Screwing with the establishment ~ By Robert Ringer

Clearly, the tea-party people have their work cut out for them. Every member of the House and Senate should be faced with a tea-party challenger in 2012 unless they vote to make a balanced-budget amendment a condition for raising the debt ceiling. That should start with John Boehner and Eric Cantor, who are nothing more than enablers in a 100-year game of creeping socialism.

With Glenn Beck leaving the scene, it's all the more important that tea-party candidates in the Michele Bachmann-Allen West-Jim DeMint-Mike Lee mold overwhelm the House and Senate in 2012. Then, even if an establishment type compromiser like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee wins the presidency, when he puts his finger in the wind, he's likely to back the tea-party agenda on all major issues.

I say it's time for tea-party electees to get serious about screwing with the establishment!

Oh, but the title that Robert Ringer chose for this piece was so delicious! Rich! And for sure, it is time for another tea party in 2012!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the Tea Party Movement was fading away. Uh, sorry, Harry old chap, but it seems to be a bloody good thing that you are only fooling yourself about the decline of the Tea Party Movement.

But as Robert points out, Glenn Beck illustrated the results of "screwing with the establishment," in a good way! During the time Glenn was on Fox News, he was able to educate a lot of people. Somebody must have been nervous about the truth getting out! Getting Glenn Beck "out of the way" by ending his Fox News slot will have unintended consequences for the very Establishment that thought he could be silenced. That is because Robert Ringer wrote the following:

But what has happened with Glenn Beck is much bigger than just the superficial story that he and Fox News are parting ways. It's a harsh reminder to the rest of us not to step out of line and screw with the establishment.

Or, is it a stark reminder that right now is the right time to screw with the establishment? Yes, for both the people that the Tea Party Movement elected, and for the movement not to quit screwing with the establishment. I'm just sayin'...

Screwing with the establishment

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

April 22, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

When I first wrote about the likelihood that Glenn Beck would be departing Fox News in a two-part article back on May 27 and 28, 2010, a lot of readers were surprised. After all, Beck had the highest–rated cable-television show in history in the 5 p.m. time slot.

In Part 2 of that article ("Glenn Beck's departure from Fox News"), I suggested four possible events that might trigger his departure. One of those four events was what I referred to as "The Godfather option," wherein I said that Barack Obama was well aware that time was against him because so many liberal Democrats were losing in primaries and special elections. I suggested that Obama might just "send the boys over to have a little chat with Rupert Murdoch and make him an offer he can't refuse."

Obviously, I didn't mean those words literally, but I did believe that Fox was getting so much heat about Beck from so many directions – even from some of its own shameless commentators and contributors – that it might decide it would be pragmatic to get him out of the Fox kitchen.

I don't believe it was a coincidence that Beck's announced departure came shortly after the riots began in Wisconsin and Egypt. Early on, Beck predicted that the rioting would spread throughout the Arab world and, as usual, he turned out to be right. He also linked Muslim extremists, communists and labor unions together in the Middle East riots, and he was right again. Truths like these make the establishment feel very uncomfortable.

In addition, Republican presidential candidates were preparing to throw their hats in the ring for 2012. The two front-running establishment candidates in the polls right now are Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

Neither of them have ever appeared on Beck's show, nor would they have been invited to appear in the future, even if one of them had won the Republican nomination. Beck has far too much principle to allow establishment charlatans on his show, and that has not gone down well with – you guessed it – establishment charlatans.

While Fox commentators (Judge Napolitano excluded) repeated the same superficial talking points on the same superficial news stories day in and day out, Beck zeroed in on the behind-the scenes ugly truths that are bringing down America – truths that no one else even bothered to mention.

This made the establishment guys very uneasy, which is why they were increasingly marginalizing him as a nut case, conspiracy theorist and radical.

In my March 18, 2011, article "The war on Glenn Beck," I explained the essence of Beck's problem at Fox: "… jealousy and the establishment have a way of Palinizing those who have the courage to take the road less traveled. So it's not surprising that rumors are now flying about Glenn Beck's ratings decline, his loss of major advertisers and his possible end-of-year departure from Fox News. The word is that the powers that be at Fox supposedly want Beck to put a more positive spin on his commentaries." (Translation: Fox wanted Beck to put more inside-the-Beltway talking points into his commentaries and cut back a bit on the kind of truths that frighten viewers.)

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

'House Republicans alone can downsize Washington'

"There is a lot of pressure on House Republicans to simply negotiate a deal with the Democrats on budget cuts or a balanced budget in exchange for a vote to raise the debt limit," said Farah. "To me it makes no sense. Republicans, by merely voting as a bloc in the House alone, can force bigger cuts in the budget than they will ever get in any deal with Democrats. Why would they trade that nuclear option. Republicans in the House hold all the cards. This is what they were elected to do last November – for a time such as this."

"The House Republicans alone can downsize Washington," he said.

If this sounds like an excellent plan, it is because it would work! It would not allow our government to spend more than it takes in with tax revenues. It would force Congress to find a way to balance the budget, in other words.

'House Republicans alone can downsize Washington'

New petition campaign demands GOP unity against raising debt limit

January 23, 2011 ~ 6:46 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

JOHN BOEHNER,
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE

WASHINGTON – The House Republican majority has the power to impose the most dramatic cuts in the federal budget in decades, halting all new spending by Barack Obama and the Senate majority and significantly reducing the national debt by simply voting in a few weeks to oppose raising the debt limit, says the architect of a plan to persuade GOP representatives to unify around the idea.

A new petition campaign directed exclusively to all 242 House Republicans calls on them not to bargain with Democrats in favor of using the "nuclear option – stopping any further deficit spending for the next two years."

"Few are recognizing what an opportunity the House Republicans have to force Washington to downsize," says Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND and the author of the petition. "If Republicans in the House unite around this idea, there is nothing the White House or the Senate can do to exceed the debt limit. This is a golden opportunity for real change in policy that must not be frittered away in favor of deals with the Democrats."

Farah says some in House leadership are already suggesting they will support raising the debt limit in March in exchange for the promise of budget cuts by Democrats.

"Why Republicans would bargain for budget cuts that Democrats themselves will be forced to implement if the debt limit is not raised makes no sense," he says. "By definition, a vote to raise the debt limit permits the Democrats to spend more money than Washington collects. Republicans will, in effect, give Democrats license to keep overspending and increasing debt by approving a debt limit increase."

On the other hand, Farah says, all Republicans in the House have to do to force Democrats to cut spending radically for the first time in decades is to stick together in opposing a hike in the debt limit.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Could James Carville be right? ~ By Robert Ringer

So, if you still like to believe in miracles, here's how the U.S. might still be able to escape what appears to be imminent financial and cultural death: 32 years of Jim DeMint, Allen West, Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie in the White House, all supported by tea-party dominated Houses and Senates. Throw one more (perhaps yet unknown) tea-party president into the mix, and James Carville's prediction of one-party control of Washington for the next 40 years might actually become a reality. It's just that he would have had the wrong party in mind.

Of course, you should definitely read all of Robert's column today, or else you would miss the best part, where he writes about Ron Paul, such as, "I've known Ron Paul for more than 30 years, and he is the most knowledgeable congressman of our time on the issues of constitutional law, personal liberty and, above all, the Federal Reserve and it's chief criminal function of creating worthless paper money." That's just for starters!

Could James Carville be right?

ROBERT RINGER

By Robert Ringer

January 07, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

I recently discovered the excellent biography series on – of all places – CNBC. Reading and watching biographies on television is an incredible educational tool. Over the past few weeks, I've watched biographies about J.W. Marriott, Henry Ford, Colonel Sanders and Richard Branson, among others.

Now that I've become a shameful CNBC viewer, I find myself clicking to that breeding ground of liberal fantasies from time to time to see if I can catch a good biography. Which means my eyes may briefly be exposed to such intellectual pornography as "Mad Money with Jim Cramer" or "Hardball with Chris Matthews" before I'm able to flip the channel back to Fox. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, I have suffered no permanent brain damage.

Which brings me to last Sunday evening. Now firmly entrenched in the habit of flipping to CNBC in search of a good biography, I stumbled across what appeared to be a reality TV show that made me feel as though I had landed on a planet in a faraway galaxy. The show centered around a woman I had never seen before, but whose name I had heard – Suze Orman. I later looked her up on the Internet and found that she is "undeniably America's most recognized expert on personal finance." Quite an impressive moniker, to say the least.

They call it "The Suze Orman Show," but a more appropriate name might be "Economics for Adolescents." It was a truly stunning experience. A viewer called in to ask Ms. Orman to evaluate his financial situation and tell him if she thought he could retire at age 58. She advised him to wait until at least age 60 (shades of Europe), giving him all sorts of grade-school advice without ever alluding to the fact that there are a few pesky realities concerning the U.S. economy he might want to take into consideration. It sounded like something out of the 1950s or '60s – kind of a financial version of "Ozzie and Harriet."

In fairness, let me say that I have no idea whether Ms. Orman is ignorant, totally oblivious to what's going on with the U.S. economy, or just role playing to present herself as an upbeat purveyor of hackneyed financial advice for the masses. Either way, the reason her hollow gibberish had a special impact on me was because on that very day I happened to have been rereading Ron Paul's classic "End the Fed."

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

A bloody ending for the GOP? ~ By Robert Ringer

There was a segment where Newt Gingrich was talking with Laura Ingraham from way back in February 2008 during the primaries that is a good teachable moment for the GOP:

Almost-liberal Republican Candidates Will Lose
    From the video as seen in the description:

"I don't think anybody on his [McCain's] team understands the Conservative movement. So I don't think they have any idea what the underlying pattern is. They don't like the Conservative movement. They didn't hang-out with it. They're offended by it. I don't think you can go to the center in this country and try to be sort of a, a, an almost-liberal and win an election. I think that turns off so many people that they just stay home. And I think it's very important to realize, there were over 14-million Democrat votes in Super-tuesday. There were about 8-million Republican votes."  (Emphasis mine)

Video provided by NoRepublicanWimps

Newt was right on the money in 2008, wasn't he? And so is Robert Ringer now. The establishment Republicans - the RINO Progressives - didn't learn their lesson in 2006 or 2008. They lost the Conservative wing of the GOP. Should the Republicans take back Congress in 2010, as Robert suggests, they can no longer be squishy Republicrats; no more compromising, no more trying to get along with the other side of the aisle. Just sayin'...

Either the hazing and indoctrination ("co-opting") of new members of the Republican wing of the D.C. Club will finally be brought to a halt or the United States of America, as we came to know it growing up, will never again resurface. Club members have got to be made to understand that the game is over. Term limits, a balanced-budget amendment and rigid adherence to the rule that all legislation be required to pass constitutional muster would be good starters.

If they win big on Nov. 2, Republicans will be faced with a choice: Hand the sword of power over to the new faces in the party – those who truly believe in freedom and free markets and are serious about putting an end to the never-ending sham of "compromise" – or use the sword to commit hara-kiri.

Let's hope it's not a bloody ending for the Grand Old Party.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: August 27, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I was saddened, though not surprised, when former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said (in referring to tea-party candidates) in a recent interview with the Washington Post, "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples. As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them." It stirred my greatest fears about the Republican Party.

I've always liked Trent Lott. Even though he's establishment to the core, by and large he's been one of the good guys – kind of an unperfected free-marketer. But I was very disappointed at his playing the role of loyal club member and dutifully stepping down as Senate majority leader when his well-intended remarks at Strom Thurman's 100th birthday party exploded into a left-wing fiesta.

Prior to that, in 1992, Sen. Lott had sent me a lengthy letter complimenting me on the content of a mockup magazine I was planning to publish (which I later decided to shelve), and I always appreciated his kind comments. So much so that when I started the Liberty Education Interview Series, I contacted his office to invite him to become one of my first interviews.

After a couple of back-and-forth e-mails, I spoke to a young man ("Joshua") who handled Lott's media commitments. He wanted to know the kind of questions I would be asking the Senator, and when I mentioned the recently passed TARP bill and other big-spending government programs, he said, "I can tell you right now that Senator Lott would not be agreeable to do an interview about such topics because he has paying clients who support those bills."

In a follow-up e-mail, I responded, "I appreciate the fact that Senator Lott has clients, but I'd like to believe that he is still deeply concerned about the future of this country."

In a final response, Joshua said that even though Lott "applauds your efforts in promoting free markets and capitalism … his schedule simply does not permit him the opportunity to participate in this effort. However, rest assured that he is doing his part in the cause."

And, in all honesty, I believe Trent Lott, in his own way, really is doing his part to promote freedom and free enterprise. In fact, a majority of Republicans are, in their own way, working to promote freedom and free enterprise. The problem is that they are conflicted by their desire to 1) stay in office as long as possible and 2) make as much money as possible.

As one of my longtime congressional friends told me bluntly, "You don't start making big money until you leave office." (Yes – he, too, is now a lobbyist.) Interestingly, my friend is behind the times, because the Democrats have boldly taken it to the next level and now make big money while still in office!

So, Sen. Lott has the right idea when he talks about co-opting, but he has it backwards. It's the tea-party people – the massive majority of libertarians, conservatives and libertarian-centered conservatives – who need to co-opt the Republican Party. If they cannot accomplish that, you can look for the near-term extinction of the Grand Old Party and the emergence of an official Tea Party.

In his interview with the Washington Post, Lott also said he is not expecting a tea-party sweep, explaining that "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people." Say what? Attention Sen. Lott: The visceral judgment of the American people is what the tea-party movement is all about!

As I have written about so often in the past, if Barack Obama and his criminal cronies in Congress are not able to prevent free and fair elections in November, I believe the Republicans will overwhelm the Democrats in a tidal wave of victories beyond what even the most optimistic conservatives are expecting.

It's going to be like a political earthquake and tsunami hitting simultaneously. The day-in-day-out lies of Barack Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress will be laid bare for all to see in one historic night.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Following Superwoman's lead ~ By Robert Ringer

For me, the one thing that Robert wrote that really stood out, practically jumped off the page, is, "Compassion is a good thing, but it's not a collective experience. It's a very personal issue." Those words are the purest embodiment of the true differences in the ideals of progressivism and conservatism. The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution of the United States knew this. They were profoundly aware that once a government took over the job of "compassion" that it would eventually lead to tyranny. And of course, they were right, and we're already seeing the actual results of collective compassion.

And this is why the progressives have made it so difficult for Republicans to have the courage to stick to the Constitution, as Robert explains in this column. The progressives know that they can make their opponents, the conservatives, look like the bad guys in this political climate. They have the liberal press on their side, and believe me, they make use of that asset. The progressives also know that the more people that they have receiving some type of entitlement, the harder it will be for the true conservative constitutionalists to reverse the "progress" made over the last century. We will only find out if that is even still possible if enough truly courageous men and women get elected this year. Just sayin'...

So, the big question remains: If we actually have elections in November, and if Republicans can overcome Democratic fraud and voter intimidation and win both the House and Senate, will enough of them have the courage to stand up and talk tea-party language?

If they are fearful, all they need to do is follow closely behind Superwoman (a.k.a. Michele Bachmann), Jim DeMint, Ron Paul and a host of other tea-party House and Senate members. Bachmann is a woman who never ceases to amaze me with her ability and courage to zero in on the real issues. She doesn't buy into false-premise debates, which drives the far Left crazy. In a recent interview, she said:

"I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on." The only word I would take issue with is "nonsense." I would be inclined to call it blatant criminal activity. But I agree with her that a tidal wave of subpoenas should be issued.

Along with a growing group of her colleagues, Bachmann not only understands what a majority of people in this country are upset about, she actually believes in the same things they do. But it would all be for naught if she didn't also possess the courage to say what she believes.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: August 06, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

A long-time friend of mine, who retired some years ago after serving as a Republican congressman for 18 years, called me last week. He said he was concerned about protecting his assets in the event the current soft dictatorship in Washington evolves into an out-and-out police state.

During our discussion, I asked him, if the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress, did he believe they would have the courage to seriously start cutting back on entitlements and trying to repeal every unconstitutional bill the Obamaviks have passed? To which my cynical friend responded, "If the Republicans take over the House and Senate, it's not going to make a tinker's dam bit of difference."

He went on to say that one of the hardest realities he had to come to grips with during his tenure as a congressman was that most Republicans lack courage. He said they live in fear of being accused of being calloused, cruel, uncompassionate or – worst of all – racist. When he was a congressman, he was notorious for stubbornly sticking to the Constitution when it came to voting on legislation – which, of course, resulted in his being labeled an extremist.

The recent Senate debate over yet another extension of unemployment benefits was a perfect example of the RINO problem. Most Republicans were careful to say they supported the extension of jobless pay, but argued that the costs should be "paid for" rather than added to the federal deficit.

Attention Republican senators: There is no provision in the Constitution for the government to provide unemployment benefits – period! Yet, this obvious fact was never part of the debate. And so it is with virtually every congressional debate. Such time-wasting debates are almost always based on a false premise – usually that the government has a right to engage in activities that are not spelled out in the Constitution.

In the case of unemployment benefits, the false premise is that Congress has a right to give money to people who are unemployed. The debate then centers around whether the money should be borrowed or printed or come directly from taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, or by cutting an equal amount from some other transfer-of-wealth program. What many Republicans still do not understand is that a majority of Americans (meaning tea-party people) want politicians to abide by the Constitution.

Compassion is a good thing, but it's not a collective experience. It's a very personal issue. To be sure, a majority of Americans are compassionate, but they do not want the government to force them to pay for what politicians think they should be compassionate about.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Herman Cain is his name ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph writes about Herman Cain as a possibility, somebody to consider, when it comes to finding somebody to run against Barack Obama (if he even runs, or if there is even an election) in 2012.

I know of many Herman Cain fans, like myself. Herman writes for WorldNetDaily.com, and I've posted many of his columns on this blog. They are all very exceptional columns.

Here is his bio that you can find at the bottom of Herman's columns:

Herman Cain is currently a radio talk-show host. "The Herman Cain Show," News Talk 750 WSB-Atlanta, airs Monday-Friday, 7 p.m.-10 p.m. EST (listen LIVE online). He is a former corporate executive and CEO, and still serves on the board of directors of three corporations that range in size from 4 to 16 billion dollars in annual revenue. His latest book, "They Think You're Stupid," was inspired following his 2004 run for the U.S. Senate as a Republican in Georgia. 

Yes, Herman Cain has the charisma, charm, executive experience, and even some political experience. He is a natural-born organizer and leader. Joseph Farah adds a few more of Herman's qualifications in his column, such as my favorite: Herman is "a natural communicator who doesn't need a teleprompter."

Yes, there are other possible candidates, but Herman Cain would definitely be one that I would support, and I'd love to hear what the liberals would say about the tea-party "racists" that would also support Herman in a BIG WAY!! Just sayin'...

Herman Cain is another name to add to the list.

It's a long way between now and 2012. But listening to a man like this gives me hope. He's inspirational, and we desperately need inspiration. He's fiery, and we desperately need that passion. He's experienced, beyond the experience one gets playing politics through adulthood.

I don't know about you, but I get excited thinking about the possibilities for 2012. People like Herman Cain need our encouragement and our prayers.

God bless America! And now it's on to November 2010.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: July 24, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

I'm not someone who feels it is necessary today to select a presidential challenger to Barack Obama in 2012.

But I have always said it's good to explore all the options. We shouldn't have to settle on the lesser of two evils. We shouldn't have to vote for a guy simply because of his political resume or because he or she has the money in the bank.

Barack Obama, to his credit – or perhaps to America's discredit – stunned the world in 2008 by winning the Democratic Party nomination and the presidency. Out of nowhere, literally, this man emerged – and he's still a mystery to Americans in many ways two years into his term.

I've always said there are good men and women who can make mincemeat out of Obama in his re-election bid – if indeed he even runs again.

And I'm especially pleased by my friend Herman Cain's willingness and openness to the challenge.

Herman Cain addresses
a tea-party rally

Herman Cain is everything Barack Obama is not – a seasoned man of faith and patriotic conviction, an experienced business executive, a natural communicator who doesn't need a teleprompter, a guy who doesn't have to hide what he truly believes about America, the Constitution, the rule of law and limited government.

He's clearly another super-qualified candidate if the American people are willing to support a non-politician for the presidency. I am. He's got my support if he can prove himself in the heat of political battle, which I think he can.

One thing's for sure – we need more unconventional candidates like Herman Cain. We don't need any more career politicians. We need people like Ronald Reagan, Americans of conviction and common-sense values and real-life experience who can translate that into an appealing message and stick to their convictions even after elections.

I know Herman Cain is that kind of guy.

I'm not saying he's my pick. I'm not saying he's the only one out there. What I am saying is he's one possibility – a possibility that is very exciting.

In previous columns I've talked about others – people like Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Michele Bachmann.

I've also talked about people who are not what we need to undo four years of Barack Obama – Mitt Romney being a shining example.

It's time to open our minds to the possibilities and stop wringing our hands about who the next Reagan might be. He or she will emerge.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

God save the U.S. and our courts ~ By Chuck Norris

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Chuck Norris Posted: February 01, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2010 While the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts go head-to-head in Super Bowl XLIV at Sun Life stadium in Miami, U.S. justices and even our president are squaring off in arenas of jurisprudence from sea to shining sea. Here are just a few recent examples:

• U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito shook his head in dismay and mouthed the words "not true," when President Obama rebutted the entire Supreme Court in their presence and before the whole nation during his State of the Union speech. The president alleged that the court "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections." (When, in fact, there are at least three accounts in the 183-page ruling that forbid its application to foreign nationals, groups or corporations. I ask you, which is worse: South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's impromptu outburst "You lie" to President Obama during his Sept 2009 address to Congress or the president's premeditated public innuendo and lie during the State of the Union that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are not protecting American sovereignty but handing over political sway to international powers?

• Despite the victory of U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, President Obama re-nominated pro-abortion activist and former NARAL attorney Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Johnsen has come under fire for calling women "fetal containers," labeling pregnant women "losers in the contraceptive lottery" and comparing pregnancy with slavery and pro-lifers with the Klu Klux Klan. In a new book titled, "The Constitution in 2020," Johnsen writes the chapter "A Progressive Reproductive Rights Agenda for 2020," in which she advocates a government-run health-care system in which taxpayers pay for abortion. She also favors extending our constitutional rights to terrorists captured in war and not calling the war on terror "a war."

• Out in California, the war for the definition of traditional marriage is being waged in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, which challenges the constitutionality of Proposition 8 passed in November 2008, when more than 7 million Californians voted in favor of the constitutional amendment that defines marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. This case holds national significance because a ruling to overturn Prop 8 could lead to the nullification of marriage laws in 45 states and endanger the federal Defense of Marriage Act. This critical case is being presided over by Judge Vaughn Walker, who appears to be bent on setting national precedent with this overruling.

One thing is certain: If patriots want to perpetuate America's founders' vision, views and principles, then we need to fight for conservative judges with as much fervor as we seek new congressional representatives. The flow of political tides will only change if it incorporates alterations within the courts across our country, which have been dominated largely by liberally jaded and progressive judges. READ FULL STORY >

Harry Reid slips in a bombshell for Obamacare foes

From AmericanThinker.com, with an excerpt from The Weekly Standard

By Rick Moran December 22, 2009 What did we ever do to deserve Harry Reid? When the "manager's amendment" was passed in the dead of night, I pointed out that the wonks had yet to give it a good going over to discern what other surprises might lurk in the convoluted language used to obscure so much in the bill. I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the wonks have not disappointed us. Buried in the amendment is a bombshell; there will be no way to amend parts of Obamacare. Apparently, Reid wants to make this bill something like a royal decree where no one can change what has already been wrought. The Weekly Standard blog has the story:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection." and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

Watch DeMint's full remarks here or below: December 21, 2009 - DeMint Challenges Democrats on Rules Changes in Reid Health Bill Video provided by SenJimDeMint

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) questions the Parliamentarian of the U.S. Senate through the chair about changes to the Senate Rules hidden within the 2700 page Reid-Obama health care takeover bill.

READ FULL STORY FROM THE WEEKLY STANDARD

READ FULL STORY FROM AMERICAN THINKER

Sticking Up For Our Constitution ~ By Stacy Nason

From Breakdown of America

GOP senators to force vote on constitutionality of health care reform bill By Stacy Nason December 22, 2009 I just received a release from someone in South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint’s office. Apparently, he and Nevada Sen. John Ensign plan to force a Senate vote on the constitutionality of the Democrats’ health care reform legislation. You know me — I’m a big fan of DeMint, and of any lawmaker who looks at a piece of legislation regardless of where it originates and asks, before anything else: “Where, exactly, in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to do this?” It’s a responsible and patriotic mentality we need more and more right now, and it’s an attitude we’ll need just the same–if not more so–once the GOP has retaken the majority. It came as no surprise to see DeMint’s name attached to this effort. That, in my opinion, says more about Jim DeMint than any single vote or speech or interview or appearance. Anyway, I’ve said enough — here’s the press release:

December 22, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

READ FULL STORY >

Atheists in the Capitol's foxhole ~ By Chuck Norris

By Chuck Norris Posted: July 20, 2009 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I'm a fighter for the freedoms of speech and religion. They are our constitutional rights – what the First Amendment is all about. But those freedoms don't give atheists the entitlement to eliminate or revise America's religious heritage in the new $621 million taxpayer-provided Capitol Visitors Center, or CVC, in Washington, D.C. In July, the House and Senate passed identical resolutions, approving the engravings of the National Motto ("In God We Trust") and the Pledge of Allegiance in prominent places in CVC – 580,000 square feet facility under the Capitol where 15,500 guests visit each day. Spearheading the measures were leaders like Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif.; Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.; and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who have also drawn attention to the oversight of religious heritage in the CVC. The YouTube video of Rep. Forbes addressing the House on this matter ("Our Judeo Christian Nation") has received to date more than 2.5 million hits, making it one of the most widely viewed floor speeches in YouTube history. Some of the 19 omissions and inaccuracies in the CVC can also be seen on Sen. DeMint's YouTube posting "War on God." Forget for a moment the fact that the national motto is on all of our currency. Forget for a moment the fact that the pledge is recited every day in a myriad of settings across this land. Forget for a moment the fact that the Capitol is exceedingly rich in religious history and usage, including its usage for church services all the way up through the Civil War – in 1867 the Capitol was the largest church in Washington with 2,000 people attending weekly. (Rick Tyler, the founding director of Newt Gingrich's Renewing American Leadership, has done an excellent job documenting the Capitol's religious history and the subsequent inaccuracies and omissions in the CVC.) How could anyone have anything against the engraving of our nation's motto, which is above the very speaker's rostrum in the House of Representatives? How could anyone have anything against the same for the Pledge of Allegiance, which has been recited each day since its inception in both houses of Congress? Engraving the motto and pledge in the CVC sounds so basic and reasonable, doesn't it? Apparently not to the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the nation's largest group of atheists and agnostics, who filed suit in an effort to prevent the engraving of "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance within the CVC. The Freedom of Religion Foundation is suing to prevent these engravings because, it says, that "both the motto and the words 'under God' in the pledge were adopted during the Cold War as anti-communism measures. Engraving them at the entrance to the U.S. Capitol would discriminate against those who do not practice religion and unfairly promote a Judeo-Christian perspective." (I guess that also transforms our currency with "In God We Trust" on them into Christian tracts?) How preposterous! Some members of Congress who supported the measure are already denouncing the lawsuit as ludicrous. "This lawsuit is another attempt by liberal activists to rewrite history and deny that America's Judeo-Christian heritage is an essential foundation stone of our great nation," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. Rep. Daniel Lungren, R-Calif., said he was expecting a lawsuit but called the claims "patently absurd." [CONTINUE READING]