For your own sake, I hope you are getting paid...

Perry was awful as usual... I don't know who in there right mind could think otherwise but apparently their are some "insiders" saying so.

Herman Cain is more pro-life than any of the other candidates. While these two videos may seem a little confusing because of the language used, its not too hard to understand -- read my other comments above.

Let me clarify -- Herman Cain is thinking from the perspective that abortion isn't lawful. He is saying that the government cannot say that an unborn baby is not human and therefore can be killed. So he is adamantly pro-life and doesn't believe that the government can allow abortions to take place. On whether the woman wants to keep (he says "have" which means keep but is confusing under the context of the discussion) the baby or not, that is up to the mother -- there are many options such as adoptions and therefore, many "choices" the mother can make. On another program he said that if the life of the mother is at stake, the family would be allowed to make the decision whether to abort the child or not.

At first I was a little confused, because we have all been trained to think about the issues using code words "choice" and "pro-life" and it appears as though Cain is saying both. However, what he is actually saying is that government shouldn't be allowed to decide that the unborn should be allowed to die. Then he is saying that if a raped mother who gives birth to a baby decides to "have" -- meaning "keep" -- the baby, that is her choice. He doesn't believe the government can make killing unborn babies lawful -- under any circumstances, accept when the life of the mother is at stake -- because he considers them just as human as everyone else.

Describing identity politics only works in the context of the Democratic Party. Buchanan is way off the mark in his description of the failing Republican Party. The Republican Party was never about identity politics, but rather, about ideology. Although the number of Christians is down, that does not affect the Republican Party on the whole, but rather, the social conservative wing. The Republican Party will be successful so long as it appeals to conservative ideology of social, economic, and national security conservatives. As social groups begin to look toward policy rather than identity, they fall away from the Democrat Party in favor of the Republican Party or being independent. That is the fault of Democrats. They exist purely on...

The message is clear: The Republican Party will have to find strong conservative candidates or they will have to face their conservative base who will not tolerate their political b.s. anymore. The Republican Senatorial Committee can be cowards and run from her, but the voters will give her a fair shake. No more smear campaigns in order to get a liberal progressive with an "R" after his name elected.

Ann Coulter took a good point and lost credibility with her hyperbole. Obama isn't just any liberal, and for Ms. Coulter to group him with them all gives him more credibility than he deserves. What makes it so obvious that Obama is an atheist is his doctrinal belief in a Marxist-progressive vision for the world. Marxism is based on atheism and for a person to go so far out of his way to try to enforce such an ideology on an entire country proves that he truly worships an atheistic Marxism as a Christian would worship God. That aside, Barack Obama doesn't go to church anymore. And if or when he does, he does so for a photo-op.

Of course this is just the beginning of it. The Obama administration is now suing Arizona for "unlawful immigration practices." Why? Because Community Colleges were requiring that immigrants provide a green card in order to prove they are legal. This administration is truly a disgrace to our country.

"Gay-Marriage" is an "Oxymoron." I have been saying this for years, but this is the first time I have seen it in print. Pat Buchanan definitely brings some commonsense back into the increasingly nonsensical social and political realm in the United States. The only thing missing from Pat Buchanan's article is a definition for marriage. Some things are so ingrained in our society that it is not defined with words. However, our society has come to the point that a definition is necessary in order to create common understanding where it was never necessary in the past.