Santorum's Anti-Obama - Courage To Fight For Jobs Ad

The Founding Fathers and Slavery: Bachmann Vs. Stephanopoulos

In an interview with George Stephanopoulos last week presidential candidate Michele Bachmann made the claim that a number of the Founding Fathers opposed slavery and worked to end it.  In response Stephanopoulos replied, “Now, with respect Congresswoman, that's just not true.”  Who is correct - Bachmann or Stephanopoulos? 


I received an email outlining some of the Founding Fathers positions and thoughts on slavery. 


From WallBuilders: 

Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries before the Founders. As President of Congress Henry Laurens explained: 

I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule ["do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Matthew 7:12]. ¹

Prior to the time of the Founding Fathers, there had been few serious efforts to dismantle the institution of slavery. John Jay identified the point at which the change in attitude toward slavery began:

Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it. ²

The Revolution was the turning point in the national attitude–and it was the Founding Fathers who contributed greatly to that change. In fact, many of the Founders vigorously complained against the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed upon the Colonies the evil of slavery. For example, Thomas Jefferson heavily criticized that British policy:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce [that is, he has opposed efforts to prohibit the slave trade]. ³

Benjamin Franklin, in a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, confirmed that whenever the Americans had attempted to end slavery, the British government had indeed thwarted those attempts. Franklin explained that . . .

. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. ⁴

Further confirmation that even the Virginia Founders were not responsible for slavery, but actually tried to dismantle the institution, was provided by John Quincy Adams (known as the "hell-hound of abolition" for his extensive efforts against that evil). Adams explained:

The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. ⁵

While Jefferson himself had introduced a bill designed to end slavery, ⁶ not all of the southern Founders were opposed to slavery. According to the testimony of Virginians James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Rutledge, it was the Founders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who most strongly favored slavery. ⁷
Yet, despite the support for slavery in those States, the clear majority of the Founders opposed this evil. For instance, when some of the southern pro-slavery advocates invoked the Bible in support of slavery, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress, responded:

[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. ⁸

Many of the Founding Fathers who had owned slaves as British citizens released them in the years following America’s separation from Great Britain (e.g., George Washington, John Dickinson, Caesar Rodney, William Livingston, George Wythe, John Randolph of Roanoke, and others). Furthermore, many of the Founders had never owned any slaves. For example, John Adams proclaimed, "[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave." ⁹
Notice a few additional examples of the strong anti-slavery sentiments held by great numbers of the Founders:

[W]hy keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. ¹⁰ CHARLES CARROLL, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

As Congress is now to legislate for our extensive territory lately acquired, I pray to Heaven that they may build up the system of the government on the broad, strong, and sound principles of freedom. Curse not the inhabitants of those regions, and of the United States in general, with a permission to introduce bondage [slavery]. ¹¹ JOHN DICKINSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious, part. ¹² JOHN JAY, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, ORIGINAL CHIEF JUSTICE U. S. SUPREME COURT

The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse] should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ¹³THOMAS JEFFERSON

Christianity, by introducing into Europe the truest principles of humanity, universal benevolence, and brotherly love, had happily abolished civil slavery. Let us who profess the same religion practice its precepts . . . by agreeing to this duty. ¹⁴RICHARD HENRY LEE, PRESIDENT OF CONTINENTAL CONGRESS; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it may be during my life time, see this cursed thing [slavery] taken out. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event. ¹⁵ WILLIAM LIVINGSTON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY

[I]t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master. ¹⁶ LUTHER MARTIN, DELEGATE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

As much as I value a union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade [slavery]. ¹⁷

Honored will that State be in the annals of history which shall first abolish this violation of the rights of mankind. ¹⁸ JOSEPH REED, REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER; GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA

Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. . . . It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. ¹⁹ BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

Justice and humanity require it [the end of slavery]–Christianity commands it. Let every benevolent . . . pray for the glorious period when the last slave who fights for freedom shall be restored to the possession of that inestimable right. ²⁰ NOAH WEBSTER, RESPONSIBLE FOR ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law. . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all. ²¹ JAMES WILSON, SIGNER OF THE CONSTITUTION; U. S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

[I]t is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others . . . and take away their liberty by no better means than superior power.²² JOHN WITHERSPOON, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION

For many of the Founders, their feelings against slavery went beyond words. For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America’s first anti-slavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. In fact, when signer of the Constitution William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:

I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and . . . I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity. . . . May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. ²³

Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more. In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts began abolishing slavery in 1780; ²⁴ Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; ²⁵ Vermont in 1786; ²⁶ New Hampshire in 1792; ²⁷ New York in 1799; ²⁸ and New Jersey did so in 1804. ²⁹

Additionally, the reason that Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a Congressional act, authored by Constitution signer Rufus King ³⁰ and signed into law by President George Washington, ³¹ which prohibited slavery in those territories. ³² It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]. ³³

The truth is that it was the Founding Fathers who were responsible for planting and nurturing the first seeds for the recognition of black equality and for the eventual end of slavery. This was a fact made clear by Richard Allen.
Allen had been a slave in Pennsylvania but was freed after he converted his master to Christianity. Allen, a close friend of Benjamin Rush and several other Founding Fathers, went on to become the founder of the A.M.E. Church in America. In an early address "To the People of Color," he explained:

Many of the white people have been instruments in the hands of God for our good, even such as have held us in captivity, [and] are now pleading our cause with earnestness and zeal. ³⁴

While much progress was made by the Founders to end the institution of slavery, unfortunately what they began was not fully achieved until generations later. Yet, despite the strenuous effort of many Founders to recognize in practice that "all men are created equal," charges persist to the opposite. In fact, revisionists even claim that the Constitution demonstrates that the Founders considered one who was black to be only three-fifths of a person. This charge is yet another falsehood. The three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth; rather, it was an anti-slavery provision to limit the political power of slavery’s proponents. By including only three-fifths of the total number of slaves in the congressional calculations, Southern States were actually being denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress. Based on the clear records of the Constitutional Convention, two prominent professors explain the meaning of the three-fifths clause:

[T]he Constitution allowed Southern States to count three-fifths of their slaves toward the population that would determine numbers of representatives in the federal legislature. This clause is often singled out today as a sign of black dehumanization: they are only three-fifths human. But the provision applied to slaves, not blacks. That meant that free blacks–and there were many, North as well as South–counted the same as whites. More important, the fact that slaves were counted at all was a concession to slave owners. Southerners would have been glad to count their slaves as whole persons. It was the Northerners who did not want them counted, for why should the South be rewarded with more representatives, the more slaves they held? ³⁵ THOMAS WEST

It was slavery’s opponents who succeeded in restricting the political power of the South by allowing them to count only three-fifths of their slave population in determining the number of congressional representatives. The three-fifths of a vote provision applied only to slaves, not to free blacks in either the North or South. ³⁶ WALTER WILLIAMS

Why do revisionists so often abuse and misportray the three-fifths clause? Professor Walter Williams (himself an African-American) suggested:
Politicians, news media, college professors and leftists of other stripes are selling us lies and propaganda. To lay the groundwork for their increasingly successful attack on our Constitution, they must demean and criticize its authors. As Senator Joe Biden demonstrated during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the framers’ ideas about natural law must be trivialized or they must be seen as racists. ³⁷

While this has been only a cursory examination of the Founders and slavery, it is nonetheless sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity of the insinuation that the Founders were a collective group of racists.

Rick Santorum Sits Down With Glenn Beck

In this part of Rick Santorum's sit down with Glenn Beck he talks about Israel and it's role in the Middle East. From Fox News, Here is Glenn Beck's introduction of Santorum:

GLENN BECK, HOST: Right now, America needs people who are willing to stand up and lead no matter what the blowback may be.

We have only five shows after this. And I am picking carefully what I do on these five shows.

I think this man is as well. Not many politicians have spine. This man does.

I want to introduce you to a man tonight that I think will make a difference. He already has made a difference. You may not know much about him, you may not like his style. You may not like his policies. In the end, I hope you at least walk away with a feeling that I have about him.

He is an honest man.

I don't pick or choose or back any presidential nominees. However, I do think that some of them need to be exposed. Herman Cain, we exposed a couple of weeks ago. I thought he was worth your time to listen to.

He's proved as much to me a few years ago facing a tough election. He was head of the curve on the threat of radical Islam. We have talked about it between us for years -- radical Islam growing in Iran, the Middle East and the increasing pressure being put on Israel.

He knew it wasn't popular in the polls when he was running. The last thing he wanted to talk about was the Middle East. He told me at the time when I said, you know, you should back off of this, because this isn't helping your re-election -- he said he wouldn't be able to face his children if he didn't speak out, even if it meant he lost. He did. But he can sleep at night.

Joining me now is former senator and GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum.

Here is a video of the entire interview.


H/T The Daily Beck 

Rick Santorum On Meet The Press

From the Daily Santorum:

Gallup shows that Rick Santorum's numbers have tripled in the past three weeks from 2 to 6 percent.

Last week's announcement blitz ended in the Meet the Press studio, which even in these times of fragmented media can still hold the nation's attention. The video is above, cribbed from YouTube with a somewhat odd "clean video available" disclaimer on there (perhaps the censors were a bit concerned after looking up their guest on Google). David Gregory goes for the you-knew-it-was-coming gotcha moment by showing Rick on the show in 2002 -- side note: he hasn't aged a day in eight and a half years -- saying, "The last thing we need to do when we are concerned about the national security of this country is to be concerned about deficits."

Santorum replied that the difference now is the scale: "We were talking about deficit I think at that point of $100 billion to $200 billion, not $1.5 trillion. Not something that is, that is grinding our economy down."

At the end of the interview, Santorum made his near-daily Social Issues Comment That Burns Up the Liberal Blogosphere (TM), from the transcript:

MR. GREGORY:  One more question on abortion, an issue you care deeply about. I, I want to be clear on this.  Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?

SEN. SANTORUM:  I believe that life begins at conception, and that that life should be cut--should be guaranteed under the Constitution.  That is a person, in my opinion.

MR. GREGORY:  So even in a case of rape or incest, that would be taking a life?

SEN. SANTORUM:  That would be taking a life, and, and I believe that, that any doctor who performs an abortion--that--I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion should be criminally charged for doing so.  I don't--I've never supported criminalization of abortion for mothers, but I do for people who perform them.  I believe that life is sacred.  It's one of those things in the Declaration of Independence.  We are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, and the first is life.  And I believe that that life should be protected at the moment it is a human life.  And at conception it is biologically human, and it's alive.  It's a human life, it should be a person under the Constitution.

Perhaps he's worried about losing the God endorsement, but that seems to contrast with Santorum's stance on Meet the Press debating Bob Casey in 2006 when the late Tim Russert asked him about the same issue:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, if you believe that life begins at conception, then why do you support exceptions for rape, incest, and life of mother?

SEN. SANTORUM: What I said is—yeah. What I said is that I would vote for things like that. I think that, that...

MR. RUSSERT: But it’s the taking of a life.

SEN. SANTORUM: I, I said I would, but so does the Hyde Amendment allows rape, incest, life of the mother. That’s what I talked about is that if, if that is the common ground we could get, I would support that.

MR. RUSSERT: But by your standards, it’s the taking of a life.

SEN. SANTORUM: It is, there’s no question it’s the taking of a life. But if it—it is an attempt for me to try to see if we can find common ground to actually make progress in limiting the other abortions. So yes, that’s what I would do.

Finding "common ground" is something Santorum the legislator had to do, while Santorum the presidential candidate vying for tea party support has to take a no surrender approach. In a field of mostly governors Santorum must draw on a long history of tough votes in Congress -- and the Club For Growth is already hounding him for some fiscal positions -- and that could put him on shaky territory at times.

The Schedule: Tonight is the big New Hampshire debate, which is being treated like the first debate even though it's the second, because of Front-Runner Romney's presence. Warm up with a good drinking game, and tune into CNN at 8.

It's Official: Rick Santorum Announces His Bid for the Republican Nomination - What a Powerful Speech!

The introduction by his wife lasts about 5 minutes. After that I believe you will be impressed with Rick Santorum's speech. He literally speaks to the heart of Americans, believes in American exceptionalism, believes in the freedom and greatness of the American individual and their right to make choices instead of giving the government the power to make choices for the individual. His speech lasts around 20 minutes but is well worth the listen. Enjoy!

2012 Presidential Candidate Spotlight: A Chat With Rick Santorum

Any person who pays attention to politics and the news knows by now that Rick Santorum is running for President.  I must say I am quite impressed with Rick Santorum.  I admire the way he stands up for his beliefs, and the way he speaks out on the various issues.  The man has a backbone and we need someone who is willing to stand up to and challenge Obama. Plus, he understands or *gets* the whole Muslim extremism problem.  One of my non-negotiable issues is abortion and Santorum is a stanch defender of life. I agree with pretty much everything he said in this interview.  I agree with him on approximately 98% of the issues, if not all the issues.  At this point I have to say he is on the top of my list of all the presidential GOP primary contenders.

Kevin Ferris from Philly.com interviewed Rick Santorum.  Here is the interview:

Rick Santorum, presidential candidate and former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, was in town last week for a talk on health care. Afterward, I asked him about his run for president, the perception that he's too dogmatic on issues, and his differences with President Obama on the economy, the budget, and foreign policy.

Too dogmatic? If the concern is that I'm someone who believes in increasing people's power and limiting government's power, the answer is, yes, then I am pretty black and white about that.

The key to success of America is limited government and a belief in people's ability, given the opportunity, to provide for themselves, their family, and their community. I think government's role should be limited. And that's a basic foundational constitutional principle that I espoused when I was in Congress and the Senate. . . . Is that black and white? I think it's principled, and I think that it's principled based on what's worked in America. . . .

If you look at my service in the United States Senate . . . there were many, many opportunities that I did work with people on the other side, when we found common ground. I always felt it was very important to be civil. I didn't always accomplish it, but thought it was important to be civil, and to respect people's opinions on the other side. To challenge them, to show where they were wrong, if I believed they were wrong, but not to condemn people for their beliefs.

How to win over voters after losing in 2006 by 18 points? Six years ago, [U.S. Sen.] Mike DeWine . . . lost by 12 points in Ohio. Last year, he ran for attorney general . . . and he beat a sitting attorney general, after losing by 12 points. . . .

So I look at it as, yes, we had a bad year [in 2006]. I stood up for what I believed in and, as you know, during that election didn't flinch. Argued for more involvement in Iraq, not less. Argued for engaging and confronting Iran, which was something nobody wanted to hear. I mean, I was called a warmonger by every paper, including yours. I stood up and said we have to do Social Security reform. . . .

I think if you look at what I said and measure, what I said then and what I'm saying now is pretty much the same thing. And I think if you look at where the people of Pennsylvania were then and where they are now, they're much more aligned with me than they were in 2006. Things change. . . .

[I]f you're looking for someone who's going to stand up and fight for what they believe in, in good times and bad, someone you can trust is going to stand for the convictions he campaigns on, and not flip-flop on everything once he gets into office, I think I have a pretty good track record in Congress and in elections that I don't do that.

Federal budget and spending? I support the [U.S. Rep. Paul] Ryan budget, and the idea that we need to look at all the entitlement programs, including Medicare and Social Security. . . . I think we need to be honest with the American public that we have serious problems and that we can't just wait to solve them in the future. . . . The idea of cutting things in the future and not dealing with them now, you tend not to get those cuts in the future and tend to have the same problem we have now. . . .

Do we need to make big cuts now that affect people in retirement? No. But . . . to suggest that people over the age of 55 don't have any role to play in solving our fiscal problems for the next generation - I'm 53, so in two years I now have no responsibility to deal with this problem? That's ridiculous. . . .

I always use the . . . cost-of-living increase for Social Security [as an example]. . . . There's an inflation index that we use to increase Social Security payments. . . . And I ask seniors, would you support a system that ties Social Security to the Consumer Price Index? [They say yes, but] that's not what happens. That's not what we do. . . .

We don't tie it to price inflation. [We tie it to] wage inflation. . . . We shouldn't. It has nothing to do with Social Security beneficiaries. Wage inflation is a result of productivity gains within the economy, which seniors have nothing to do with. So you say, what's that matter? Well, historically, wages go up faster than prices. So what's happening is that Social Security beneficiaries are getting more of an increase than they would have if we tied it to prices.

So my point is, if we make that change, believe it or not, that solves almost half the problems of Social Security. And no one wants to do it. Why? Because you're cutting senior benefits.

President Obama surged troops into Afghanistan, increased drone attacks, kept Gitmo open, backed down on civilian trials for terrorist suspects, and got Osama bin Laden. What's not to like? All Bush policies. So he's done a great job in carrying forward on the strategic vision of George Bush. Where he has had to develop policy, he's gotten it wrong every single time. Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Honduras . . . keep going down the list. Every one of these areas he's made the wrong strategic decision for America. He's either refused to lead or he sided with the wrong side. . . .

Iran, he sided with the mullahs, not the revolutionaries.

Egypt, looks like he sided with the Muslim Brotherhood - which looks to be taking over Egypt - not with our allies. Threw them under the bus like that.

Syria, seems to be siding with [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, as he is shooting his people in the streets.

Libya, dithers, doesn't engage, says [Libyan leader Moammar] Gadhafi has to go, and then the United Nations moves him and pushes him to get involved, but under the condition that Gadhafi doesn't go. It is an incomprehensible policy that is not going to resolve the situation there to any kind of good end.

Honduras, we sided with . . . [Jose] Zelaya, the [Honduran] president who wanted to extend his term, which was against the constitution. They went through the democratic process of the courts, and the congress, to remove this president who had violated the constitution, and what did we do? We sided with [Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez, who was trying to get [Zelaya] to run for reelection so he could take over Honduras like Chavez took over Venezuela.

It's just one [situation] after another where we embrace our enemies and we turn our back on our allies. It's going to lead to a situation where our enemies aren't going to respect us and our friends aren't going to trust us.

The economy? I would do the opposite of what this president is doing. I would not be dramatically expanding the size and scope of government, and spending more money and increasing our debt, which I think is a destabilizing effect on our economy. I would not be passing huge comprehensive bills to take over sectors of the economy. . . . I would not be putting forth regulations that further inhibit growth in this country like the EPA's regulation of carbon dioxide. . . . And he goes out and beats up on business regularly. . . . So the tone is negative, the regulatory environment is negative, the legislative environment is negative. It's all pressing down on our ability to encourage people in this country to invest and grow their businesses. . . .

I would repeal Obamacare. I would dramatically change if not repeal most of Dodd-Frank. I would also throw Sarbanes-Oxley in there, too. [We should] start believing in refereeing private-sector markets rather than the referees getting on the field and telling the players how to run their plays - and by the way changing the rules of the game . . . in the middle of the game.

So, lower taxes, not just a continuation of the Bush tax cuts, but absolutely have to look at the corporate income taxes, the fact that they are so high in this country. I haven't put together a tax plan yet. I'm working on it, but it would be a plan that is simpler - tax simplification is to me is a very, very important thing. . . . That's the direction I think we need.

 Zilla of the Resistance has an excellent post called How About Rick Santorum For President? which spotlights Santorum and has posted an outstanding speech that he gave at the National Press Club recently.  I recommend to everyone to go over and check out Zilla's post.     

Laura Ingraham Interviews Donald Trump on immigration, cutting spending, & abortion

I gotta say that the more I hear from "The Donald" the more I like him.  I hope he decides to throw his hat in the ring for the 2012 presidential election.