There has not appeared a current standout for the conservatives presidential field, all eyes are now on Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R).

Perry, who has been elected governor three times and served for more than 10 years, enjoys accolades from social conservatives and Tea Party-types alike. Glenn Beck even described Rick Perry as a man he was so enamored with that he wanted to “French kiss.” him. I’m sure he was joking but you get the picture.

I thought it is worth taking a closer look at his record as governor, but more importantly I thought I would take a look at what the left is saying about Governor Perry. Somewhere between what’s being said about him and what he says about himself is the truth.  What I did was take the top things being said by bloggers and media. I am going to give you my take on issues across the board.  In some instances I am giving you my common sense opinion which I am calling MY TAKE. I will also give you whatever facts I can dig up to substantiate my position as well as whatever Governor Perry himself has said, or what he’s been quoted as saying.  I will let you decide for yourselves. There is already enough negative press about Governor Perry, and since I am a conservative it is up to me to weed out the truth. I can not depend on the main steam media to do it for me.  I am looking at all of it. Everything from Perry’s support for dropping out of Social Security and Medicaid to his relationships with Al Gore, and  Imams pushing Sharia Law in Texas schools, to his proposal that Texas secede from the United States, however there is so much material. I will be writing this in parts. This is part one.

(1) PERRY USED TO BE A DEMOCRAT AND AL GORE’S CAMPAIGN MANAGER

Both statements are true. Perry was raised in a Democrat family where his father was a long-serving Democrat county commissioner. It was natural for him to start his political career as a Democrat. He won his first election in 1984 when he was elected to the Texas house and soon became a rising star in Texas democrat politics. An opportunity to advance himself presented itself and he became Gore’s Texas campaign manager in 1988.

Those too young to remember wouldn’t recognize the Al Gore of 1988. He opposed the federal funding of abortion, supported a moment of silence in schools for prayer, approved funding of the Nicaraguan contras and was against the ban on interstate handgun sales. Gore’s platform was one that a conservative West Texas Democrat like state representative Perry could support when he signed up to chair the Senator’s Texas campaign.

From the election on, the Gore/Perry partnership began to crumble and the way that their paths diverged in the past three decades speaks eloquently to the way American politics has been reshaped. Gore has sailed left, while Perry’s political odyssey has seen him tack in the other direction — and to the opposing party.

My Take:  I grew up in a household of democrats, but I am as conservative as can be. My mother used to drag me with her to hand out union flyers and listen to speeches by the left. Yet look at me, I grew up to be a Republican.  In fact most of my family are still democrats which makes for lively discussions.  If critics insist that it’s fair to criticize Perry now for his actions of 22 years ago, it is also fair to apply that same scrutiny and criticism to positions espoused by every other politician covering the past 22 years – President Obama included. Is it time to revisit Obama’s anti-American associations, his time in Rev. Wright’s church, his “present” votes, etc.? Let the scrutiny and criticism begin … most people are not the same person they were 22 years ago. We should allow even politicians the right to change the minds, and grow from who they were to who they are now. It should not be an issue unless it becomes a habit.

Gov. Perry’s Response: Perry says that the Gore experience helped him to “come to his senses,” and he switched to the Republican party in 1989, fully 22 years ago. Perry switched parties over two decades ago and critics somehow think that bringing it up now is newsworthy? Sorry guys, as they say in Texas, ‘that dog won’t hunt.’

(2) PERRY ALLOWED THE EXECUTION OF A LIKELY INNOCENT MAN, THEN IMPEDED AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE: This is a troubling case.  In 2004, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed by lethal injection in Huntsville, Texas after being convicted of arson and the murder of his three daughters before Christmas 1991. At Willingham’s trial, Texas fire investigators said they found clear indicators that the fire at the Willingham home in the small town of Corsicana had been intentionally set. By the time of Willingham’s execution in February, 2004, the science of fire investigation had dramatically advanced and what investigators had for decades considered telltale signs of arson were no longer considered reliable.  It has been said that even after significant evidence emerged showing that arson had not caused the fire that Perry refused to grant a stay of execution. It wasn’t until five years after Willingham was executed, a report from a Texas Forensic Science Commission investigator found that the fire could not have been arson. As the commission prepared to hear testimony from the investigator in October 2009, Detractors say Perry quickly fired andreplaced three of its members, forcing an indefinite delay in the hearing.

My take:

In the final days before Willingham was put to death, his lawyer filed with the courts a report from Gerald Hurst, one of the nation’s most renowned fire scientists. Hurst’s four-page report asserted for the first time in the case that the indicators of arson the investigators cited had been debunked by scientific advances. The fire, Hurst concluded, might well have been an accident – he did not state categorically that it was an accident. Perry reviewed the report and determined it did not present new information, only new opinion. He also decided it did not merit a stay of execution. 

Under Texas law, the Governor can only issue a one-time temporary 30-day stay of execution. Any other clemency or commutation of sentence must be recommended to the Governor by the state’s Pardons and Paroles board. None was forthcoming in the Willingham case. 

Lucy Nashed, a Perry spokeswoman said, “Willingham’s conviction was reviewed and upheld by multiple levels of state and federal courts, including nine federal courts – four times by the U.S. Supreme Court alone – over the course of more than a decade.” 

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles reviewed the latest evidence and refused to recommend that Governor Perry act in this case. Governor Perry independently decided that the evidence did not warrant a stay and he allowed Willingham’s execution to proceed in accordance with his responsibility as Governor. 

Did Texas execute an innocent man? In a case that could not have been overturned based on something as definitive as DNA evidence and seven years after the 2004 execution, there’s no way to be 100% sure, but under Texas law, the most that Perry could have done was issue a single 30-day stay. When someone takes the position that Willingham was “innocent,” that person is intentionally ignoring all of the legal maneuvers that occurred and is basing that determination on “feelings.” He was never deemed “innocent” by any legal authority.

The words “Significant evidence” is subjectively used by MoveOn.og and other Leftist who have tried to use this case against Governor Perry, but I say let the system work. If someone has been convicted of a crime with SIGNIFICANT evidence, then trying to bring in other evidence after the fact which was not originally allowed or brought in during the trial process is not only not the way our justice system works but  the information brought forward should be viewed as insignificant which is what Governor Perry chose to do.

Gov. Perry’s response: “I think people are making a lot of this issue,” Perry told reporters Thursday in Austin, Texas. He said the replacement of commission Chairman Sam Bassett and commissioners Alan Levy and Aliece Watts, whose terms had expired, was “pretty normal protocol.” ”If you’ve got a whole new investigation going forward, it makes a lot more sense to put the new people in now and let them start the full process, rather than bring people in there for a short period of time and then replace them,” he said. “I think it makes a whole lot more sense to make a change now than to make a change later.”

(3) PERRY WANTS TO REPEAL THE 16th AND 17th AMENDMENTS, ENDING DIRECT ELECTION OF U.S. SENATORS AND THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX: In his 2010 book Fed Up!, Perry called the 16th and 17th Amendments “mistaken” and said they resulted from “a fit of populist rage.” The 16th Amendment allows the federal government to collect income taxes, which is the single biggest source of revenue, accounting for 45 percent of all receipts. The 17th Amendment took electing U.S. senators out of the hands of political insiders and allowed the American public to decide their representation instead.

My take: Governor Perry is not alone. I don’t know of anyone who given the opportunity to NOT pay taxes wouldn’t repeal the 16th Amendment. The 17th Amendment however is a little more tricky. In order for you to understand what Gov. Perry is advocating for you need to understand a little bit of the history of the Senate. Please humor me and let me explain. Originally, each Senator was elected by his state’s legislature to represent that state in the Senate. This was intended to protect each state’s power within the federation established by the Constitution by having its own direct representation in the Congress. While an unqualified candidate might win a popular-vote majority through demagoguery or superficial qualities, the legislature, which could deliberate on its choice, and whose members had been selected by their constituents and had experience in politics, were thought safe from such influence. Finally, election by the legislature was expected to insulate Senators from the distraction of public campaigning for election or re-election, leaving them free to concentrate on the great business of the federal government. This last purpose was also the reason for the six-year term for Senators, as compared to the two-year term for U.S. Representatives.

Election by legislatures generally occurred without major problems up to the mid-1850s. There were frequent vacancies of a few days up to several months, but these nearly always occurred when Congress was not in session. In the 1850s, the sectional crisis over slavery led to increasing partisanship and strife. As a result, Indiana failed to elect a Senator from March 1855 to February 1857, while California failed to elect one from March 1855 to January 1857. California had previously failed to elect from March 1851 through January 1852, missing two months of the first session of the 32nd Congress, while Delaware failed to elect from September 1839 to January 1841, missing the entire first session and half the second session of the 26th Congress.  After the Civil War, the problems multiplied. In one case in the mid-1860s, the election of Senator John P. Stockton from New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton asserted that the exact method for elections was murky and varied by state. In response, the Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when each state elected Senators.This was the first change in the process of Senatorial elections. While the law helped, there were still deadlocks in some legislatures and accusations of bribery, corruption, and suspicious dealings in some elections. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate (the more things change the more they stay the same) between 1866 and 1906, and 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating Senators. In the worst case, from March 1899 to March 1903 Delaware failed to elect a Senator; this resulted in both of Delaware’s Senate seats being vacant for two years. Popular support of Senatorial election reform grew in 1905, 29 directly elected Senators supported legislation to promote direct election, but to make direct election general, a constitutional amendment was required. That is why the 17th amendment was required. I said all that to say this. The difficulty for travel from their states to Washington DC was a hardship. There were no planes,. Every one traveled by stage coach, and getting to the House to vote on senators for individual states became an obsolete way to conduct business.  I have not been able to find his statements on this either, nonetheless I thought I should address it and explain it for you.  As far as I am concerned, it is not that important.

(4) PERRY WAS ATTENDED THE BILDERBRAND GROUP’S SECRET MEETING. Many conservatives are taken aback by the governors acceptance of this particular invitation. The Bilderbrand Group  has been long a secret society of power brokers meeting in secret lavish places. Named after the hotel which hosted the first meeting in 1954 – the group was created by Denis (now Lord) Healey, Joseph Retinger, David Rockefeller and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (a former SS officer) – the group’s stated aim was to develop understanding between Europe and the US at the height of the Cold War by bringing together financiers, industrialists, politicians and opinion formers the press have never been allowed access and all discussions are under Chatham House rules (no quoting). and all is secret.

My take:  Many conspirators believe the NEW WORLD ORDER was given birth by the Bilderbrand group and that they have worked ever since tirelessly to accomplish their true goal of a one world government. For many Americans who treasure the US Constitution, and it’s sovereignty the Bilderbrand group and any of its associations are unpatriotic to say the least, or down right evil. For the Teaparty movement and the GOP to have a presidential candidate who is seen as cozy with the Bilderbrand group is to seal that candidates fate. How do I feel about his attendance? If in fact he was invited, simply went out of curiosity but has never been invited back, and is found to have NO dealings with the group; then I can forgive him and move on…but then again that is me and I am known to be forgiving. It will be up to you to watch him for yourselves. As I will. In other words. The jury is still out on this one.

Gov. Perry’s response: He said he was invited to the Bilderberg meeting and attended out of curiosity. “I found it to be an interesting group of people. I have yet to find out why they want to keep it a secret,” he said. “I haven’t been invited back and that was 5 years ago, so I guess I didn’t impress them.”

source: politico

(5) PERRY NAME HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED GROVER NORQUIST A FRONT MAN FOR THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD: 

Grover Norquist’s background is no secret.  Grover Norquist is toxic and should be persona non grata in the Republican party. He is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. And has been exposed as the recipient of huge donations from a Brotherhood figure who is now in jail for financing terror activity. I don’t want to see a GOP presidential candidate palling around with Grover and his thugs. I want a presidential candidate to declare that he will appoint an attorney general at the DOJ who will press forward immediately with the prosecutions of the co-conspirators named in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror funding trial in our nation’s history. I want a presidential candidate who is unafraid of the stealth jihadists in our midst, and who will vow that he will clean out the infiltrators. There are legitimate questions about the Aga Khan, also. The Ismailis are peaceful, yes, and the Aga Khan Foundation is an established Islamic charity. But the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development is also part-owner of the Pakistan-based Bank al-Habib, which Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl’s widow Mariane sued in 2007 for damages relating to its funding of al-Qaeda and involvement in the murder of her husband by Islamic jihad terrorists. She dropped the suit later that year without explanation, except to note that the Habib Bank had never answered her charges.

My Take:. Norquist heads up Americans for Tax Reform, and Perry’s tax-cutting message is redolent of Norquist’s influence. If I had been asked to speak at a forum where Norquist was speaking, I would refuse to speak at the same event in partnership with Grover Norquist. I would also never promote him on my website, which Perry did.   It could be that Gov. Perry sees Norquist as a tax reformer in his own image and either ignores or is ignorant of Norquist’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, but either way I think Gov. Perry has some explaining to do on this issue.  Aga Khan  is another friend of Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The multimillionaire head of the Ismailis, a Shiite sect of Islam that today proclaims its nonviolence but in ages past was the sect that gave rise to the Assassins. Having said that I will reserve my opinion until such time as he has explained himself thoroughly. As far as I can tell Governor Perry has not responded to this yet.

(6) PERRY WANTED TO MANDATE HPV VACCINATIONS IN TEXAS: Gardasil was believed to be a way to stop certain types of cancer among young women. Studies appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 found that Gardasil was nearly 100 percent effective in preventing precancerous cervical lesions caused by the the strains that Gardasil protects against. Gardasil’s effectiveness increased when given to girls and young women before they become sexually active. Gardasil was found to be extremely effective in preventing several (but not all) of the strains of HPV known to cause cervical cancer and genital warts.

Some critics maintain that Gardasil has a record of “very serious safety issues.” That obvious attempt to further tarnish Perry’s image by intimating that not only did he do the bidding of Merck in ordering the vaccinations, he did so without considering the possible serious side effects. There is little doubt that Governor Perry knew a great deal more about Gardasil at the time than those critics do now. The CDC has been following Gardasil since its licensing and some current facts follow. Taken from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website:

“Since licensure, CDC and FDA have been closely monitoring the safety of HPV vaccines. “As of June 22, 2011, approximately 35 million doses of Gardasil® have been distributed in the U.S. and the safety monitoring system (VAERS) received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination. As with all VAERS reports, serious events may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.”

“Of the total number of VAERS reports following Gardasil®, 92% were considered to be non-serious, and 8% were considered serious. Out of 35,000,000 doses distributed, there were 1,498 occasions of serious complications; that equates to a .0000428 chance that a dose will cause a serious adverse reaction.” Hardly enough to consider the vaccine “a very serious safety issue” as claimed by some critics. Apparently, they are too lazy to “do a little research.”

As of June, 2011, the CDC says: “Based on all of the information we have today, CDC recommends HPV vaccination for the prevention of most types of cervical cancer. As with all approved vaccines, CDC and FDA will continue to closely monitor the safety of HPV vaccines.” Check out the CDC’s statements about Gardasil for yourself. And specifically check out the Summary at the end for the CDC’s conclusion about Gardasil’s effectiveness.

In Gardasil, Merck believed that they had a credible, FDA-approved, CDC recommended, fact-backed case for vaccinating young women and lobbied state officials to do so. Were they trying to make money on the drug? Without a doubt, that’s what a business does.Although I personally do not agree with government mandates for healthcare including vaccinations what is the big deal about this mandate? I mean the govt already mandates children get vaccinations before entering the public school system in most states. Why would this be so different? When Perry mandated Gardasil, it would have become part of a school-related vaccine package which was then covered by insurance for simply the cost of a co-pay. Agree or disagree, that does seem to be a reasonable justification for Perry’s actions.

My Take:  Governor Perry made the following statement because some in his state were accusing him that mandating the HPV vaccine was tantamount to promoting promiscuity among teenage girls. I happen to disagree with them. In fact I think the most valid point he makes is that insurance companies would not cover the vaccine unless it was a mandated for school attendance. His point was there were many low income people in Texas who would not be able to afford the vaccine, and it would not be right for only rich or well to do families to be protected when he had the power to give them all the ability to do so. Good job in this one.

Gov. Perry’s response: “As governor of Texas, I will do everything in my power to protect public health. The executive order I signed last Friday will help stop the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV) and prevent cervical cancer in young women. Some are focused on the cause of this cancer, but I remain focused on the cure. And if I err, I will always err on the side of protecting life.  If we could stop lung cancer, would some shy away claiming it might encourage tobacco use?  This is a rare opportunity to act, and as a pro-life governor, I will always take the side of protecting life. Though some might argue that we should wait several years before requiring the vaccine, I believe such a delay unnecessarily risks the lives of young women..” click here for source

Perry maintains that the justification for his executive order making the shot mandatory was twofold:

1) that the vaccine offered a chance to save lives that might have otherwise been taken away by cervical cancer and

2) that insurance companies wouldn’t cover the $360 cost of the vaccine ($120 for each of a 3-shot regimen) when it was simply an optional “recommended” vaccine. That put it out of the reach for most low-income Texans. This from the Time Magazine article  “Some pediatricians and gynecologists are refusing to stock Gardasil because many insurance companies reimburse so little for the vaccine, which costs $360 for the three required doses.”

(7) PERRY HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST RATES OF UNINSURED AS FAR AS HEALTHCARE IS CONCERNED: On Bill Bennett’s radio show last year, Perry claimed that “Texas has the best health care in the country.”  Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents of any state. More than one in four Texans lack coverage; the national average is just 15.4 percent. As such, there are more uninsured residents in Texas than there are people in 33 states. Despite Texas’s low coverage rates, the state has some of the most restrictive Medicaid eligibility thresholds, and Perry has even proposed dropping out of the program. Texas also has an inordinately high percentage of impoverished children, yet Perry opposed expanding the successful State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

My Take: Governor Perry also has the most illegals of ANY state in the union. If he has the MOST uninsured it is because he has the MOST illegals and illegals almost always will be uninsured. The fact that Texas has the highest rate of uninsured doesnt make his statement any less true. Texas may have one of the best healthcare in the country. The two are two separate subjects. I believe Gov. Perry was talking about Texas actual health care facilities and the reason Texas is able to attract the best and the brightest is because of their tort reform laws.

Gov. Perry’s response: “I believe it is because of tort law.  We do, yes. I spoke with the doctors yesterday in San Antonio. We’ve got, you know, three of the great health care regions. When you think about the medical center in Houston, there are more doctors, nurses, researchers go to work there than any other place in the world, every day. You got UT Southwestern up in University of Texas Health Sciences Center, San Antonio, Scott & White. I mean these fabulous health care facilities are rated among the best in the country”

source: The Birmingham News

(8) PERRY AND THE TRANS TEXAS CORRIDOR : The “Trans-Texas Corridor” (TTC) term identifies a plan, introduced by Governor Perry in 2001, that some saw as the beginning of a “North American Union” highway system. It was to extend from the Texas border with Mexico to the border with Oklahoma and would be a 4,000 mile system with routes crisscrossing Texas. The $175+ billion dollar project would have been the largest engineering project ever proposed for the state of Texas.
When details of the plan became public, critics became concerned that it would lead to a “NAFTA Superhighway” that would facilitate the United States, Canada and Mexico merging into a North American Union (a fringe conspiracy theory).

As envisioned, the TTC consisted of multi-use right-of-ways that would be up to 1,200 feet wide to accommodate six 80 mph vehicle lanes, 4 truck lanes, two tracks each for high-speed rail, commuter rail, and freight rail, a 200 ft. wide utility zone to accommodate underground water, natural gas, and petroleum pipelines, telecommunications cables and high-voltage electric transmission lines. A full-sized right of way would have required 146 sq. acres per mile.

While the concept of multi-use right-of-ways can be considered forward-thinking and progressive (in the proper use of the word), many were concerned that the proposed methods of land acquisition and financing could take advantage of landowners and the taxpaying public to the benefit of private entities.

In March of 2005, a Comprehensive Development Agreement (CDA) was signed with Cintra/Zachry, a partnership between Cintra (Cintra Concesiones deInfraestructuras de Transporte,S.A.), an international developer of transport infrastructure, and Zachry Construction Corp., one of the country’s largest construction companies. There were several other participants in the CDA, but these are the two most prominent.

Headquartered in Madrid, Spain, with subsidiaries on three continents, Cintra is one of the world’s largest private-sector developers of transport infrastructure. Zachry is a privately held company founded in 1924 and headquartered in San Antonio,Texas. The concerns that critics raised over the TTC were:

Cintra, a Spanish firm, was the largest financer. They would build, design and operate the highway (that included collecting toll revenue). While the Spanish firm would not own the system, they would benefit financially off of Texas’ infrastructure. All roads in Texas are owned by Texas and managed under Texas’ Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) authority.
Since most of the Trans-Texas Corridor roads would be toll roads, toll earnings would be used to pay investors (Cintra) and to maintain the roads. If any public money was used to pay for part of the TTC, it would constitute double taxation. Motorists would have contributed gasoline tax revenues towards building and maintaining Texas highways and still have to pay for tolls on the TTC.
It was estimated that 580,000 acres (906 square miles) would have been taken from private owners (mostly ranch and farm land) and either purchased by, or seized (via eminent domain) by the state for the Trans-Texas Corridor.
The possible misuse of eminent domain – confiscating private land for “public” use – was a major concern.

My Take: Here is a local (Houston) story that sums up the public outcry over the TTC. By law, toll roads in Texas can never be owned by anyone other than the state and are not being “leased away.” The public never relinquished ownership of any state roads. Governor Perry signed a law in 2005 that prevents a free road from being “converted” to a toll road. This is current law under the Transportation Code, Chapter 228.201 and he signed SB 18 on May 19, 2011, a bill which strengthened property owner’s rights when eminent domain is exercised by a government entity. Eminent domain “land grabs” were one of the big concerns that Texans had relating to the TTA.  Unlike the current administration in Washington, Gov. Rick Perry heard the people and backed off. What more can you ask for in a politician?

Gov Perry’s response:  Perry’s defense was that as Texas continues to grow by about 1,200 people every day, the state’s infrastructure must be improved to accommodate the growth. The TTC was an attempt to create a state-of-the-art, coordinated system of thousands of miles of roadways, rail lines, and gas transportation systems without raising taxes by using a financing method called a “Public Private Partnership” (P3s). It is important to note that P3s are a procurement option, not a revenue source. Some current examples are: the Chicago Skyway, the South Bay Expressway in California, and the Capital Beltway high-occupancy toll lanes in DC. Here is more on P3s from the Federal Highway Administration.

There is so much t cover on Gov. Rick Perry that I will be writing several articles covering him.

All sources are highlighted within the article.

Thanks to the politics Fix on facebook for much valuable information which contributed to this article.

Find Rosie Onthe Right fan page on facebook HERE.