What do you think?
Rate this book
Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington
Now, do not misunderstand me, America is great.
But we are fed up with being over-taxed and over-regulated. We are tired of being told how much salt to put on our food, what kind of cars we can drive, what kinds of guns we can own, what kind of prayers we are allowed to say and where we can say them, what we are allowed to do to elect political candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what doctor we can see. What kind of nation are we becoming? I fear it's the very kind the Colonists fought against.
But perhaps most of all, we are fed up because deep down we know how great America has always been, how many great things the people do in spite of their government, and how great the nation can be in the future if government will just get out of the way.
Our fight is clear. We must step up and retake the reins of our government from a Washington establishment that has abused our trust. We must empower states to fight for our beliefs, elect only leaders who are on our team, set out to remind our fellow Americans why liberty is guaranteed in the Constitution, and take concrete steps to take back our country. The American people have never sat idle when liberty's trumpet sounds the call to battle -- and today that battle is for the soul of America.
But we are fed up with being over-taxed and over-regulated. We are tired of being told how much salt to put on our food, what kind of cars we can drive, what kinds of guns we can own, what kind of prayers we are allowed to say and where we can say them, what we are allowed to do to elect political candidates, what kind of energy we can use, what doctor we can see. What kind of nation are we becoming? I fear it's the very kind the Colonists fought against.
But perhaps most of all, we are fed up because deep down we know how great America has always been, how many great things the people do in spite of their government, and how great the nation can be in the future if government will just get out of the way.
Our fight is clear. We must step up and retake the reins of our government from a Washington establishment that has abused our trust. We must empower states to fight for our beliefs, elect only leaders who are on our team, set out to remind our fellow Americans why liberty is guaranteed in the Constitution, and take concrete steps to take back our country. The American people have never sat idle when liberty's trumpet sounds the call to battle -- and today that battle is for the soul of America.
- GenresPoliticsNonfiction
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2010
12 people are currently reading
122 people want to read
About the author
Rick Perry
12 books7 followersJames Richard "Rick" Perry served as the 47th Governor of Texas from 2000 to 2015. President-elect Donald Trump said in 2016 that he would nominate him to be Secretary of the Department of Energy.
A Republican, Perry was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry was elected to full gubernatorial terms in 2002, 2006 and 2010. He served as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2008 (succeeding Sonny Perdue of Georgia) and again in 2011. As the longest serving governor in Texas state history, he is the only governor in modern Texas history to have appointed at least one person to every eligible state office, board, or commission position (as well as to several elected offices to which the governor can appoint someone to fill an unexpired term, such as six of the nine current members of the Texas Supreme Court).
Perry won the Texas 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary election, defeating U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and former Wharton County Republican Party Chairwoman and businesswoman Debra Medina. In the 2010 Texas gubernatorial election, Perry won a third term by defeating former Houston mayor Bill White and Kathie Glass.
Perry campaigned unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 and 2016 election cycles.
A Republican, Perry was elected Lieutenant Governor of Texas in 1998 and assumed the governorship in December 2000 when then-governor George W. Bush resigned to become President of the United States. Perry was elected to full gubernatorial terms in 2002, 2006 and 2010. He served as Chairman of the Republican Governors Association in 2008 (succeeding Sonny Perdue of Georgia) and again in 2011. As the longest serving governor in Texas state history, he is the only governor in modern Texas history to have appointed at least one person to every eligible state office, board, or commission position (as well as to several elected offices to which the governor can appoint someone to fill an unexpired term, such as six of the nine current members of the Texas Supreme Court).
Perry won the Texas 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary election, defeating U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and former Wharton County Republican Party Chairwoman and businesswoman Debra Medina. In the 2010 Texas gubernatorial election, Perry won a third term by defeating former Houston mayor Bill White and Kathie Glass.
Perry campaigned unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in the 2012 and 2016 election cycles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
goldfinch-in-juice
December 12, 20151) Sometimes it's embarrassing being a USofAian citizen. Guys like in this book here.
2) Adorno once flirted with empirical sociological research, the results published as The Authoritarian Personality. A part II is needed -- the Libertarian Personality, except it would be redundant.
3) Saying "nanny state" is sexism at its purist.
3.1) Protecting corporations from government regulations is a form of fascism ; which is what the largest portion of the special=interest lobbyists is about. [nurses do not constitute a 'special interest', Arnold, they represent a PUBLIC interest]
4) The result of the policies advocated by the likes of Gingrich, Perry, and other radical right wing monsters since Reagan (inclusive) is the poisoning of our (USofAian) kids, and via export, the poisoning of much of the world's future population.
5) Point four is further elucidated in a little film that Katie Couric put together called FED UP!.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/?...
6) It becomes clear, if you simply listen, that Michael Pollan's prescription for our food=caused healthcare crisis is NOT more organic/local eating -- it is simply cooking, and cooking REAL food (just call it food and refuse to call twinkies and big=macs 'food'). Just cooking. Cooking real food. It helps to garden, to have a local market, etc ; but the first thing is to cook ---; and of course to know how to distinguish between Real Food and Fake Food.
7) Just to repeat -- Michael Pollan is not asking anyone to do anything more than to simply cook. For yourself. Don't let corporations cook for you.
2) Adorno once flirted with empirical sociological research, the results published as The Authoritarian Personality. A part II is needed -- the Libertarian Personality, except it would be redundant.
3) Saying "nanny state" is sexism at its purist.
3.1) Protecting corporations from government regulations is a form of fascism ; which is what the largest portion of the special=interest lobbyists is about. [nurses do not constitute a 'special interest', Arnold, they represent a PUBLIC interest]
4) The result of the policies advocated by the likes of Gingrich, Perry, and other radical right wing monsters since Reagan (inclusive) is the poisoning of our (USofAian) kids, and via export, the poisoning of much of the world's future population.
5) Point four is further elucidated in a little film that Katie Couric put together called FED UP!.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381335/?...
6) It becomes clear, if you simply listen, that Michael Pollan's prescription for our food=caused healthcare crisis is NOT more organic/local eating -- it is simply cooking, and cooking REAL food (just call it food and refuse to call twinkies and big=macs 'food'). Just cooking. Cooking real food. It helps to garden, to have a local market, etc ; but the first thing is to cook ---; and of course to know how to distinguish between Real Food and Fake Food.
7) Just to repeat -- Michael Pollan is not asking anyone to do anything more than to simply cook. For yourself. Don't let corporations cook for you.
July 9, 2011
Put your politics aside. I don't care if you are Democrat or Republican, Independent or Tea Party, if you care about our country, then you need to read and STUDY this book. Check the facts. Investigate the issues. Then decide where you stand and DO something about it. If we don't take back control then America as we know it will soon cease to exist. Get involved!!!
March 20, 2011
I'd like to start by saying I did not pay for this book. One of my co-workers picked it up at the governor's victory party on Election Night. I was curious about this book because I am convinced this man is not going to serve his full next term.
Reading this book, I don't believe he wants to be president. Really. You can't criticize Washington when you live in the big white house. I think Rick Perry wants a job speaking or on Fox News.
This book, while a mere 240 pages, offered nothing I had not heard in a campaign speech. It made me angry. Talk about bringing jobs to Texas, but don't mention the fact that those business are leaving other countries and states for tax breaks that - in the long term - don't benefit Texans. Don't talk about the horrible state of education here. Don't talk about the huge budget deficit looming over Texas. Just talk about the nice points. It's like seeing your distant relatives - just stick to the nice stuff so they think you're perfect. Keep the bad stuff for the immediate family.
Reading this book, I don't believe he wants to be president. Really. You can't criticize Washington when you live in the big white house. I think Rick Perry wants a job speaking or on Fox News.
This book, while a mere 240 pages, offered nothing I had not heard in a campaign speech. It made me angry. Talk about bringing jobs to Texas, but don't mention the fact that those business are leaving other countries and states for tax breaks that - in the long term - don't benefit Texans. Don't talk about the horrible state of education here. Don't talk about the huge budget deficit looming over Texas. Just talk about the nice points. It's like seeing your distant relatives - just stick to the nice stuff so they think you're perfect. Keep the bad stuff for the immediate family.
February 29, 2016
When reading books on politics, most people enter a book to praise or condemn the writer. I choose to read this books to learn. As this was written by Texas' long time governor, and I had the privilege of meeting him and having this books signed by him.
Perry, even in the space of this short book repeated himself a few times, however, he did make good points.
Politically, I have mostly agreed with Perry, and agreed with much of what he outlined in this book A few years ago, I probably would have cheered everything he said, however, I have changed. While I will vote and even help to get good people elected, the salvation of our nation does not rest in saving the conversation from the liberals, it comes from a people whose hearts are changed by God. When can pass all the laws we want and elect anyone we want but the nation will not change until we put God first in our lives.
Perry, even in the space of this short book repeated himself a few times, however, he did make good points.
Politically, I have mostly agreed with Perry, and agreed with much of what he outlined in this book A few years ago, I probably would have cheered everything he said, however, I have changed. While I will vote and even help to get good people elected, the salvation of our nation does not rest in saving the conversation from the liberals, it comes from a people whose hearts are changed by God. When can pass all the laws we want and elect anyone we want but the nation will not change until we put God first in our lives.
September 4, 2011
I have read thousands of book---but this has to be the absolute worst effort to be disguised as a book that I have ever seen. May God have mercy should this idiot be elected President.
Read
December 21, 2020I don't know exactly when the custom of presidential candidates writing books about their lives or political philosophy began, but it seems to have grown rapidly. I decided to pick up Rick Perry's book after watching one of the debates. These things at least give you an idea of what the candidates believe in - whether that survives first contact with the politics of Washington has yet to be determined.
On the whole, Perry's political philosophy appears to be orthodox Conservative, with a heavy emphasis on the limited powers of the federal government as defined by the Constitution, and the importance of state's rights as granted in the Tenth Amendment. He quotes Madison from Federalist 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governmentes are numerous and indefinite...The operations of the Federal Governmnet will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments, in times of peace and security."
He laments the out of control taxation levied by the federal government:
"This leads me to the great milestone on the road to serfdom: the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. It gave Congress the authority to levy an income tax on American citizens and absolved the federal government from a previous requirement that any such taxes be returned to the states proportionally to their collection. This was the birth of wealth redistribution in the United States."
I've thought for some time that this is the crux of politically corrupting compromise between the states and Washington. Even when, recently, the governor and representatives of Idaho opposed and lamented the massive government spending in the Stimulus bills, they ended up fighting at the trough over the spoils, in order to make sure that some of the tax moneys collected ended up coming back to the citizens of Idaho, rather than ending up elsewhere. The same temptation exists for the private citizen as well. No matter how much you philosophically oppose the massive expansion of entitlement programs, when the time comes, you are pretty much forced by economics to sign up for Social Security and Medicare, and accept the largess of unemployment "insurance" when you lose your job. If the government offers amnesty for your student loan, or forces the bank to adjust your mortgage, you'd be a fool to refuse, even if you don't agree with the policy. The Feds have got us by the short hairs, folks.
Once the power to tax was firmly established, it rapidly got out of control.
"What was promised to be a tax that would affect only the wealthiest 3 to 5 percent of Americans is now paid by roughly half of the population. And while marginal tax rates ranged from 1 to 7 percent right after the amendment was ratified, today rates range from 10 to 35 percent and have been as high as 70 to 90 percent of income over the years. This is on top of entitlement taxes of more than 12 percent."
He attacks the constitutionality of the Obama Health Care plan from several angles.
Obama's appointment to head Medicare and Medicaid, Donald Berwick, has stated frankly,
"Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional."
It seems to me that the model of health care that we've had in this country for a while was also redistributional, though it moved dollars from the more healthy, NOT wealthy, of us to the less healthy by standard actuarial methods. Any group of citizens approximately in the same economic boat (employer) could pool their resources through insurance premiums to alleviate risk for all.
Not to mention that insurance's true purpose is to cushion us in the case of catastrophic loss, not to cover every routine doctor visit or elective procedure. Expanding those portions of employees' health care plans over the years is one of the factors that has driven up costs significantly, as well as the administration of unnecessary diagnostic tests just to cover the doctors' and hospitals' rears in the event of medical malpractice suits.
On a totally different topic, that seems almost Kafka-esque, Perrry mentions that "President Obama's Quadrennial Defense Review, the periodic strategic plan for our national defense, devoted a full three pages to climate change, mentioning it more times than China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran." What's wrong with this picture?
Nothing surprising from Perry's book. It was pretty much what I'd expect to see from a professed Conservative governor. Given his coherence and eloquence in the book, however, I've been surprised to see how poorly he has been performing in the debates. If he could focus on conveying the same message to the public, he'd come off far better than he does by engaging in pointless personal attacks, or defending against same.
On the whole, Perry's political philosophy appears to be orthodox Conservative, with a heavy emphasis on the limited powers of the federal government as defined by the Constitution, and the importance of state's rights as granted in the Tenth Amendment. He quotes Madison from Federalist 45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governmentes are numerous and indefinite...The operations of the Federal Governmnet will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the state governments, in times of peace and security."
He laments the out of control taxation levied by the federal government:
"This leads me to the great milestone on the road to serfdom: the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment. It gave Congress the authority to levy an income tax on American citizens and absolved the federal government from a previous requirement that any such taxes be returned to the states proportionally to their collection. This was the birth of wealth redistribution in the United States."
I've thought for some time that this is the crux of politically corrupting compromise between the states and Washington. Even when, recently, the governor and representatives of Idaho opposed and lamented the massive government spending in the Stimulus bills, they ended up fighting at the trough over the spoils, in order to make sure that some of the tax moneys collected ended up coming back to the citizens of Idaho, rather than ending up elsewhere. The same temptation exists for the private citizen as well. No matter how much you philosophically oppose the massive expansion of entitlement programs, when the time comes, you are pretty much forced by economics to sign up for Social Security and Medicare, and accept the largess of unemployment "insurance" when you lose your job. If the government offers amnesty for your student loan, or forces the bank to adjust your mortgage, you'd be a fool to refuse, even if you don't agree with the policy. The Feds have got us by the short hairs, folks.
Once the power to tax was firmly established, it rapidly got out of control.
"What was promised to be a tax that would affect only the wealthiest 3 to 5 percent of Americans is now paid by roughly half of the population. And while marginal tax rates ranged from 1 to 7 percent right after the amendment was ratified, today rates range from 10 to 35 percent and have been as high as 70 to 90 percent of income over the years. This is on top of entitlement taxes of more than 12 percent."
He attacks the constitutionality of the Obama Health Care plan from several angles.
Obama's appointment to head Medicare and Medicaid, Donald Berwick, has stated frankly,
"Any health care funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional."
It seems to me that the model of health care that we've had in this country for a while was also redistributional, though it moved dollars from the more healthy, NOT wealthy, of us to the less healthy by standard actuarial methods. Any group of citizens approximately in the same economic boat (employer) could pool their resources through insurance premiums to alleviate risk for all.
Not to mention that insurance's true purpose is to cushion us in the case of catastrophic loss, not to cover every routine doctor visit or elective procedure. Expanding those portions of employees' health care plans over the years is one of the factors that has driven up costs significantly, as well as the administration of unnecessary diagnostic tests just to cover the doctors' and hospitals' rears in the event of medical malpractice suits.
On a totally different topic, that seems almost Kafka-esque, Perrry mentions that "President Obama's Quadrennial Defense Review, the periodic strategic plan for our national defense, devoted a full three pages to climate change, mentioning it more times than China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran." What's wrong with this picture?
Nothing surprising from Perry's book. It was pretty much what I'd expect to see from a professed Conservative governor. Given his coherence and eloquence in the book, however, I've been surprised to see how poorly he has been performing in the debates. If he could focus on conveying the same message to the public, he'd come off far better than he does by engaging in pointless personal attacks, or defending against same.
May 31, 2012
In 2012, Rick Perry went on The Daily Show to promote his book Fed Up! Perry's exchange with Jon Stewart intrigued me enough to make me add Fed Up! to my to-read list. Two years later, I've finally gotten around to reading the book. (Hey, there were a lot of other books ahead of this one on my list.) Two years later and my opinion of the former contestant for the Republican presidential nomination has changed drastically. But still, I decided to read Perry's book because I wanted to see exactly what it said before writing off all of its ideas.
The main idea, which I take issue with, seems to be that Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong. As Perry writes on page 37, “... ever since the dawn of the so-called Progressive movement over a century ago, liberals have used every tool at their disposal – including, notably, the Supreme Court – to wage a gradual war on the Constitution and the American way of life, with very little effective opposition from conservatives.” While later in the book Perry chides some of his fellow Republicans, it's clear he believes that Democrats do nothing but harm our country, when in fact the responsibility for that, in my opinion, falls on EVERYONE in government – federal and state. How can our country work to better itself when we have a two-party system that does nothing but divide politicians and citizens?
Surprisingly, there are some things on which I agree with Perry, namely the need for less government interference and social security reform. But to Perry, it seems that once we limit the federal government's power, everything will be hunky dory. On page 96, Perry lists all the things he doesn't want the federal government deciding for him, but I can't help wondering how a state government making the decisions wouldn't also be unconstitutional and an interference in our personal lives.
For example, “whether contraception must be allowed to be sold” (96) is one of Perry's issues. And he's right. Government cannot tell a private company, such as Walgreens, what it can and cannot sell. If Walgreens doesn't want to sell condoms, it doesn't have to. But this is also not something that state government should be allowed to enforce because, again, Walgreens is a private company, and if Walgreens feels that contraception brings in good sales, the company will sell it, or end up taking their business out of the interfering state. (And who wants to live in a state without Walgreens? On holidays, when you realize you forgot a much-needed ingredient for the food you have to make for your family get-together, Walgreens is the only food store open.)
Or how about my favorite: “whether those other than man and woman must be allowed to marry” (96). Now, the main reason that people don't support gay marriage is because they believe homosexuality is wrong. Why do they believe it's wrong? Because of their religion. But can we make laws based on religious beliefs? It seems that someone who so staunchly wants to defend and uphold the Constitution would also respect the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and its encompassing concepts of no religious discrimination or persecution and the separation of church and state. While the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the First Amendment does state that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. We are not a Christian nation but a nation made up of many religions and beliefs. When we start making laws based on one religion, we start pushing that religion on people who aren't part of that religion and who might not want to be. We start taking away people's right to their own religious beliefs.
Perry is against discrimination but only of a certain kind. He writes about the future of America on page 173: “I see a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin – as they are today behind the facade of ending discrimination.” Or take this passage from page 33: “Indeed many of our ancestors and forebears ignored the words and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and denied basic liberties and humanity to certain people solely because of the color of their skin.” Okay, so racism is wrong, but denying basic liberties to people solely because of their sexual orientation or their gender or whatever cock-eyed thing this country decides to hate next is okay? I assume that Perry wouldn't support the anti-miscegenation laws that banned black people from marrying white people and were first introduced in North America in the late 17th century and remained in force in many U.S. states until 1967 when the case of Loving v. Virginia caused the Supreme Court to find those laws unconstitutional. (I would also like to point out that Nazi Germany passed a similar law banning the marriage of a non-Aryan [Jews, Gypsies, Blacks] to an Aryan.) So why is Perry against a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman? It's still two human beings wanting to get married. This is a civil rights issue. Why does the government (both federal and state) care who gets married? Why can't we just agree that marriage is between two human beings and move on? (And making gay marriage legal doesn't mean that churches must marry gay people. If you don't want to preside over a gay marriage ceremony, then don't! But honestly, I don't think gay people would even want to get married in the churches after being persecuted and excluded by so many in the “Christian” community.)
Perry also writes extensively about Obamacare. I do agree with him “that Obamacare does not cure the ills it claims to” (83), and I know from personal experience. All that free women's healthcare I'm supposed to get? My health insurance company found a loophole that allows them to not follow those rules.
That said, I have to comment on two passages from this book involving healthcare. The first passage is a quote from Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who called Obamacare “a bureaucratic nightmare … a byzantine network of 159 new federal programs and bureaucracies to make decisions that should be between just the patient and their doctor” (80). Again on that same page, Perry writes, “The net result of this [Obamacare] will be government bureaucrats – not your doctor – deciding what the right treatment is for you.”
First off, I already have an entity other than my doctor making health decisions for me. It's called MY HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY. And second, I find it ironic that Perry doesn't want government to interfere in the doctor's office, but Perry's state of Texas recently passed a law forcing a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion. How is that NOT interfering with decisions made between a doctor and a patient???
Clearly, Perry and I have differing views, and I knew this going into the book. It's not a poorly written book, so if I had to review the book based on that, it would receive a fairly high mark. But if I'm judging the book based on the content, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone I know. If you want a good non-partisan book on limiting the powers of government, I would recommend It Is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. That book doesn't ask readers to take sides, but rather encourages all American citizens to get a discussion going and stand up for our Constitutional and human rights.
The main idea, which I take issue with, seems to be that Republicans are right and Democrats are wrong. As Perry writes on page 37, “... ever since the dawn of the so-called Progressive movement over a century ago, liberals have used every tool at their disposal – including, notably, the Supreme Court – to wage a gradual war on the Constitution and the American way of life, with very little effective opposition from conservatives.” While later in the book Perry chides some of his fellow Republicans, it's clear he believes that Democrats do nothing but harm our country, when in fact the responsibility for that, in my opinion, falls on EVERYONE in government – federal and state. How can our country work to better itself when we have a two-party system that does nothing but divide politicians and citizens?
Surprisingly, there are some things on which I agree with Perry, namely the need for less government interference and social security reform. But to Perry, it seems that once we limit the federal government's power, everything will be hunky dory. On page 96, Perry lists all the things he doesn't want the federal government deciding for him, but I can't help wondering how a state government making the decisions wouldn't also be unconstitutional and an interference in our personal lives.
For example, “whether contraception must be allowed to be sold” (96) is one of Perry's issues. And he's right. Government cannot tell a private company, such as Walgreens, what it can and cannot sell. If Walgreens doesn't want to sell condoms, it doesn't have to. But this is also not something that state government should be allowed to enforce because, again, Walgreens is a private company, and if Walgreens feels that contraception brings in good sales, the company will sell it, or end up taking their business out of the interfering state. (And who wants to live in a state without Walgreens? On holidays, when you realize you forgot a much-needed ingredient for the food you have to make for your family get-together, Walgreens is the only food store open.)
Or how about my favorite: “whether those other than man and woman must be allowed to marry” (96). Now, the main reason that people don't support gay marriage is because they believe homosexuality is wrong. Why do they believe it's wrong? Because of their religion. But can we make laws based on religious beliefs? It seems that someone who so staunchly wants to defend and uphold the Constitution would also respect the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and its encompassing concepts of no religious discrimination or persecution and the separation of church and state. While the phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, the First Amendment does state that Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. We are not a Christian nation but a nation made up of many religions and beliefs. When we start making laws based on one religion, we start pushing that religion on people who aren't part of that religion and who might not want to be. We start taking away people's right to their own religious beliefs.
Perry is against discrimination but only of a certain kind. He writes about the future of America on page 173: “I see a nation where people are not judged by the color of their skin – as they are today behind the facade of ending discrimination.” Or take this passage from page 33: “Indeed many of our ancestors and forebears ignored the words and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and denied basic liberties and humanity to certain people solely because of the color of their skin.” Okay, so racism is wrong, but denying basic liberties to people solely because of their sexual orientation or their gender or whatever cock-eyed thing this country decides to hate next is okay? I assume that Perry wouldn't support the anti-miscegenation laws that banned black people from marrying white people and were first introduced in North America in the late 17th century and remained in force in many U.S. states until 1967 when the case of Loving v. Virginia caused the Supreme Court to find those laws unconstitutional. (I would also like to point out that Nazi Germany passed a similar law banning the marriage of a non-Aryan [Jews, Gypsies, Blacks] to an Aryan.) So why is Perry against a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman? It's still two human beings wanting to get married. This is a civil rights issue. Why does the government (both federal and state) care who gets married? Why can't we just agree that marriage is between two human beings and move on? (And making gay marriage legal doesn't mean that churches must marry gay people. If you don't want to preside over a gay marriage ceremony, then don't! But honestly, I don't think gay people would even want to get married in the churches after being persecuted and excluded by so many in the “Christian” community.)
Perry also writes extensively about Obamacare. I do agree with him “that Obamacare does not cure the ills it claims to” (83), and I know from personal experience. All that free women's healthcare I'm supposed to get? My health insurance company found a loophole that allows them to not follow those rules.
That said, I have to comment on two passages from this book involving healthcare. The first passage is a quote from Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) who called Obamacare “a bureaucratic nightmare … a byzantine network of 159 new federal programs and bureaucracies to make decisions that should be between just the patient and their doctor” (80). Again on that same page, Perry writes, “The net result of this [Obamacare] will be government bureaucrats – not your doctor – deciding what the right treatment is for you.”
First off, I already have an entity other than my doctor making health decisions for me. It's called MY HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY. And second, I find it ironic that Perry doesn't want government to interfere in the doctor's office, but Perry's state of Texas recently passed a law forcing a woman to have an ultrasound before an abortion. How is that NOT interfering with decisions made between a doctor and a patient???
Clearly, Perry and I have differing views, and I knew this going into the book. It's not a poorly written book, so if I had to review the book based on that, it would receive a fairly high mark. But if I'm judging the book based on the content, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone I know. If you want a good non-partisan book on limiting the powers of government, I would recommend It Is Dangerous to be Right When the Government is Wrong by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. That book doesn't ask readers to take sides, but rather encourages all American citizens to get a discussion going and stand up for our Constitutional and human rights.
June 13, 2018
Although my views are by and large quite different from Perry's, I enjoyed hearing this book more than I had expected. The book is littered with logical fallacies of all types and the standard "America is the great country to ever even think about being a country" rhetoric that I just learned to ignore after awhile. Behind all of that, I felt like I learned something about the constitution and its history, although I'm keeping in mind the source.
The book is primarily about the separation of powers between the state and federal governments, how this has changed over time, and Perry's thoughts on where we should go for the future. I always think it is a good idea to familiarize myself with views that aren't already ingrained in me so this was a good read to stretch my mind a bit.
The book is primarily about the separation of powers between the state and federal governments, how this has changed over time, and Perry's thoughts on where we should go for the future. I always think it is a good idea to familiarize myself with views that aren't already ingrained in me so this was a good read to stretch my mind a bit.
August 20, 2011
All hat, no cattle. Mr. Perry may be a great Texas politician, but he's going to have a hard time getting elected nationally. This is a very conservative view of how government should work: federalism, pure and simple, with the Tenth Amendment as the answer to just about every question. I understand this philosophy,but as we go through yet another long, hot summer of joblessness and suffering, I've begun to seriously question Mr. Perry's--and the larger Tea Party's--world view. (And, to be clear, Perry isn't a Tea Partier per se; he's adopted that trend to keep himself elected in Texas).
I am a boring, moderate Republican who would like to be a conservative Democrat. Mr. Perry, and the majority of the those running for POTUS in 2012, are far, far to my right. That's not to say that I don't understand,or sometimes agree, with their arguments: I do. However, while our debt is a terrifying reality, a more pressing reality is the lack of jobs in this country. We need to first deal with employment, then start making serious inroads on the national debt. Austerity is the exact wrong thing to do because it's only going to further contract spending...which is what we need to get the economy moving! We are a consumer economy, and small businesses--businesses of less than 500 employees that make up roughly 80% of our employers--are not hiring because there is no demand. Large corporations are making plenty of profits overseas, and have no reason to add labor costs in the US. I am tired of the unproven, oft-repeated nostrum that tax cuts will create jobs. It's simply not true. Taxes have been at near historic lows since 2000...do you see a lot of jobs appearing? In 1960, the top marginal tax rate was near 90%, and our economy was growing by 6% per year. We need to spend some money--an infrastructure bank, aid to cities and states, a national service project, the extension of unemployment benefits--anything to stimulate spending. The private sector is simply unwilling, or incapable, of doing it. If we have to pay for it with some sort of revenue increase that comes from closing tax loopholes, raising the top rates, or ending certain deductions, so be it. We simply can't continue on this path; it is madness.
With regard to entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare are wildly,and widely, popular. With that said, if people want these programs, they have to reckon with their costs, and pay for them. Everyone. Fifty percent of people who are eligible to pay federal income taxes in this country do not. Our largest corporations may face the second highest business tax in the world, but they end up paying zero. US companies exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Clean all this shit up and there will be plenty of money flowing into the government coffers. Likewise, with regard to Social Security, maybe it needs to be means tested. Maybe income about the first $110k needs to be taxed. Maybe for those in non-physically intensive fields, the retirement age can be increased by a year. There are reasonable modifications that can be made to these program to keep them solvent.
Finally, globalization has been a catastrophe for American workers. Wall Street may love it, but we have ceded our manufacturing might to China, a nation that is using the trillions of dollars we are handing them to build a modernized military, a green energy grid, and high tech infrastructure. Enough! Out of NAFTA, out of CAFTA, out of the WTO. Pull our bases out of Europe and Japan. Out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq. Out! Out! Out! Call me a nationalist, but I don't really give a shit about struggling factory workers in Pakistan, or trying to bring democracy to a Bronze Age country like Afghanistan. Trillions have been wasted on these wars, and on defending the Europeans from the Soviet threat. The Soviets have been gone for 20 fucking years! Let the little socialists defend themselves for a change; see how much money you have for 10 weeks of vacation then, you miserable, smug, French bastards. Here are three words for you: Le Aircraft Carriers. Build some yourself.
Sorry. Off topic. Rick Perry. Doesn't believe in evolution or climate change. Threatened to rough up the Secretary of the Treasury. Do me a favor, Rick: stay in fucking Texas, where your much vaunted job growth came, almost entirely, from government hiring in government jobs. These are serious times. Rick Perry reminds me of Yosemite Sam. No thanks.
Romney or Huntsman. Please? Pretty please?
I am a boring, moderate Republican who would like to be a conservative Democrat. Mr. Perry, and the majority of the those running for POTUS in 2012, are far, far to my right. That's not to say that I don't understand,or sometimes agree, with their arguments: I do. However, while our debt is a terrifying reality, a more pressing reality is the lack of jobs in this country. We need to first deal with employment, then start making serious inroads on the national debt. Austerity is the exact wrong thing to do because it's only going to further contract spending...which is what we need to get the economy moving! We are a consumer economy, and small businesses--businesses of less than 500 employees that make up roughly 80% of our employers--are not hiring because there is no demand. Large corporations are making plenty of profits overseas, and have no reason to add labor costs in the US. I am tired of the unproven, oft-repeated nostrum that tax cuts will create jobs. It's simply not true. Taxes have been at near historic lows since 2000...do you see a lot of jobs appearing? In 1960, the top marginal tax rate was near 90%, and our economy was growing by 6% per year. We need to spend some money--an infrastructure bank, aid to cities and states, a national service project, the extension of unemployment benefits--anything to stimulate spending. The private sector is simply unwilling, or incapable, of doing it. If we have to pay for it with some sort of revenue increase that comes from closing tax loopholes, raising the top rates, or ending certain deductions, so be it. We simply can't continue on this path; it is madness.
With regard to entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare are wildly,and widely, popular. With that said, if people want these programs, they have to reckon with their costs, and pay for them. Everyone. Fifty percent of people who are eligible to pay federal income taxes in this country do not. Our largest corporations may face the second highest business tax in the world, but they end up paying zero. US companies exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes. Clean all this shit up and there will be plenty of money flowing into the government coffers. Likewise, with regard to Social Security, maybe it needs to be means tested. Maybe income about the first $110k needs to be taxed. Maybe for those in non-physically intensive fields, the retirement age can be increased by a year. There are reasonable modifications that can be made to these program to keep them solvent.
Finally, globalization has been a catastrophe for American workers. Wall Street may love it, but we have ceded our manufacturing might to China, a nation that is using the trillions of dollars we are handing them to build a modernized military, a green energy grid, and high tech infrastructure. Enough! Out of NAFTA, out of CAFTA, out of the WTO. Pull our bases out of Europe and Japan. Out of Afghanistan, out of Iraq. Out! Out! Out! Call me a nationalist, but I don't really give a shit about struggling factory workers in Pakistan, or trying to bring democracy to a Bronze Age country like Afghanistan. Trillions have been wasted on these wars, and on defending the Europeans from the Soviet threat. The Soviets have been gone for 20 fucking years! Let the little socialists defend themselves for a change; see how much money you have for 10 weeks of vacation then, you miserable, smug, French bastards. Here are three words for you: Le Aircraft Carriers. Build some yourself.
Sorry. Off topic. Rick Perry. Doesn't believe in evolution or climate change. Threatened to rough up the Secretary of the Treasury. Do me a favor, Rick: stay in fucking Texas, where your much vaunted job growth came, almost entirely, from government hiring in government jobs. These are serious times. Rick Perry reminds me of Yosemite Sam. No thanks.
Romney or Huntsman. Please? Pretty please?
February 19, 2015
Rick Perry believes our nation needs to change its political course. He believes in a nation whose people have faith, take responsibility for their own actions, and are self-reliant. He believes the Federal government, which in one year spends $3.7 trillion or $11,600 per person, Is too large and with 4,500 criminal laws and 103,000 pages of regulations, too complex.
"Fed Up!" shows his belief that Americans are overtaxes, overregulated, too restricted in what guns they can buy and how much salt they can use, and what of which doctor than can be a patient. He is upset comedian Stephen Colbert was allowed to testify before Congress. He opposes the stimulus spending plan, the auto bailout, propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, allowing even any illegal immigrant to enter, and letting judges decide when matters such as when life begins and if the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public property.
Perry strongly supports state governments for protecting our freedoms from becoming one national government that he argues would then dictate how we live. States are "laboratories of democracy" where good ideas that work can then be tried elsewhere. Perry sees limiting lawsuits as an example of which he supports and believes more states should try.
Perry is upset that the 16th Amendment creating the Federal income tax was meant to tax the income of only the 3% to 5% of the nation's highest wage earners. Now it takes half the people and that the rates have increased from a 7% to 11% range to today's 10% to 35% range.
Perry consider the 17th amendment creating public election of Senators, instead of allowing state legislatures to determine how to select Senators, a process that hurt state governments that moved the nation towards a centralized government. Perry argues that Senators should approve more Federal government spending because they are less accountable to a voting public than when state legislatures decided their fates.
Perry notes the national debt is $13.4 trillion or $43,000 per person. He is worried that economic growth is too slow to repay this debt. The debt is 90% of GNP. The only time this ratio was higher was at the aftermath of World War II. He argues the U.S. recovered in the 1950s because it did not have to spend as much as social welfare to which we are now committed to spend.
"Social security is a failure", Perry writes. It is a system "underestimates their intelligence, their desire to return with greater stability".
Perry supports free markets. He opposes requiring people to purchase government approved health insurance.
Perry sees Federal government incentives on education as means to get states to follow the will of the Federal government. He further criticized EPA for undermining state environmental actions. He sees the EPA as an instrument for controlling state governments rather than one that protects the environment. Further, he is upset that Supreme Court Justices who are not elected (despite his suspicions over electing Senators) can impact lives.
Perry believes state government knows best how to handle their own criminals and that uniformity of treatment is not important. He is upset over restrictions on religion in public schools.
Perry is angry that the Federal government is slow to pay state governments funds to imprison illegal immigrants.
Perry is concerned a treaty reducing weapons will undermine our military security.
Perry observes the average Texan pays about twice more in taxes for Federal government services than for state and local government services. He argues that state and local governments are more responsive to local concerns.
Perry calls for repealing Obama's health care plan, state governments standing up to the Federal government, moving towards a smaller Federal government, the election of Constitutionalists, reducing Federal spending, and either create a flat income tax or repeal the 16th amendment in favor of a national sales tax.
"Fed Up!" shows his belief that Americans are overtaxes, overregulated, too restricted in what guns they can buy and how much salt they can use, and what of which doctor than can be a patient. He is upset comedian Stephen Colbert was allowed to testify before Congress. He opposes the stimulus spending plan, the auto bailout, propping up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, allowing even any illegal immigrant to enter, and letting judges decide when matters such as when life begins and if the Ten Commandments can be displayed on public property.
Perry strongly supports state governments for protecting our freedoms from becoming one national government that he argues would then dictate how we live. States are "laboratories of democracy" where good ideas that work can then be tried elsewhere. Perry sees limiting lawsuits as an example of which he supports and believes more states should try.
Perry is upset that the 16th Amendment creating the Federal income tax was meant to tax the income of only the 3% to 5% of the nation's highest wage earners. Now it takes half the people and that the rates have increased from a 7% to 11% range to today's 10% to 35% range.
Perry consider the 17th amendment creating public election of Senators, instead of allowing state legislatures to determine how to select Senators, a process that hurt state governments that moved the nation towards a centralized government. Perry argues that Senators should approve more Federal government spending because they are less accountable to a voting public than when state legislatures decided their fates.
Perry notes the national debt is $13.4 trillion or $43,000 per person. He is worried that economic growth is too slow to repay this debt. The debt is 90% of GNP. The only time this ratio was higher was at the aftermath of World War II. He argues the U.S. recovered in the 1950s because it did not have to spend as much as social welfare to which we are now committed to spend.
"Social security is a failure", Perry writes. It is a system "underestimates their intelligence, their desire to return with greater stability".
Perry supports free markets. He opposes requiring people to purchase government approved health insurance.
Perry sees Federal government incentives on education as means to get states to follow the will of the Federal government. He further criticized EPA for undermining state environmental actions. He sees the EPA as an instrument for controlling state governments rather than one that protects the environment. Further, he is upset that Supreme Court Justices who are not elected (despite his suspicions over electing Senators) can impact lives.
Perry believes state government knows best how to handle their own criminals and that uniformity of treatment is not important. He is upset over restrictions on religion in public schools.
Perry is angry that the Federal government is slow to pay state governments funds to imprison illegal immigrants.
Perry is concerned a treaty reducing weapons will undermine our military security.
Perry observes the average Texan pays about twice more in taxes for Federal government services than for state and local government services. He argues that state and local governments are more responsive to local concerns.
Perry calls for repealing Obama's health care plan, state governments standing up to the Federal government, moving towards a smaller Federal government, the election of Constitutionalists, reducing Federal spending, and either create a flat income tax or repeal the 16th amendment in favor of a national sales tax.
August 13, 2011
I read this book wanting a straight from himself on what Rick Perry believed, given he's supposed to announce his presidential run in the next few days. Governor Perry wrote this book with the belief that Americans are fed up with the direction that the Federal Government is going and that it needs to be taken back by the people who believe in American exceptionalism and freedom. A kind of right-wing populism. He decries statism and, in his view, that most of today's overweening government goes back to Woodrow Wilson and the later New Deal under FDR.
The book contained lots of rhetoric about the greatness of Texas and lots of quotes and sources for examples of runaway spending, along with the belief that somehow the government screwed us over and we just gotta vote our way back out by electing good men and reforms. I don't believe in salvation by politics, but some of his proposals intrigued me. Mr. Perry's beliefs can be summarised as follows:
Pro-imperialist, supports all of the recent wars as necessary for national security and the defence of America, and supports expansion of the military.
Pro-capitalist in the Friedman sense, and criticizes Keynesianism in a few places. He does, apologetically, criticize President Bush for the bailouts and other Republicans for not taking a principled stand in regards to spending and taxes, but he says he understands the position they are in. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". He also supports the continued funding of NASA.
He supports privatisation of Social Security, a flat tax or a repeal of the amendment regarding income taxes to be replaced with a national sales tax. He supports the phasing out of the EPA in favour of individual states deciding environmental policy, (he also states his belief that global warming is a hoax) and the repeal of the recent healthcare law 'Obamacare' as well as the abolishing of No Child Left Behind.
He supports a return to Federalism as originally envisioned in the Federalist papers, and is a strong supporter of States' Rights, believing that the states or even localities are best deciders of their own laws.
One thing to go along with federalism is that he says states and localities should refuse federal grant money because the federal government uses this to 'coerce' them into going along with other regulations - he gives the example of drinking age and seatbelt laws, which he says the Federal government cannot constitutionally regulate, but they coerce states into enacting policies to go along with what they want or threaten to withhold funds for highways or education.
His hope was to start a national debate on limited government, and I can see such a debate having gotten larger in recent months, but, perhaps because of my own apoliticalness, I found his repeated "it's the governments fault" and continued mentions of American greatnness unwelcome. Maybe because I think his solutions are only solutions if we realise that the government we have today represents us perfectly well - lack of self-discipline and self-responsibility in the home, family, and locality only scales up with power. Broken families and personal fiscal irresponsibility do not an honest government make.
The Christian gospel must spread for true reform, so, the hope must be found elsewhere, and not in Governor Perry to 'save the United States'. He has my respect, however, and hopefully, if he is elected, he will be principled in economic matters and in restraining federal power.
The book contained lots of rhetoric about the greatness of Texas and lots of quotes and sources for examples of runaway spending, along with the belief that somehow the government screwed us over and we just gotta vote our way back out by electing good men and reforms. I don't believe in salvation by politics, but some of his proposals intrigued me. Mr. Perry's beliefs can be summarised as follows:
Pro-imperialist, supports all of the recent wars as necessary for national security and the defence of America, and supports expansion of the military.
Pro-capitalist in the Friedman sense, and criticizes Keynesianism in a few places. He does, apologetically, criticize President Bush for the bailouts and other Republicans for not taking a principled stand in regards to spending and taxes, but he says he understands the position they are in. "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". He also supports the continued funding of NASA.
He supports privatisation of Social Security, a flat tax or a repeal of the amendment regarding income taxes to be replaced with a national sales tax. He supports the phasing out of the EPA in favour of individual states deciding environmental policy, (he also states his belief that global warming is a hoax) and the repeal of the recent healthcare law 'Obamacare' as well as the abolishing of No Child Left Behind.
He supports a return to Federalism as originally envisioned in the Federalist papers, and is a strong supporter of States' Rights, believing that the states or even localities are best deciders of their own laws.
One thing to go along with federalism is that he says states and localities should refuse federal grant money because the federal government uses this to 'coerce' them into going along with other regulations - he gives the example of drinking age and seatbelt laws, which he says the Federal government cannot constitutionally regulate, but they coerce states into enacting policies to go along with what they want or threaten to withhold funds for highways or education.
His hope was to start a national debate on limited government, and I can see such a debate having gotten larger in recent months, but, perhaps because of my own apoliticalness, I found his repeated "it's the governments fault" and continued mentions of American greatnness unwelcome. Maybe because I think his solutions are only solutions if we realise that the government we have today represents us perfectly well - lack of self-discipline and self-responsibility in the home, family, and locality only scales up with power. Broken families and personal fiscal irresponsibility do not an honest government make.
The Christian gospel must spread for true reform, so, the hope must be found elsewhere, and not in Governor Perry to 'save the United States'. He has my respect, however, and hopefully, if he is elected, he will be principled in economic matters and in restraining federal power.
January 9, 2017
I read Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington by Rick Perry while a resident of Texas in 2010. Perry was governor during part of my residency. While the book has lots of sensible limited government material, what I most distinctly remember was reading the below passage and thinking to myself, "bull shit!!!"
Excerpt from book: "Now, cynics will say that I decided to write this book because I seek higher office. They are wrong: I already have the best job in America."
Sure enough, since publishing this statement, Perry has proven his cynics correct by running for president twice and recently accepted a position as director of the Department of Energy.
Ignoring this foolishly stupid statement (honestly, he didn't think he was going to run for president less than two years later??) this book has some merit to it. Perry does a successful job highlighting the benefits of vesting powers to states instead of the federal government. Perry discusses how hot-button issues like marijuana legalization and gay marriage should not be determined by the federal government. Including marijuana in this discussion is particularly commendable considering Perry does not favor marijuana legalization, yet correctly advocates its decriminalization at the federal level.
While I mostly enjoyed this book, it's a bit outdated now (in 2016) and there are countless other books that articulate the advantages of reducing the powers of the federal government. Thus I would not enthusiastically recommend this to someone unless they have a burning interest in Rick Perry personally.
Excerpt from book: "Now, cynics will say that I decided to write this book because I seek higher office. They are wrong: I already have the best job in America."
Sure enough, since publishing this statement, Perry has proven his cynics correct by running for president twice and recently accepted a position as director of the Department of Energy.
Ignoring this foolishly stupid statement (honestly, he didn't think he was going to run for president less than two years later??) this book has some merit to it. Perry does a successful job highlighting the benefits of vesting powers to states instead of the federal government. Perry discusses how hot-button issues like marijuana legalization and gay marriage should not be determined by the federal government. Including marijuana in this discussion is particularly commendable considering Perry does not favor marijuana legalization, yet correctly advocates its decriminalization at the federal level.
While I mostly enjoyed this book, it's a bit outdated now (in 2016) and there are countless other books that articulate the advantages of reducing the powers of the federal government. Thus I would not enthusiastically recommend this to someone unless they have a burning interest in Rick Perry personally.
December 23, 2012
Free because of first principals of Faith, Freedom and Free Enterprise. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness-gained thru accomplishment. O said open to ideas however no look at success of Texas, DC is broken and not America, America is great because of reliance on individuals and not government, dependence on government is not the happiness gained thru achievement/accomplishment, Supreme Court has little to do with Constitution evidenced by rulings on both sides of various issues, more about elections and activist judges, current appears to be 4-4 with Kennedy deciding, obama either inept or dereliction of duty, peace thru strength, pride-filled tyrants tell you their outrageous intentions and plans, corruption of earmarks, republicans lose when not conservative, post katrina actions of texas and states verses federal government failures, we do not need federal govt to mandate how state money/individual money is spent, value of a flat tax.
September 1, 2011
A fairly straightforward primer of Rick Perry's vision for America. There's nothing especially new about this, per se, but seeing as he's quickly become a top tier candidate for President, it was worth the read.
The book is only surprising in that social issues take a much larger backseat in Perry's vision than you'd expect. They're there, to be certain, and he makes no bones about his positions on social and religious issues, but they take a back seat to the rights of states to embrace - or not embrace - them as best they can. It's somewhat refreshing, even if it's imperfect.
I do recommend people read this anyway, if only because there's a good chance he might be your next President and it's worth reading on that account alone. It probably won't change anyone's mind about the man, but it will at least provide some direct clarity.
The book is only surprising in that social issues take a much larger backseat in Perry's vision than you'd expect. They're there, to be certain, and he makes no bones about his positions on social and religious issues, but they take a back seat to the rights of states to embrace - or not embrace - them as best they can. It's somewhat refreshing, even if it's imperfect.
I do recommend people read this anyway, if only because there's a good chance he might be your next President and it's worth reading on that account alone. It probably won't change anyone's mind about the man, but it will at least provide some direct clarity.
July 28, 2012
I am an avid Rick Perry fan. I love him for his service to our Country, for being an Aggie, and for what he's accomplished for our great State of Texas, his traditional values and principles.
He really breaks down how and why Washington D.C. is broken and how it is bankrupting America. He speaks adamantly about state's rights (10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court and it's over-reaching power, how The Federal government is ignoring National Security, Immigration issues, etc.
In short, he explains why Conservatism works. Just look at our State of Texas and how healthy it is economically.
He really breaks down how and why Washington D.C. is broken and how it is bankrupting America. He speaks adamantly about state's rights (10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court and it's over-reaching power, how The Federal government is ignoring National Security, Immigration issues, etc.
In short, he explains why Conservatism works. Just look at our State of Texas and how healthy it is economically.
December 29, 2010
I must be totally honest and say this book is not what I expected. This book is well thought out, filled with relevant information and not alot of fluff. I expected this book to be political fluff, filled with Republican talking points and it wasn't. I was shocked to see that Rick Perry had started off his political life as a Democrat, like myself. As a Libertarian, I must say though, I think his plans/recommendations are lofty, at the least, with the two party system we currently have in this country.
January 27, 2014
A good little book about limited government and the need to reform the Republican party to actually fight for a small federal government. It didn't give a guy like me (who knows a lot about politics) too much new as far as insight or ammunition to debate leftists that I don't already have. Here's one good quote that I liked though. "The government of these United States is a definite government, confined to specific objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government." - James Madison
May 6, 2013
I bought this book to learn the views and beliefs of Rick Perry. He is very much in favor of states rights. He believes in a small federal government. He says the government that governs best is the one closet to the people which he means the local (city and county). I agree with much of what he states. However, in the debates I have watch he does not seem to be as passionate as he is in the book. It makes me wonder if someone else wrote the book for him. Newt Gingrich wrote the foreword and did an excellent job.
Read
November 13, 2014Reading this together with Perry's other book, On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts are Worth Fighting For, left me confused. The ideas in the two books seemed inconsistent. I explained some of it in this article on individualism and collectivism.
August 7, 2011
As I write this, pundits say that Rick Perry is poised to declare for the GOP nomination. I try to find out who the candidates are and what they think. This is good summation of where Perry stands. I can see why Tea Party folk and other conservatives and libertarians like him. He argues persuasively for a return to the limited role of the Federal government envisioned by the Founding Fathers and written into the Constitution. Simple, clear, effective, and to the point.
November 26, 2011
In this book, Rick Perry becomes a voice for many hard working Americans who are tired and frustrated with a broken down federal government. He clearly states his case for a return to federalism and the Constitution. He cites many examples and quotes to back up his opinions and gives hope that maybe some politicians still get it. If you have not been impressed with the debate performance of Perry, most have not, maybe you should read this book.
October 4, 2011
Not sure why this book has caused such a fuss. It seemed like a rational call for a return to the common-sense limited government principles our country was founded on. If only more people would actually read the book, rather than just letting the media tell them what's in it, I don't think they would find Perry's views as "extreme" as they are being portrayed.
Read
September 20, 2011I heard this book mentioned during the Republican debate in September 2011, and decided to check it out. At the end of it, I have a little bit deeper understanding of Perry's take on Federalism and state's rights. I also know more about his challenges in the state of Texas regarding the border with Mexico, environmental issues, and responding to emergencies like Katrina.
abandoned
September 30, 2011I really wanted to get through this as I think there is a good chance he will be the next POTUS. But I get quickly bored listening to privileged people complain. His tactic in the first few pages seemed to be, "This is great country, but ... " Now listen to me complain about everything that is wrong with it. Boring. Obviously he has too much time on his hands as Governor of Texas.
April 3, 2011
Regardless of how you feel about Rick Perry, he made some excellent points. At least, they are excellent from a Conservative's standpoint. I'm sure the liberal left will call every name they can think of while they're stomping it into powder.
March 9, 2012
Reading books on our current political situation and climate make me long for a shift back to the rights of the states. It seems like we might have a chance of impacting our state and local government. It seems we will not reach any type of consensus on the national level.
March 7, 2011
Love Love Love Rick Perry. He is an awesome governor. And the book is great for ordinary people to read with out all the hard to understand words.
July 5, 2011
I find very little to agree with in this book - but I have to say that he is at least consistent in his outlook.
May 20, 2017
I don't agree with anywhere near everything Rick Perry has to say. However, I do agree with the premise of this book. This book was a very easy read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews