Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Darkwolf377


For Perry, it means:

1. He supports Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Euphenism for Amnesty)
2. He signed a Pro-Homosexual Agenda Hate-Crimes Bill.
3. He is against a Border Fence/Wall
4. He is against interior enforcement of Illegal Immigration, A.K.A. AZ1070
5. HE is against using E-Verify as a tool to limit Illegal Immigrants getting jobs in Texas.
6. He tried to implement a mandated vaccine for a sexually-acquired disease for minor girls effectively implementing a Nanny-State approach that made parents 2nd class citizen where the vaccine was concerned.

That should be enough for any red-meat conservative to be able to see that taking Rick's actions in consideration and measuring them against his current campaign rhetoric makes any rational conservative queasy.
13 posted on 09/03/2011 12:12:36 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: SoConPubbie

You make good points, but the rhetoric about the vaccination thing is just kind of silly, with the ‘second-class citizen’ stuff. I don’t agree with that, but there’s plenty of precedence supported by Republicans when it comes to vaccination.


15 posted on 09/03/2011 12:16:03 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (``Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it``-Pope John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie
He is not against the Arizona law. He defended it with an amicus curiae brief. He did not like the fact that it opens local law enforcement to new lawsuits.

In the face of the federal government’s failure to secure our nation’s borders from illegal entry, border states face a very real problem each and every day. In response, in early 2010 Arizona passed a law that suddenly became the center of a firestorm of controversy. It was designed to require state and local law enforcement officers to do what they were empowered to do, and that is to check the immigration status of someone already engaged in a lawful stop, when the officers reasonably suspect him or her of being here illegally. The law targeted primarily so-called sanctuary cities—to make sure that no local mayors, sheriffs, or other leaders were able to ignore enforcement of immigration laws. Now, the national controversy has been largely disingenuous—based on misinformation and fearmongering. Governor Brewer and the Arizona legislature took a modest step to fill the breach caused by the failure of the federal government—and are completely within their rights to do so. And in fact, large numbers of illegals apprehended away from the borders—that is, once living in our communities—are regularly apprehended or discovered by local law enforcement. They’re picked up on some local crime, from a DUI or parking ticket to domestic abuse or something else. State and local law enforcement cooperates with the Department of Homeland Security and together they decide what steps to take. All Arizona is doing is telling its law enforcement not to turn a blind eye. That’s the purpose. I do have some concerns with the law, and I don’t believe it is necessarily the right approach for Texas, in part because of the new cause of action it provides against law enforcement. Having battled trial lawyers for decades, I am concerned about opening up the courthouse doors to additional lawsuits. But I strongly support the right of the citizens of Arizona, Texas, or any other state to pass laws to protect themselves. In fact, we joined in federal court with eight other states to help defend Arizona against the Obama administration’s lawsuit.

Perry, Rick; Newt Gingrich (2010-11-15). Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington (p. 161). Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.

63 posted on 09/03/2011 4:13:00 AM PDT by hocndoc (http://WingRight.org I've got a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it.https://www.rickperry.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: SoConPubbie
made parents 2nd class citizen where the vaccine was concerned

The order he signed gave parents the choice for the vaccine, so you are simply wrong on that point. His actions instead gave those who wanted the vaccine insurance coverage (because of stupid federal and state regulations, insurance companies cover vaccines only if they are on the list of required vaccinations). I disagree with his order, and he of course recinded it years ago, but to the degree it is important at all it's important to get the facts right.

86 posted on 09/03/2011 7:01:34 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson