Six months ago discussing Perry’s possible candidacy, a top conservative leader privately said, “Rick is a great leader. But he’s not a greater debater. And he knows it. The question would be whether he overcomes it.”

Technology regularly creates new challenges for presidents. Debating skill was a non-issue for many consequential presidents, but some are trying to make it an automatic disqualifier for the Texas governor.

America’s third president—Thomas Jefferson—was a lousy public speaker. He was literally a genius, and his singular eloquence as a writer is seen in his prose in the Declaration of Independence and other writings.

But Jefferson was no speaker, so much so that he only gave a couple speeches in his entire two-term presidency. He was so bad that he fulfilled his constitutional requirement to give an annual State of the Union by sending a written document to Congress.

The media would pan Jefferson’s radio and television performance today. Does America regret electing such a lackluster orator?

In 1932 this country elected a president who sounded great on radio, but would have been a disaster on television.

In the 1995 movie The American President, President Andrew Sheppard (played by Michael Douglas) is complaining to his chief of staff A.J. MacInerny (played by Martin Sheen) about his unfair treatment in the press.

MacInerny responded to the president, “You’ve said it yourself a million times. If there had been a TV in every living room sixty years ago, this country does not elect a man in a wheelchair.”

While many disagree with FDR’s policy goals (and his judicial appointments), no one questions his historic impact. He established aggressive goals based on his principles, and changed the nation by rallying public support behind them.

But as a matter of political reality, Sheppard and MacInerny are probably right. If cameras caught FDR being wheeled onto a debate stage as an invalid, FDR would have been a zero-term non-president instead of a four-term president.

This media obsession with the cosmetics of Perry’s presentation willfully ignores the substance of his agenda. Perry’s proposals on fundamental overhauls on tax reform, energy, healthcare, and re-empowering the states through federalism could make him a transformational president if he enacts them.

These proposals arise from a massive public record. An Air Force captain, Perry is the only major candidate with military experience. And his subsequent quarter-century of elected office includes a decade as governor enacting tort reform, education reform, and business-friendly policies.

But some establishment figures will have none of it. It’s okay to support the Second Amendment, but not if you shoot a coyote threatening your daughter’s dog. It’s okay to have faith, but not to support a public day of prayer. It’s okay to tinker with the tax code, but not to propose replacing our dysfunctional federal tax system with a flat tax.

Hostility to Perry is in large part driven by the same factors that drove opposition to other candidates in recent elections, such as the affable Mike Huckabee. Perry is a conservative Evangelical Christian, and although he never plays the victim, a cursory Google search reveals how many media commentators cannot tolerate his conservatism and his faith.

Nor is Perry alone. Other conservative candidates of faith are attacked when they break into the top tier. And as with Huckabee—who was another longtime Southern state governor—media elites ignore Perry’s charisma and connection with audiences.

Perry is a strong and effective leader. He has a quarter-century of executive experience under his belt, including three terms as governor of America’s second-largest state. And though not a great debater, he gives rousing plain-spoken speeches that receive standing ovations and connect with ordinarily Americans.

Republicans wanting a good debater should vote for someone else in the primaries. Or they can just wait until next November, and vote for Obama.

Because America voted for silver-tongued eloquence and sparkling debate performances in 2008. How’s that working out for you?

Only 12 percent of all 12^th graders are “proficient” or “advanced” in U.S. History according to the 2010 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).  And less than half of all high school seniors display even a “basic” knowledge about American History.

The latest NAEP scores for civics are almost as bad:  Less than two-thirds of all seniors show a “basic” understanding of our system of government.  And a 2010 study commissioned by the American Enterprise Institute concluded that “civics, once the cornerstone of public education, has fallen off the radar” as teachers have felt increasing pressure to show progress in other areas.

That many educators today give considerable attention to other subjects would not disturb America’s founders.  While we tend to think of them largely as political figures, America’s founders recognized that there are many higher and grander pursuits in life than those in the political realm.

This no doubt explains why the scientifically-curious Ben Franklin went outside in a thunderstorm with his kite – and why the educationally-minded Thomas Jefferson had his gravestone identify him as the founder of the University of Virginia, but not as the third president of the United States.

Still, the founders considered it critically important for America to have “an informed citizenry.”  As James Madison noted, “A people who mean to be their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

Moreover, the founders saw the study of civics as foundational to other pursuits.  “I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy,” John Adams once observed.  “My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.”

In essence, Adams was saying that all of the higher and grander pursuits of a civilization – whether in the arts, the sciences, or in commerce – depend on a stable political foundation that protects and ensures artistic, intellectual, and commercial freedom.

This isn’t to say that the affairs of state are always or ultimately more important than other things.  It’s simply to say that every artist, farmer, poet, businessman, geographer, musician, and architect needs to acquire a keen understanding of why our political system has fostered greater human flourishing than any other political system in history.  (There is, after all, a reason North Korea doesn’t produce great art – and it isn’t because Koreans lack creativity.)

What is so troubling, then, about growing student ignorance of history and civics is that the American way of life depends on each new generation embracing our founding ideals and committing themselves to self-government.  In this regard, our freedom to pursue happiness is far more fragile than many Americans might imagine.

Thankfully, a growing number of Americans are awakening to the need to help the Sam Cookes of this generation develop an appreciation for America’s history and founding ideals.  In Florida, for example, the State Legislature has recently adopted requirements that middle schoolers take a semester of civics and that high schoolers study the Declaration of Independence during Celebrate Freedom Week.

Still, more attention to the social studies is needed.  For as John Adams understood, all of the higher and grander pursuits we enjoy as Americans are dependent upon a political system that secures our freedoms.

William Mattox is a resident fellow at The James Madison Institute in Tallahassee.

Countries such as Russia and China are clamoring for the US dollar dominated-era to end. The latter of the two is in a good position to take advantage of US vulnerabilities. Back in 2009, there was a concerted effort by rich nations such as France, China, Russia, and Japan to move away from dealing in dollars for the price of oil. It was really just pecking blows from lightweights – considering US economic hegemony – as opposed to a knockout blow. However, in my limited powers of observation, the US’ legs are as wobbly as anytime before. The momentum, if you want to call it that, does seem to be moving away from the US in light of our economic and financial woes toward a yet to be announced global realignment.

It is easy to be fatalistic when faced with so many uncertainties. The US is losing credibility along with its place in the world as the sole superpower. Consider the fact that we aren’t being removed from that lofty pedestal from the machinations of another, but, rather, our fall is by our own doing; and it becomes even more depressing.

Our government has spent every cent it has taken in and then borrowed an additional $14 trillion. Take a minute for that to seep in. Our politicians promised and voted in programs it could not afford. Voting constituencies lapped it up. Our national debt became excessive and is now a catastrophic danger. Our government ignored proper funding for the interest on the debt. Instead we borrowed more against our debt. The result, obviously, was that creditors lost confidence in their investments and government securities were hardly secure. The party is ending but it goes much deeper than that.

According to a Rasmussen Poll

A new Rasmussen poll shows that just 17 per cent of Americans believe that the U.S. government has the consent of the governed, an all time low. This dovetails with a record low for Congress’ approval rating, which stands at a paltry 6 per cent, while 46 per cent of Americans think most members of Congress are corrupt, with just 29% believing otherwise.

“The number of voters who feel the government has the consent of the governed – a foundational principle, contained in the Declaration of Independence – is down from 23% in early May and has fallen to its lowest level measured yet

Pollster: Americans Are “Pre-Revolutionary”

The results of this survey indicate that Americans are now “pre-revolutionary” says pollster Pat Caddell, who described the outcome of the poll as “unprecedented”.

This conclusion follows Caddell’s observation last November that “a sea of anger is churning” amongst Americans who “want to take their country back” and that the nation stood on the brink of a “pre-revolutionary moment”.

Caddell’s conclusion that Americans are on the verge of rising up against a system in which they have lost all trust cannot be easily dismissed as partisan rhetoric. Despite working for numerous Democratic presidential candidates, including Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden, Caddell has been a vociferous critic of both Democrats and Republicans on several issues.

Back in early 2008, before the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the start of the financial crisis, we warned that inflation and economic uncertainty would cause a massive social dislocation, which would lead to riots globally. Gerald Celente and others repeated the warning in late 2008. Over the last 18 months, we have now witnessed such scenes across the Middle East and in France, Spain, Greece, Italy and most recently London.

Indeed, the only major western country not to experience significant social unrest since the economic collapse is America, although anecdotal evidence of rising crime and thefts suggests a turning point could be just around the corner.

Should violence plague American streets as a result of a deepening economic crisis, U.S. troops have already been prepared to deal with such a crisis.

As we reported three years ago, U.S. troops returning from Iraq were being re-allocated to occupy America, running checkpoints and training to deal with “civil unrest and crowd control” under the auspices of a Northcom program that revolved around deploying 20,000 active duty troops inside America to “help” state and local officials during times of emergency.

I suppose this where I’m to quote Jefferson’s thoughts that a little revolution from time to time is a good thing. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

In my mind, that his hogwash.

America has been remarkably successful in reinventing itself — if you don’t like that term then restoring itself — when circumstances require. To be sure these are tough times, domestically and internationally, but do they dwarf the times of The Great Depression? How about the series of depressions that plagued the U.S. during the 1880s and 1890s? The natural ebb and flow of American history is not without disasters, failures, and major and minor setbacks. In fact, there is hardly anything unique or historical about those events when compared to others in proper context. But what is amazing and, rather unique I should add, is America’s ability to reform, to swing the pendulum in the right direction, to recognize a leader(s) fit for the time and change course categorically. It has been that idea of innovation, creativity, and the healthy disregard of tradition when needed, or the resolve to entrench ourselves in it.

America’s track record has proved remarkably successful when dealing with adversity. These economic times coupled with runaway debt and deficits are indeed troubling and something to arouse great concern. And if they aren’t corrected and turned around in some way, to some degree, it will be to our ruin. However, I’m betting on just that. Americans will make the tough choices and reset an agenda for our nation. The alternative is simply too unthinkable.

If we are to have a revolution, let it be a revolution of the mind and behavior. A civic revolution carried on the backs of patriots, not carried through the streets as mobs and rioters. That’s what scared savages do. Our system only needs to be dusted off and relearned. Start by legalizing the Constitution again. Let’s pressure our states representatives for a Constitutional state convention. Let’s have a 10 million man march on Washington D.C. and verbally recall every elected official personally, under live coverage. No crying is allowed. Flood Capitol Hill and stack on the steps of every federal building as high as you can copies of Declaration of Independence. Let’s wash the monuments that stand tall and proud. Rip up your Republican or Democrat voting cards and dutifully pay the fine for littering Pennsylvania Avenue. We the People need to accept ownership of our lives and country, not outsource it to a bunch of crooks and soulless career-politicians. They are beyond redemption and we are the gatekeepers.

That is how a revolution in America is launched. Indeed, that is the only kind of revolution that is needed.

Honestly folks, do we have the courage to be free?

After all, Perry is only saying what he’s been saying for years, and what Thomas Jefferson spelled out in the Kentucky Resolutions (1798).  Namely, that states enjoy a sovereignty that allows them to make decisions apart from the federal government and apart from the consensus of other states.

Perry bases these statements on the Tenth Amendment, which clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” While this amendment does many things, one of the most important things it does is set clear limitations on the power of the federal government. It also demonstrates that our Founders believed every power not explicitly “delegated” to the federal government belongs to the states, “or to the people.”

Does Perry agree with same-sex “marriage”? Certainly not: which is why he supported an amendment to the Texas Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman in 2005.  But Perry understands that just as Texas had every right to define and protect traditional marriage within their borders, so too other states have the right to foolishly undermine that same institution within theirs. (I think New York’s decision was stupid, but the expression of freedom doesn’t have to be smart in order to be legitimate.)

So please understand that admitting the Tenth Amendment gives a state such leeway is not the same thing as condoning the decisions that state makes. In other words, just as the First Amendment not only protects speech with which we agree, but also speech by which we are repulsed, so too the Tenth Amendment not only allows states to make decisions with which we agree but also decisions that turn our stomachs.

When Perry alluded to Texas seceding in April 2009, he did so in light of the Tenth Amendment and conservatives cheered. More recently, when he argued against Roe v. Wade by saying he thought abortion was a states’ right issue, they cheered again. But when he went all the way, demonstrating that his belief in the Tenth Amendment is more than skin deep by saying what he did about New York and adding, “You either have to believe in the 10^th Amendment or you don’t,” the cheerleaders turned into hecklers.

I say it’s time we stop whatever it is we’re doing right now and ask ourselves a serious question – do we have the courage to be free?

It appears that Governor Rick Perry does, and I thank him for that.

It is time for all freedom-loving people to stand up against the forces of tyranny that have taken hold of numerous government agencies such as the NLRB. It is time that elected officials and candidates for office to declare their positions for or against individual liberty. If for liberty, then they must act to oppose the tyranny of forced unionism and its suppression of the individual. (For Governor Allen’s full Op-Ed in Politico click here.)

President Thomas Jefferson defined the sum of good government as, “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

Those words are the uplifting principles of a free society.

Unfortunately these principles are being ignored by the powers in Washington.

Virginia deserves leaders unafraid to speak out against this administration, the federal bureaucracy and the union bosses who seek to undermine our free market economy and who will fight for Virginia’s working families.

The National Labor Relations Board’s complaint against Boeing’s locating some production facilities in South Carolina is an attack on the founding principles of our country. It’s also an attack on the freedom and competitiveness of every state with right-to-work laws -– including Virginia.

It is the responsibility of Washington leaders and candidates running for office to speak out against the dangerous precedent of the NLRB’s assault on the liberty of working men and women everywhere and the rights and prerogatives of the people in the States.

It’s time for this over-reaching federal government to get out of our lives and stop encroaching on the economic freedom of Virginia — and all right-to-work states.

And although Jefferson issued this warning two centuries ago, many citizens in blue states like Connecticut and New York may think them strangely contemporary. And the reason they might think this is because politicians in those two states are openly pushing legislation that will control, if not take away all together, said citizens’ ability to exercise their God-given, 2^nd Amendment rights.

For example, in New York, S.B. 2994 is currently making the rounds in that state’s senate. Not only will this legislation require gun owners to register every gun they own with the state, it will also charge them an annual per-gun fee for every gun they own. Moreover, gun owners will even have to tell the government where they store their guns when not in use.

Now think about this: the justification given for S.B. 2994 is that it will enable New York officials to “come a step closer to identifying…illegal firearms.”

Hmmm….  I wonder how many owners of illegal firearms will be complying with S.B. 2994 should it pass? I’d say there’s a better chance that owners of legal firearms will get a knock on their door at some future date, when the government that knows how many guns you own and where you keep them decides it’s time to get those firearms off the streets too.

In Connecticut’s legislature, Bill No. 1094 – “AN ACT BANNING LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES” – has been proposed.  If enacted, this bill would not only ban the sell of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but would also make it a felony for a gun owner to have one. (That’s right – a felony.)

And what about people who already own such magazines? According to the legislation, such people would have 90 days from the day the bill becomes law to turn in all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Therefore, every magazine in the state that holds 11 or more rounds would be confiscated, and after 90 days if a gun owner is caught with a magazine he or she didn’t turn in they become a felon (and as a felon they can never legally own or a possess a firearm again).

Is this a great backdoor scheme for ending private gun onwership or what?

The politicians who fashioned this legislation did so in reaction to the Tuscan shooting, where Jared Loughner used a Glock model 19 with a 30 round clip (or larger) to shoot his victims. In the minds of big government liberals, the way to stop a thousand criminals from doing what they do is to punish the hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens who will now have less ability to buy the equipment needed to defend their own lives (if this horrible bill passes).

When I contacted Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America, for comment on this legislation, he described its inherent flaws thus: “Connecticut lawmakers are happy to ignore the lessons of gun control.  Criminals don’t obey their laws.  A magazine size limit will endanger peaceful citizens who won’t have them legally available to fend off an assault by a gang of home invaders. In real life, it may take nine or ten rounds to stop one assailant (under stress our aim is not the best, and the attacker may be high on drugs).  After the little magazine is empty, then what?  Call a legislator for help?”

If you’re first thought is, “this bill will never pass,” you may want to think again. The fact that it’s been proposed means there are at least a few nuts in the Connecticut legislature who think it’s a good idea.

The bottom line is that we need to consider Jefferson’s warning anew. The governments to which we increasingly turn for the things we want are subsequently turning on us, taking payment for their services in the currency of freedom.

Yet the key battleground for a clash between the political status quo, which is always good for Democrats, and an active conservatism, which is always good for liberty, looks like it may take place hundreds of miles away from either Kasich or Walker, in a state that still symbolizes the strength and courage of the Wild West: namely, Montana.

Yes, it’s there that the battleaxe of Tea Party conservatism is crashing down with a boom on liberalism, progressivism, and every other “ism” that threatens to the limit the intrinsic (and inalienable) rights of the citizens in that state.

The Associated Press (AP) recently bemoaned the fact that Republicans emerged from the November 2010 elections with a  “supermajority in the Montana House.”  Which means they now control both chambers in that state. This also means that words like “nullification,” phrases like “states’ rights,” and theories like Thomas Jefferson’s description of the union of states as a “compact” are not only spoken in the legislative halls, they are shouted from the rooftops. (Jefferson’s view on the nature of the union, best set forth in his “Kentucky Resolutions,” is that states do not look to the federal government for the cause of their existence rather the federal government exists because the states chose to delegate certain powers to it.)

In Montana, they are trying to right the ship by restoring a constitutional balance of powers that constrains the federal government’s habit of infringing on the rights of the people.

What the newly elected Republicans in Montana are saying is that they know their constitutional options, and that those options haven’t been recognized or respected by the federal government for some time now.

It appears that such options, embodied in the rights “reserved to the States respectively,” are about to be re-asserted one by one, as they re-enter the political lexicon. And what’s bothering the left is the fact that such a re-assertion flips their worldview on its head, because it reserves powers to the people that the federal government cannot control.

I guess you could say Montana is sending a strong message to the federal government, and that message is “Don’t Tread on Me.”