines and forcing people out of business are horrendous.  But, now we’re seeing the next level of lunacy.  How about this: you’re a Christian minister who performs marriages.  You have chosen to only marry Christian men and women.  For some reason, a gay couple are insisting you marry them as well.  And when you refuse, you’re fined and threated with arrest.  You heard me right, do it or go to jail!  (  Is this the America you know and love?  Why wouldn’t a gay couple want to be married by a minister who accepts their union?  They would, of course.  Unless they’re just activists trying to make a point by forcing their own beliefs on others.

Before you agree or disagree with me, consider this.  Would it be okay to force a Jewish baker to make an, “I love Hitler” cake?  Would it be okay to force a Muslim caterer to serve food at your next pig roast?  Would it be okay to force a Christian baker to bake a cake which had “If You Don’t Love Satan You Should Be Killed!” written on it?  Would it be okay to force a Black photographer to shoot pictures and video at the next KKK gathering?  In this country, our freedom and liberties are protected FROM the government.  We are allowed to disagree.  We are allowed to believe in and follow whatever God or gods we’d like as long as that doesn’t cause physical or tangible harm to others.  Thus, we can’t scream “Fire!!” in a crowded theater.  That could cause panic and potentially injury as people run out.  Remember, this is not about having the right to not serve gays.  That would be wrong.  Your sexual preference or orientation should never stop you from getting some food, or watching a movie, or getting a job.  The reason why these rulings are wrong is because of the forced participation of business owners in a ceremony or event their religion tells them is a sin.  There’s a huge difference.

There is no harm in allowing the Muslim or Jewish caterers to only serve foods specific to their religions.  You want different foods?  Go to a business who can cater to your needs.  You want someone to photograph or bake a cake for your wedding and you’re gay?  There are plenty who would love to.  Get one of them.  You want someone to memorialize your Klan rally?  I’ll bet there are some idiots out there who would jump at the chance.  Stop this ridiculous pattern of forcing what you believe on me while telling me my beliefs don’t matter.  Enough now.


Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

This Is Why Being “Moderate” and “Middle-of-the-Road” Is A Position Doomed To Failure — Reagan Quotes — Part 2


Pastel Reagan

It’s an interesting complaint from the, so-called, “moderate” Republicans.  It’s why I’m not a Republican, rather a Conservative.  “Democrat” and “Republican” are parties.  Liberal and Conservative are ways of life.  I’m often faced with the notion that the GOP should be more accepting – more open – more middle-of-the-road.  It’s perplexing to me really.

This quote from Ronald Reagan is direct and clear.  Pick a side.  Stand firm.  Don’t waiver — but, do it with a smile and a welcoming nature.  Here’s a classic example of what I mean.

I don’t generally do the topic of abortion on my shows unless the news of the day dictates it.  I think it’s a cop-out topic utilized by lazy hosts.  “Abortion, for or against?  Call 1-800-Blah Blah.”  What I learned is, for the most part, I’m never going to change your mind and you’re not gonna change mine.  I am vehemently against abortion as a form of birth control.  The only time I’m okay with the idea of aborting a child is when the mother’s life is truly at risk.  I think if someone told me I had the choice between living or dying or my child living or dying — I would choose to let my child live.  But, when there’s a risk of me dying — I should get to make the choice.  Otherwise, no abortion.  When this topic needs to be broached, I’ll always get a call from someone who says something to the effect of, “Pags, you and I agree on 99 percent of the issues, BUT — I am completely against abortion but FOR the woman having the right to choose.”  Huh?  Say what?  That’s actually not possible.  

Think about it, as a conservative guy, I’m firm in my beliefs.  I’m completely against gay marriage, period.  I’m completely for the death penalty, period.  I’m completely for lower taxes, period.  I’m completely against large, over-controlling-over-powering government — and I’m against abortion.  Those are bold, solid, bright positions.  There’s no “but, ifs” there.  To say you’re against abortion but, for the right for a woman to choose — you’re saying you’re for abortion.  That usually leads to an exclamation, “No way!  Not true! Don’t put words in my mouth!”  Think about it.  What are the choices involved in the right to choose?  You can choose to NOT abort or to ABORT.  For you to say you think a woman should have that right, you’re saying you support those who choose to kill the baby.  That’s a bold statement — but, at least you know where I stand.  You cannot have it both ways.

Similarly, if you say, “I’m completely against higher taxes, unless it goes to pay for more food for the hungry.”  Umm, what?  That means you’re not completely against higher taxes.  I am completely against higher taxes.  As I write this, I’m actively railing against a nearly half-billion dollar bond issue in my local school district.  I’m a firm believer that if there’s a need, a community will rise up and find a way to fulfill it.  I don’t trust nor want government to administer to all of our needs.  I think it takes our incentive away to go out and get it ourselves.  If there’s a shortfall in how much food is available for the hungry, donate to the food bank.  If there aren’t enough beds for the homeless, donate money or a bed to the local shelter.  If there isn’t enough money at the local school to house the children, ask the parents to step up and foot the bill for a portable or two.  This is how it used to be.  Today, we sit back and watch the government siphon more and more of our money in the form of taxes and watch them build palaces to education and give every child a laptop or iPad.  I’m against that.  And, am not afraid to say it.  Even in the face of the chants, “it’s for the children.”  

Case and point: recently Senator Ted Cruz of Texas spoke for nearly 22 hours on the Senate floor to raise awareness of the problems with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  It was a way for him to fulfill a promise he’d made to the voters of Texas should he win the election.  He did, and followed through.  He took a stand.  Whether you agree with him or not – that’s what he did.  He boldly stood there in the face of the majority in that house who called him “radical, extreme, extremist,” and more.  But, he didn’t waiver.  Some did, however.

It was expected that those from the opposing party and even the media would excoriate Cruz for this brash act.  How dare he?  He’s grandstanding!  He’s doing it for attention.  He let that all roll off of his back.  But, what may have not been expected is how his colleagues — fellow Republicans would flock to the other side with the opposing view.  Long-seated Arizona Senator John McCain even went as far as to call what Cruz did “insulting.”  He took Cruz out of context and let him have it.  What McCain and others did in not only NOT supporting Cruz but, coming out against him, is set the party — and the values we thought it held —  back generations.  We need a return to real beliefs, real backbone, and less compromise.

Before you walk away from this thinking I’m intolerant or insensitive, I’m not.  I don’t want people to be persecuted nor prosecuted for having a different value system than I.  I just don’t want them setting policy.  The Conservative sensibility is the most like our value system.  And, it’s incredibly welcoming, tolerant, accepting and firm.  If you don’t get how all of that can coexist — then you need to reexamine why you’re so wishy washy on your own beliefs.




Posted in Joe's Blog | 10 Comments

I Will Be In Again Tomorrow On WHAS/Louisville

Looking forward to sitting in again tomorrow on WHAS in Louisville tomorrow.  We will certainly talk about the move the Obama administration is expected to do — bring in tech experts to try to fix the brand new — yet antiquated — Obamacare servers.  Some reports say the site is based on 10 year old technology.  It would be crazy to do the right thing.. I don’t know, maybe what the House suggested in its compromise?  Delay the launch for a year?  Naaa — that’s silly.  Plenty of other stories to cover including whether Creationism should be taught in schools.

Be there!  Pags

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reagan Quotes And How They Still Apply Today In The USA — First In A Series

Reagan Quotes Pags 1

It dawned on me that my four children aged 4, 13, 21 and 22 — as wonderful as they are and as much as they know how I feel about freedom and liberty and as much as they get the concept of smaller government = a freer people — they don’t know much about former president Ronald Reagan.  Frankly, they hear the power brokers on both sides of the aisle constantly comparing themselves to him more than any other president this nation has ever had.  Think about it, when’s the last time you heard some politician say, “I’m going to do what Grover Cleveland did if you vote for me?”  There’s good reason why they choose to (usually ridiculously) compare themselves to Reagan.  He was a great president with a simple, “Government is a necessary evil, but is certainly not your friend,” sensibility.

This outlook, along with his incredible ability to restore nationalism after one of the weakest American presidents ever (Jimmy Carter), proved desirous and very attractive to most Americans no matter what they’re usual preferred political leanings.  The term “Reagan Democrat” was coined as he saw great success no matter who the voter was.  President Reagan was smooth, quick, witty and, most importantly, hard not to like.  He was a calming figure no matter whether he was facing down the threat of global nuclear war or recovering from the gunshot wound of a would-be assassin.

The things he said were wonderfully appropriate in the mindset of the role government should and shouldn’t play in the lives of a free people.  With that in mind, I decided to present some of these quotes here — as part of a series.  I’m doing it for a couple of reasons:

  • to refresh you and me of what we lived through and what helped us to figure out how we felt about this country and how it’s run.
  • and, more importantly, to give us a resource we can use as a reason to sit down with our kids and talk about the greatest president in our lifetimes and certainly in the last 100 years.

The first quote I chose really fits into the times we’re in.  It’s simple:

“We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.”

First thing that jumps out is how he was railing against a “trillion-dollar debt.”  One has to wonder how he would feel about a federal debt approaching 17 trillion.  The meaning really is direct and simple.  The Federal Government doesn’t have a money confiscation problem, it has a spending problem.  You’ve heard many politicians say something to the effect of “Washington is broken.”  I disagree.  I say, “Washington is making the people broke.”

Imagine if you will, you are getting paid at work.  You make $500 a week.  However, you consistently spend $600 a week.  So, you put the other hundred over on a credit card until you max the card out.  You don’t change your spending.  In fact, you decide to start spending $1000 a week.  Now, you owe interest on the debt you were accruing every week and instead of doing what would actually work — stop spending so much — you’ve increased your spending to the point that the money you’re making barely covers the interest on the built up debt.  Then, you tell — you don’t ask — your credit card company to increase your limit there because all of this spending and paying of interest has you maxed out.  Simple question: what do you think your boss would say if you went to him with your debt and spending portfolio and requested a raise?  Mine would say, I didn’t make you spend that way.  You know how much you make.  YOU spend less.  Instead, Washington automatically increases its spending every year through what’s called “baseline budgeting.”  It’s a monetary shell-game that lets politicians claim they’re cutting the budget when it actually auto-increases yearly.

How do you solve the problem?  You stop the game of, “raising the debt ceiling is just to pay for the stuff we’ve already bought.”  That might have worked the first time.  Problem is, Washington refuses to stop buying stuff after getting the increase.  If the spending stopped or — God Forbid — were decreased, we wouldn’t have the dog-and-pony show ever two years over raising or not raising the debt limit.

The eight years Ronald Reagan was the president encompassed one of the best recoveries from recession we’ve seen in our history.  How did he make that happen?  He lowered taxes for Americans across the board and limited the government’s reach in our lives.  The blueprint exists and should be followed today.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Do You Have Pictures YOU TOOK From The Open Carry Rally At The Alamo Today?

I was working and couldn’t attend.  Were you there?  Do you have pictures you actually took?  I’d love it if you sent them to me and I will post them on my FB page.  Either click message on the FB page or email them to me at




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Here’s a Great Write Up on How to Get Content You Want In Your News Feed!

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Testing The RSS Feed To My Facebook Page

This is ONLY a test.  300585_386771498109007_1982907482_n

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Government Shutdown Offers Valuable Lessons About The State Of Our Nation

Yes, everyone has an opinion on just about anything.  Most have made a media-based or emotional choice as to who they blame for the government shut down.  If you want my fact-based take, you can find it here

Many, unfortunately, have missed the forest for the trees on this one.  There’s one inescapable truth which has emerged during the so-called government shutdown and was accentuated by the computer glitch that temporarily disrupted the ability for people to use EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) cards: the government is way too big and has way too much control over We The People!

Before jumping to conclusions about what I mean based on what you think my feelings are on individual politicians or parties, answer these questions out loud:

Did you know the government could pick and choose which parks would close or stay open?

Did you know the government could close the ocean to you and me?

Did you know the government could choose to keep Camp David and some Golf Courses open while denying WWII Veterans access to their own memorial?

Did you know the government could tell free, liberated Americans they could not stop their cars and take a picture of Mt. Rushmore?

Did you know the government could choose to close a website dedicated to finding lost or kidnapped kids while keeping open the website supporting the First Lady’s Pet Project?

Did you know the Executive Branch could alter a passed and signed law (the ACA) to give waivers to campaign donors and businesses it chooses?

Before the outrage exhibited by so many on social media and elsewhere, did you know so many in this land of plenty were reliant on the government to give them food through the EBT system?  

What’s my point?  Simply that government was created and allowed to exist to represent and serve you and me — not to control us.  We’ve gone from for the people and by the people to have power over and control of the people.  Are you okay with that?  How do we change it?

We, first of all demand that the Constitution is adhered to.  It’s not a guide or suggestion.  It is, in fact, the foundation of this country and outlines the freedoms and liberties we have and which are protected from overwhelming government restriction.  One amendment we should focus on is the 10th.  There is no way on planet Earth we should ever have stood by and allowed the central government the ability to administer to and have control of our parks and memorials.  The states should administer with our taxes and NEVER have the ability to shut them down.  It is stunning how much power this government has grabbed while many were focusing on Keeping Up With The Kardashians and other mindless fodder.

And, when it comes to taking care of those in need we have always done a great job from within our communities.  Even though it seems the central government is trying to put them out of business, there are still wonderful food banks and soup kitchens that exist to help those in dire need.  Instead, however, people are more and more (more today than ever in our history) taking handouts from the government.  It seems like a great deal.  You sign up for one freebie and you’re automatically good to go for a number of others.  The problem is, to get those handouts, you must give up your freedom and liberty while at the same time making it more and more compulsory for those of us who are working hard to support our own families to finance this stripping of freedom and increased allowance for central government power and control.  Do you want some evidence?  Go on Facebook or Twitter and put in #ebt and see the outrage when the cards didn’t work.  If you weren’t on the card, you would not have known there was a problem.

The American Dream is not yet dead although, now more than ever, it’s getting close to requiring life-support.  If you think the American Dream is still accessible through government handouts and increased power and control, can you name me one successful American CEO who’s on the dole?

Now is the time for us all to awaken from our slumber and say, “Enough is Enough.”  Instead of blaming this side or that for the shutdown, we must blame ourselves for giving up so much to a group of self-centered elitists (on BOTH sides of the aisle) in a small district on the East Coast.

Keep your voice loud and make sure you vote the controllers out and vote in those who will truly do the bidding of a free people.  Do not demand more from the government, demand less!  Instead of seeing this as a dark time in our history, see this as a real eye-opener which has served to make us overtly aware of our allowance of a few to control so much — and an opportunity to seize that control back.




Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

There’s A Reason Why Lady Justice Wears A Blindfold

Before February of 2012, the vast majority of us had never heard of Trayvon Martin nor George Zimmerman. They were nothing to us. They did not occupy any part of our hearts or minds. I do not love George Zimmerman and I did not love Trayvon Martin. They were but two of millions of souls you and I will never come into contact with nor spend one moment considering in our daily lives. Then, that fateful night happened.

A local story became a national concern when allegations of racism and profiling were brought to the spotlight. Suddenly, the President of the United States would say something as biased as, “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.” This, the president of ALL of the United States stoking the already heating up flames of division in the country. Once again, when given a golden opportunity to lead, he divided. Not long afterwards, my second favorite team, the Miami Heat players took a picture with them all wearing hoodies. They were showing solidarity with the young man killed that night as if it were a foregone conclusion what had taken place.

I’d said this from the moment I read enough of the information in this case. I called for Zimmerman to be prosecuted from day one. This angered a lot of my listeners. As quickly as the president and the Heat and Sharpton and the New Black Panther Party pounced to say Martin was killed for being Black, many of my listeners were claiming Zimmerman’s innocence because he was legally carrying a gun. While the media took the side of Martin by only showing pictures of a smiling 12 year old, many were backing Zimmerman by calling Martin a “thug” or “thief.” In fact, many sent me a picture of the rap artist, “The Game” with tattooed face and neck claiming the picture was really 17-year old Martin before his death. People took sides quickly. I just wanted the facts to come out. The best way to do that? Unpopular as it was, I stood firm and pushed to have it go before a judge and decided by a jury.

I know some of you reading will say I have this perspective because I’m not Black and I enjoy some sort of “White Privilege.” Reality is, I am color blind. I always have been. I don’t have to prove that to you.. it’s how I live. I’ve looked at this case and have come to some common sense-based, logical reasonable conclusions. Both men, Martin and Zimmerman, are guilty of misidentifying the other. Martin had every right to be in that neighborhood. He had every right to buy something to drink and some candy. He had every right to wear a hoodie and talk on his cell phone. He did nothing wrong. Zimmerman had every right to be in his truck. He had every right to observe what was going on in his neighborhood. He had every right to call the police when he saw someone he didn’t recognize in his neighborhood. He had every right to get out of his truck.

Martin made the mistake of thinking Zimmerman was someone up to no good and Zimmerman made the mistake of thinking Martin was up to no good. I’m betting had Martin known Zimmerman was neighborhood watch and Zimmerman that Martin belonged there, none of this would have happened.

Nobody has argued that Zimmerman actually chased and physically caught Martin that night. NOBODY. They said he “followed” or “stalked” or “chased” but NEVER physically chased and ran down Martin. That would be ridiculous. Zimmerman 5’8″ and 200 pounds, Martin 5’11” 155-160 and a decade younger — do you really think he chased him down and physically caught him? Or is it more likely that after Zimmerman turned around and walked back to his truck, Martin came to him and wanted to know what his problem was? Did anyone in this case say anything about Zimmerman starting the physical confrontation? That’s what this case was really about. Who physically attacked whom? They were both mistaken. They both made bad decisions. But, who started the physical confrontation? If it was Zimmerman, he should have been convicted. The evidence did not bear that out. The prosecution did not make that case. The defense’s case relied on the jury believing Martin threw the first blow. It was successful in proving that.

Put the blinders on. Forget that the media calls Zimmerman a “White Hispanic” or a man who “identifies himself as Hispanic” and that calls Martin “17 year old Trayvon,” or “Black teen Trayvon,” or “little Trayvon Martin.” If it went down as the defense said it did, then the verdict is correct no matter the race of those involved.

With that said, I truly believe Zimmerman should NOT have gotten out of the truck that night. I truly believe he should have followed IN his vehicle and waited until police got there. But, as much as Martin was allowed to walk down that street, so was Zimmerman. The dispatcher is not a police officer and can suggest he not follow but, he’s not breaking the law by not listening. Zimmerman was allowed to carry a gun as provided by the Constitution. It was not a stolen gun nor was he a convicted criminal not allowed to carry.

I’m the father of four. I can’t imagine the agony Martin’s family and friends must be going through. I wish Trayvon Martin were alive today. In fact, if I had my way, I never would have heard of George Zimmerman nor Trayvon Martin. Emotions are running hot and people are screaming “Injustice.” Anyone physically attacked has the right to defend himself. Instead of further divide, why can’t the discussion going forward be about healing this country to the point that we don’t because of the color of our own skin make immediate assumptions about others because of the color of their skin — ON BOTH SIDES.

Posted in Uncategorized | 43 Comments

Mr. Governor, It’s Time To Raise Your Game On Immigration

I like Rick Perry as my governor and I like him even more as a man. He has out of the blue, unceremoniously, with no press or fanfare called me on my cell phone (who gave him my number!!??) to give his personal thoughts and prayers as I faced personal tragedies. That, to me, was remarkable. It meant the world to me and raised my opinion of a governor whom I already thought was doing a pretty good job.

Having said that, I am a commentator — and editorialist. I have never and will never run away from an opinion that is varying from those I interview. That has always been the case when I have interviewed the governor. I disagreed with the governor on the Trans Texas Corridor and went at him on it. On my show, face to face, he said, “the Trans Texas Corridor is dead.” He responded to the people of the great state of Texas and their disdain over that project by killing it. He did something similar when it came to the HPV vaccine. He signed the order for the vaccines — then backed off when the people spoke. He seems at the very least reticent to do the same when it comes to immigration. Fact is, if he wants to win the nomination — and I think he’d be a great nominee — he’s going to have to face the music on what to do with illegal immigrants here in the country. He’s also going to have to revisit his belief that those here illegally qualify to have their education subsidized by the rest of us.

As for his performance in tonight’s debate? I give him a C. I felt the swagger was missing many times and his answers wandered at others. That’s not okay when you’re facing an attack dog like Rick Santorum and a polished New Englander like Mitt Romney. He was sharp at times but, more often seemed introspective and almost quiet. It’s not the Rick Perry we here in Texas know. Was he tired? Did he have something else on his mind? Was he hungry? Guess what — it doesn’t matter. What does matter is what people who watched that debate will take away about him and his chances we be made or broken by these debates. When it’s go time — it’s go time and I’m not sure the governor gave it the go he’s capable of giving it.

Quick personal anecdote. I used to work at a tiny FM in Belle Glade, Florida. It was a 52 mile drive for me each way and I constantly found myself running late. One day on the way out, I was stopped not ONCE but, TWICE for speeding. I got two tickets costing tons of money I didn’t have. Boy was I angry. I got on the air and was disgruntled, unenthusiastic, short with my words and snappy about what I was saying. My boss heard me and walked in and asked, “hey Joe — you having a bad day?” “Sure am,” I said. He said, “well, I don’t give a f^%&, you have a job to do. Suck it up and sound good on my radio station or get off my air.” Point well-taken.

It’s kinda what I wanted to say to the governor tonight. You have a couple of hours to shine as many of us know you can. He did NOT present himself as the confident, no-nonsense man many Texans know him to be. I don’t know why — and frankly, don’t care. The job at hand is to show you can be the next president of the United States. And, unfortunately, that means bring it every single time.

To the actual issues. The governor did just fine when it came to the HPV issue. He’s defended himself well before and did a great job tonight. That issue, I believe, goes away now. Social Security is another topic he was attacked on again — and did just fine. It is a Ponzi scheme — and saying that is not a negative. Saying he’s got a way to save it and will not take it away from anyone who gets it was good.. at least better than not really offering a plan for that program in the future. But, all of the wind came out of the governor’s sails and he seemed to lose his confidence and energy on immigration. The issue of a border wall or fence is red meat for conservatives and he was an easy target on that as he’s against such a structure. But, he, yet again, proved to be especially vulnerable on the issue of in-state tuition for illegals.

Fact is, the governor believes anyone who gets a public K-12 education in Texas (illegals cannot be denied an education as per a Supreme Court ruling) and who has lived in this great state for three years should be able to get in state tuition. This is looked at as an invitation for people to come here illegally and reap the benefits of our tax dollars to subsidize their education. As a matter of fact, three other candidates (Bachmann, Romney and Santorum) called this policy a “magnet” for illegals (one wonders if they planned on using the same word to attack Perry’s stance on this issue). Conservatives disagree with this policy vehemently. The argument the governor has used is not resonating either. His comments that allowing for in-state tuition will somehow keep illegals off of the entitlement dole doesn’t make sense as exposed by Rick Santorum. Santorum’s point was — why offer the “magnet” of in-state tuition? If they want to go to a Texas higher-learning institution, they should pay full price. Period. And, he’s right.

My biggest surprise from the debate was not that this is what the governor believes. It’s that he doesn’t have a better answer prepared for the question. He and his people know it’s coming and still there is not an answer ready to get republicans and conservatives to come to a better understanding of why this makes sense. A good question might be, “why won’t the governor listen to the people and make a similar decision as he did to the unpopular TTC and HPV issues?”

Do I think the governor still has a good shot? Yes! I think there is much work to do on the issue of immigration, however. And, that work needs to be done quickly.

For what it’s worth, I feel Herman Cain won the debate.

If you like this — why not “share” it with your connections. I look forward to your comments!


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment