Archive for the ‘Rick Perry’ Category


Friday, February 9th, 2018


In the midst of all the information swirling around about the  Uranium One Scandal where the Obama Administration allowed 20% of our uranium deposits to fall under the ownership of a Russian company, this article by Senator John Barraso gives us the very disturbing facts about our uranium production here in the U.S.
After reading this article, you might well be outraged that control over 20% of our uranium was given away.   Nancy

America’s Self-Imposed Uranium Shortage

The U.S. and its allies have plenty, but we still buy from despots.

Uranium plays a vital role in maintaining America’s national security. The element powers nearly a quarter of the U.S. Navy’s fleet and keeps the lights on in around 20% of American homes and businesses. So why is the U.S. relying on adversaries to supply it with uranium?

The American West—including my home state of Wyoming—is rich in uranium. In 2016, commercial nuclear power plants purchased 50.6 million pounds of uranium, according to the Energy Information Administration. The U.S. could produce tens of millions of pounds a year, relying on friendly countries like Canada or Australia for the remainder. Yet the element often comes from nations like Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. Together, the three supply around 40% of America’s commercial nuclear fuel.

America’s Self-Imposed Uranium Shortage

Making matters worse, America’s only plant capable of preparing natural uranium for enrichment was idled last year. All uranium mined in the U.S. must now leave the country for processing in places like France and Canada. Then it is reimported for use in domestic nuclear power plants.

The federal government has made the situation worse. Since the 1990s, the Energy Department has maintained a stockpile of uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons. For the past decade, the agency has actually bartered uranium away in exchange for services from contractors. The contractors then sell the uranium.



Tuesday, March 10th, 2015 logo
March 9, 2015

Time for a Military Man in the White House?

Larry Kudlow

3/8/2015 12:01:00 AM

“More than any election since 1980,” ace pollster Kellyanne Conway tells me, “2016 will be a national-security contest.” And she says former Gov. Rick Perry may have the best chance to convince voters that he can be commander-in-chief.Let’s think on that. With the world in turmoil, who do you really want sitting across the negotiating table from Vladimir Putin, the Iranian mullahs or the Chinese? How about a military man to command the war to destroy radical-Islamic jihadism?

Very few people know that between 1972 and 1977, Perry served in the U.S. Air Force, flying C-130 tactical aircraft in Europe and the Middle East. He is the only current GOP candidate to have worn the military uniform. And he rarely talks about it.

Perry’s childhood goal was to learn to fly. He went into the Air Force after graduating from Texas A&M. And he ended his five years of service with the rank of captain. As Perry would say on other subjects, “That matters.”

The Perry story usually revolves around the Texas economic-growth miracle. But the military service? The captain’s rank? The piloting of strategic-airlift planes? That’s hardly known. And in his 14 years as governor of the Lone Star state, plenty of national-security issues (and border-security issues) came across his desk.

So imagine this: A president who actually served in the regular military. A president who understands the military, listens to the military and has good relations with the military — the opposite of the Obama experience.

And imagine having a president who looks forward to the daily intelligence briefing, completely unlike Obama. What a change. (more…)



Saturday, February 28th, 2015




Saturday, August 2nd, 2014



Published on The Weekly Standard (

Rick Perry, Version 2.0

After a disastrous 2012, he’s alive and kicking. But will voters give him a second chance?

Fred Barnes

July 28, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 43

Google has not been kind to Rick Perry. Type in “Rick Perry gaffe” and you get 111,000 results. Google also offers “searches related to Rick Perry gaffe.” These include “Rick Perry drunk speech, Rick Perry oops, Rick Perry gaffe YouTube, Rick Perry gaffe debate .  .  . Rick Perry video, Rick Perry forgets department, Rick Perry debate gaffe.”

It’s a neat package of stories, videos, and political humor at Perry’s expense that covers everything that went wrong in his bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. The campaign was so dreadful it earned Perry, 64, a reputation as poorly informed and slow-witted. He was left for dead, politically speaking.

Rick Perry is no longer dead. He is alive, well, and hyperactive as a national political figure. He’s now a leading candidate to be the GOP presidential nominee in 2016, assuming he runs. He has admirers in the media. Jennifer Rubin, the hard-to-please blogger for the Washington Post, wrote recently: “The media and voters are seeing a Rick Perry largely absent in the 2012 race—shrewd, self-possessed, competent and calm.”

He has fostered ties to the community of conservative experts and intellectuals. For seven hours this spring, four prominent foreign policy experts met with Perry at the governor’s mansion in Austin. As they walked to their hotel afterwards, one of them said, “Is that really the same guy we saw in 2012?”

Perry has changed. It’s not just his new glasses or that he’s given up wearing cowboy boots. He knows more about more subjects. He’s more relaxed on TV. His political fights are now with leaders (Jerry Brown, Rand Paul, Andrew Cuomo), not state legislators. He’s grown comfortable in the company of world leaders like former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan. He’s not uptight or cocky. When he spent a day in Iowa in May to help Governor Terry Branstad build his reelection treasury, he was content to play second fiddle to Branstad.

This isn’t to say there’s a new Perry. He hasn’t had a complete makeover. The coolness between him and the Bushes still exists. (Barbara Bush especially is not a Perry fan.) But there is a different Perry, better at politics, better at seizing opportunities, better at taking bold steps. None of this came about by accident. Three things happened. The first was Perry’s embarrassment over his performance in the 2012 race. Humbled, he came to recognize that his failure was entirely his own fault. He hadn’t been prepared. He’d expected being governor of a big, tough-to-govern state like Texas was preparation enough. But it had only prepared him to continue being governor.

Second, if he were to run again for president—and redeem himself—he would need fresh help. And in early 2013, he hired Jeff Miller, a 40-year-old political consultant and lobbyist from California, as his top adviser. He and Miller put together a plan to prepare Perry to run for president in 2016.

Miller moved to Austin on Christmas Eve 2012 to open a consulting business in a state where Republicans matter. In California, they’re inconsequential. He had known Perry for a decade and chaired the governor’s presidential drive in California in 2012. His intention was to advise Perry but also develop other paying clients. Within weeks, however, he signed on full-time with Perry. Miller is paid by Perry’s PAC, not Texas taxpayers.

And third, Perry had to decide whether to run for governor once more in 2014. In seeking a presidential nomination, sitting governors have a fundraising advantage. Several aides emphasized this. But Perry’s experience in 2012 told him he couldn’t run effectively for president if he were tied down in Austin.

He chose the presidential route, but kept his decision to step down after 14 years as governor a secret for months. Besides his wife Anita, only two others knew of his decision. Before his announcement a year ago, he had separate statements drafted, one saying he’d run for governor again, the other he wouldn’t. (more…)



Thursday, March 13th, 2014



Over the past decade, the United States has leaned upon our military at a level rarely seen in our nation’s history. Years-long deployments, long-term family separations, related health issues and the frustrations of dealing with an outmatched Veterans Affairs system have been their rewards for their service.

Granted, our military men and women understand the sacrifices required of them, and their continued service speaks volumes about their patriotism and character.

However, now President Obama wants to add another stress to their lives: fear of a pink slip.

As I have said for years, government desperately needs to cut spending. During this president’s tenure, though, we have spent billions on a nationalized health care system that isn’t working, and billions more in bailouts so the Federal Reserve could buy “troubled assets” from banks. The president seems addicted to spending your money.

Yet in the midst of all that waste, when he does decide to make cuts, he wants to start with the Army and National Guard.

This is not Mr. Obama’s first attempt at gutting the Guard, which is under the command of the nation’s governors in each of our respective states. In 2012, the Air Force attempted to cut the Air National Guard disproportionately to their active duty counterparts. Governors spoke up and congressional leaders rejected Mr. Obama’s plan, instead calling for a commission to study the structure of the Air Force. That commission recently released its findings, affirming that the Air Guard can provide the necessary capacity and capability at a lower cost.

It was apparently not a lesson that was learned. (more…)



Saturday, June 29th, 2013


Governor Perry Appropriately Compliments Wendy Davis; Left Goes Crazy
By  David French


Saturday, September 22nd, 2012



Friday, January 13th, 2012
The Wall Street Journal

  • JANUARY 11, 2012

Romney has a good story to tell, if he’s willing to tell it.

About the best that can be said about the Republican attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital is that President Obama is going to do the same thing eventually, so GOP primary voters might as well know what’s coming. Yet that hardly absolves Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and others for their crude and damaging caricatures of modern business and capitalism.

Bain’s business model is little more than “rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company,” says Mr. Gingrich, whose previous insights into free enterprise include years of defending the taxpayer-fed business of corn ethanol.

A super PAC supporting the former House Speaker plans to spend $3.4 million in TV ads in South Carolina portraying Mr. Romney as Gordon Gekko without the social conscience. The financing for these ads will come from a billionaire who made his money in the casino business, which Mr. Gingrich apparently considers morally superior to investing in companies in the hope of making a profit.

Mr. Perry, who has no problem using taxpayer financing to back his political allies in Texas, chimes in that “I have no doubt that Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips, whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out. Because his company Bain Capital, with all the jobs that they killed, I’m sure he was worried he’d run out of pink slips.”

Politics isn’t subtle, and these candidates are desperate, but do they have to sound like Michael Moore?

We have our policy differences with Mr. Romney, but by any reasonable measure Bain Capital has been a net job and wealth creator. Founded in 1984 as an offshoot of the Bain consulting company, Bain Capital’s business is a combination of private equity and venture capital. The latter means taking a flyer on start-ups that may or may not pan out, something that neither Mr. Gingrich nor Mr. Obama seem to find offensive when those investments are made by Silicon Valley firms in “clean energy.”

One Bain investment during Mr. Romney’s tenure was to back an entrepreneur named Tom Stemberg, who was convinced he could provide savings for small-business owners if they were willing to shop at a store instead of taking deliveries. Today, the Staples chain of business-supply stores employs 90,000 people.

Bain also backed a start-up called Bright Horizons that now manages child-care centers for more than 700 corporate clients around the world. Many other venture bets failed, but that’s capitalism, which is supposed to be a profit and loss system.


Boston Globe via Getty ImagesMitt Romney at Bain’s offices in Copley Plaza in 1990. (more…)



Tuesday, January 10th, 2012



Friday, December 9th, 2011 logo
December 8, 2011
By Brent Bozell


Time magazine didn’t mind ruffling feathers in religious America with a cover this summer that asked “Is Hell Dead?” Never mind that America is overwhelmingly Christian. Then Time found only one letter worth plucking out to feature in large, bold type from a man in Dallas: “Hell is easy to define. It would be spending eternity with evangelicals.”

That sums up the secular, liberal media attitude toward America’s Christian majority, and it explains why they find Republicans so objectionable when they make their religious faith part of their campaign for the presidency. Matthew Philbin and Erin Brown of the Media Research Center’s Culture and Media Institute have written a new report called “Baptism By Fire” that analyzes coverage of the presidential candidates and their religious faith. Does it surprise anyone that they found a huge difference in coverage of Republicans and Democrats?

In the first ten months of 2011, network morning and evening news stories mentioned the religious faith of GOP presidential challengers more than seven times as often (143 stories to 19 stories) than they had for Democratic challengers in the first ten months of 2007. They’ve been 13 times more likely to be critical of the Republicans’ religious beliefs than they were of Democrats just four years ago.

Did I mention Rev. Jeremiah Wright? In the first ten months of 2007, there were just six instances where stories challenged or negatively highlighted the faith of liberal White House hopefuls. The networks almost entirely avoided questions about Barack Obama’s upbringing in a Muslim country and his two decades of attendance of a radical Chicago church. Likewise, audiences were reassured that Hillary Clinton’s faith was important — but only as it saw her through her husband’s reckless infidelities. Primary candidates Joe Biden and Chris Dodd were never asked about their fervent voting record in favor of abortion — even partial-birth abortion — in full opposition to their Catholic faith. (more…)

Search All Posts