There was an error in this gadget

Monday, December 20, 2010

The Daily News: December 20, 2010

This week and next will be repeats of earlier programs. Here's tonight's edition: The History of Revolution. - Reggie

The JibJab 2010 Year in Review!

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Bonhoeffer by Eric Metaxas

I bought this book today with Christmas money I received from a family member. Eric Metaxas was a guest on The Daily News a couple of weeks ago and I heard Dr. Michael Brown interview him last week on his radio show. The two interviews convinced me to buy the book. It would be a great Christmas gift for last minute shoppers to buy. - Reggie

The Valley Forge Encampment began December 19, 1777

Read the history of Valley Forge here and here.

Alternet: Soros-Funded Study Says Fox Viewers Are “Stupid”

No! A Soros-funded study says that Fox viewers are stupid? I AM SHOCKED.

Does Alternet actually research things for conflict of interest before they skip to their keyboards? Says Alternet:
Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.
The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.
The first thing I do when I see one of these outfits release a study like is to go and see who bankrolls them. This study was too comical not to, and lo, it took all of two clicks to see this:


Fox Adding Music to NFL Games... Huh?

Are Evangelicals Obsessed with Homosexuality?

A little change of pace this morning. Since our government has repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell I thought it would be appropriate to post an article about the supposed evangelical obsession with homosexuality.

Truly, I believe it is the left that is obsessed with forcing our society to accept homosexuality as normal. It is not. - Reggie

by Dr. Michael L. Brown

Writing in the On Faith blog for the Washington Post, Orthodox rabbi Shmuley Boteach claimed that evangelical Christians have "utterly marginalized themselves with their obsession over homosexuality." Is this true? To be sure, in the aftermath of the elections, a lively debate is taking place as to whether evangelicals have been marginalized politically or, to the contrary, have actually increased in influence. But what about our alleged obsession with homosexuality?

When Rabbi Shmuley made this accusation in a November 1st debate we had on the subject of homosexuality, I conducted an impromptu survey of the audience, which was almost exclusively evangelical, asking them to respond to four questions: How many of them heard a sermon in the last year on the importance of marriage? Virtually every hand went up. The importance of devoting time and energy to the raising of their children? Same response. The dangers of sexual sin (and/or pornography)? The same response again. A sermon about gay activism? Not a single hand.

This, however, did not impress psychologist and professor Warren Throckmorton, who wrote on his blog, "While I mean no disrespect to his audience, I am not going to trust that they are a representative sample. I certainly disagree with Brown about the obsession of some evangelicals with homosexuality," citing other examples that allegedly backed his claim.

Are the rabbi and the psychologist correct? Was my audience not representative of evangelicals as a whole? (Bear in mind that the audience consisted of people who were interested enough in the subject of homosexuality to come to the debate, yet somehow, if Throckmorton is correct, they were less exposed to the subject than those who were not there. Go figure.)

Let's step back and think about this in terms of day to day, evangelical life. Every year, there are hundreds of thousands of sermons preached in evangelical pulpits across America, and there are thousands of evangelical books that are published, from novels to devotionals to commentaries to sermon collections to testimonies to books on doctrine, theology, prayer, discipleship, marriage, family, childrearing, worship, education, politics, missions, abortion, social action, and more. There is an almost endless stream of evangelical radio and TV shows, with millions of hours of programming, and there are hundreds of evangelical Bible schools, ministry training centers, colleges, universities and seminaries, offering thousands of courses between them.

Of all those sermons, books, radio and TV shows, and college and seminary classes, how many are focused on homosexual issues? Less than 1% would be a fairly good estimate; less than 10% could be absolutely guaranteed. (I invite Rabbi Shmuley or Prof. Throckmorton to challenge this estimate based on a survey of any of the data just mentioned, some of which is readily available.)

Friday, December 17, 2010

Allen West Talks About Tax Deal

The Daily News: December 17, 2010

Ken Cuccinelli on Obamacare

via The Heritage Foundation

House GOP considers constitutional test for all new legislation

I hope and pray they actually do this! - Reggie

House GOP transition team leaders will recommend a change to the lower chamber's rules that would require all members to prove that their legislation is constitutional.

GOP members who are leading the party's transition to the majority unveiled a series of changes they will implement in the 112th Congress on Thursday, with many mirroring promises made in the GOP's "Pledge to America."

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), the head of the House Rules Working Group, on Thursday said the GOP transition team will recommend the adoption of a rule requiring lawmakers to provide constitutional authority for every bill.

“The Constitution is not that long. The operating manual for a Toyota Camry is more than five times longer, so it should not be that difficult,” Bishop said.

Sarah Palin from Last Night

Monday, December 13, 2010

Federal Judge Declares ObamaCare U N C O N S T I T U T I O N A L

Click here to read the full opinion. It goes without saying that this will be appealed but round 1 goes to We the People and the Constitution.

Michael Ramirez cartoon

click on image for larger view

Judge to Obamacare architects: Ahem. Meet the Constitution, power-grabbers.

By Michelle Malkin  •  December 13, 2010 01:41 PM 

The story of the day: Virginia judge strikes down a key piece of the Dems’ government health care takeover — the individual mandate.

Hey, remember when conservatives objected to the Obamacare federal individual mandate on constitutional grounds and the liberal establishment laughed.

Flashback October 2009 – Pelosi scoffs at constitutional concerns. Listen:

Flashback October 2009 – Sen. Leahy scoffs at constitutional concerns. Remember: “Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?”

Sen. Leahy: “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” “I’m asking–”

Sen. Leahy: “Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

Who’s laughing now?

Read the full story

From Landmark Legal Foundation on ObamaCare

Below is a copy of a post on Mark Levin's Facebook page today. 
by Mark Levin on Monday, December 13, 2010 at 10:15am
Today Federal District Judge Henry Hudson ruled against the Obama Administration on three essential points involving Obamacare:

1. Individuals who do not actively participate in commerce -- that is, who do not voluntarily purchase health insurance --  cannot be said to be participating in commerce under the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause, and there is no Supreme Court precedent providing otherwise;

2. The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution cannot be used as a backdoor means to enforce a statute that is not otherwise constitutional under Congress's enumerated powers;

and 3. There is a difference between a tax and a penalty, there is much Supreme Court precedent in this regard, and the penalty provision in Obamacare is not a tax but a penalty and, therefore, is unconstitutional for it is applied to individuals who choose not to purchase health care.

Judge Hudson's ruling against the Obama Administration and for the Commonwealth of Virginia gives hope that the rule of law and the Constitution itself still having meaning.  Landmark Legal Foundation has filed several amicus briefs in this case, at the request of the Commonwealth, and will continue to provide support in the likely event the Commonwealth is required to defend this decision in the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court.  Landmark would also like to congratulate Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the excellent lawyers in his office for their superb legal skills. 

Landmark President Mark R. Levin declared:  "It is a great day for the rule of law and the citizenry.  Judge Hudson's ruling is ironclad, and General Cuccinelli deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking on this mater.  We look forward to continuing to work with him."

Landmark's brief in the Virginia health care case

VICTORY - Follow up and Discussion of Ruling

Ken Cuccinelli Press Conference on Fed. Judge ruling against ObamaCare:

The Daily News: December 13, 2010

Sunday, December 12, 2010

How the Worm Turned

Stuxnet versus the Iranian nuclear program.

Dec 13, 2010, Vol. 16, No. 13 • By JONATHAN V. LAST

Last week Mahmoud Ahmadinejad acknowledged that Iran’s uranium enrichment program had suffered a setback: “They were able to disable on a limited basis some of our centrifuges by software installed in electronic equipment,” the Iranian president told reporters. This was something of an understatement. Iran’s uranium enrichment program appears to have been hobbled for the better part of a year, its technical resources drained and its human resources cast into disarray. The “software” in question was a computer worm called Stuxnet, which is already being viewed as the greatest triumph in the short history of cyberwarfare.

/><p class= 
Photo Credit: Gary Locke

Stuxnet first surfaced on June 17 of this year when a digital security company in Minsk, VirusBlokAda, discovered it on a computer belonging to one of its Iranian clients. It quickly became clear that Stuxnet was not an ordinary piece of malware.

Stuxnet is not a virus, but a worm. Viruses piggyback on programs already resident in a computer. Worms are programs in their own right, which hide within a computer and stealthily propagate themselves onto other machines. After nearly a month of study, cybersecurity engineers determined that Stuxnet was designed to tamper with industrial systems built by the German firm Siemens by overriding their supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) protocols. Which is to say that, unlike most malware, which exists to manipulate merely virtual operations, Stuxnet would have real-world consequences: It wanted to commandeer the workings of a large, industrial facility, like a power plant, or a dam, or a factory. Exactly what kind of facility was still a mystery.

From the beginning, everything about Stuxnet was anomalous. Worms that tampered with SCADA are not unheard of, but are exceptionally rare. And as a physical piece of code, Stuxnet was enormous—weighing in at half a megabyte, it dwarfed the average piece of malware by many multiples. Finally, there was its infection radius. Stuxnet found its way onto roughly 100,000 computers worldwide; 60 percent of these were in Iran.

As a work of engineering, Stuxnet’s power and elegance made it even more intriguing. Most industrial systems are run on computers which use Microsoft’s Windows operating system. Hackers constantly probe software for what are known as “zero day” vulnerabilities, weak points in the code never foreseen by the original programmers. On a sophisticated and ubiquitous piece of software such as Windows, discovering even a single zero day vulnerability is extremely uncommon. The makers of Stuxnet found, and utilized, four of them. No one in cybersecurity had ever seen anything like it.

The worm gained initial access to a system through an ordinary USB drive. Picture what happens when you plug a flash drive into your computer. The machine performs a number of tasks automatically; one of them is pulling up icons to be displayed on your screen, representing the data on the drive. On an infected USB drive, Stuxnet exploited this routine to pull the worm onto the computer.

The challenge is that once on the machine, the worm becomes visible to security protocols, which constantly query files looking for malware. To disguise itself, Stuxnet installed what’s called a “rootkit”—a piece of code that intercepts security queries and sends back false “safe” messages, indicating that the worm is innocuous.

But installing a rootkit requires using drivers, of which Windows machines are well trained to be suspicious. Windows requires that all drivers provide verification that they’re on the up-and-up through presentation of a secure digital signature. These digital keys are closely guarded secrets. Stuxnet’s malicious drivers presented genuine signatures from two genuine computer companies, Realtek Semiconductor and JMichron Technologies. Both firms have offices in the same facility, Hsinchu Science Park, in Taiwan. Either by electronic trickery or a brick-and-mortar heist job, the creators of Stuxnet stole these keys​—and in a sophisticated enough manner that no one knew they had been compromised.

So to recap: The security keys enable the drivers, which allow the installation of the rootkit, which hides the worm that was delivered by the corrupt USB drive. Stuxnet’s next job was to propagate itself efficiently but quietly. Whenever another USB drive was inserted into an infected computer, it became infected, too. But in order to reduce traceability, Stuxnet allowed each infected USB drive to pass the worm onto only three computers.

Read the rest of the article here and read more about the Stuxnet worm here, here and here.

Young teen murdered for turning from Islam to Christianity

Yes. Islam is peaceful. - Reggie

Somalia (MNN) ― A 17-year-old girl was shot to death in Somalia for her faith in Christ, says Voice of the Martyrs, Canada.
Nurta Mohamed Farah was shot in the chest and the head by suspected family members as an "honor killing."

According to Compass Direct News, when Farah's parents found out last May that she had turned from Islam to Christianity, they offered her forgiveness if she'd denounce her new faith. When Farah refused, her parents believed her to be crazy. They gave her medication and made her sit through biweekly readings of the Qur'an, hoping that the combination would cure her "mental illness." When it was clear that Farah's heart would remain with Christ, her parents began to torture her.

Gary Becker -- The Economist's Economist

The 12 Days of Winter

Throw Carol Browner under the bus; Update: Senate GOP calls for probe

By Michelle Malkin  •  November 12, 2010 09:06 AM 
Scroll for updates…

The deepwater drilling moratorium may have been “lifted” in an election-season feint, but the eco-radicals have already accomplished their mission: Zero drilling permits issued. Today’s column spotlights the ideological engine behind the Obama job-killing machine: Carol “The Green Menace” Browner.

Update: The Senate Republicans on the Committee on Environment and Public Works have called on chairwoman Barbara Boxer to hold hearings on Browner’s data doctoring. See more below column.


Condi Rice Schools Katie Couric On Iraq

Minneapolis St Paul MN Metro area blizzard

I grew up in Indiana so I've seen my share of snow. I remember the blizzard of 1978 that shut down Indianapolis for three days! Shortly after becoming an adult, I left Indiana and since then I have moved to a part of the country where there is no snow. I have never missed it and I truly feel sorry for the people that have to deal with this mess. - Reggie

No football in Minnesota this week...

Amazing video...

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="" target="_new" title=""&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;NFL on FOX: Metrodome collapse&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

White House and Coburn trade barbs over tax deal and fiscal responsibility

President Obama and Sen. Tom Coburn have always had a relationship that is odd by Washington standards.

They are total opposites in terms of personal style and their political points of view. But they have maintained what is, by all appearances, a warm personal friendship that was first formed when they both entered the Senate in 2004. Coburn has spoken often of how he prays for Obama and writes him encouraging letters.

“How better to influence somebody than love them?” Coburn  has said. “We’re very good friends.”

Late this past week, however, the debate over the president's tax deal with Republicans – and a side debate about the nation’s deficit and debt – provoked some of the strongest barbs between Obama and Coburn to date. The crossfire occurred between surrogates, and not between the two principals, but was nonetheless notable for its intensity.

The sniping began Friday morning when White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked in a press briefing about Coburn’s comments earlier in the week warning of an imminent debt crisis if the government does not present a plan to reduce its budget deficit and unfunded long-term obligations.

Gibbs said that while Coburn “is a friend of the president” there was “a little dissonance” in the Oklahoma Republican’s debt warnings and his support for extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two more years.

The issue at the heart of the tax deal debate is whether those who make more than $250,000 a year should see their taxes go up rather than stay at the current levels. Gibbs and most Democrats say that extending tax cuts costs money, and to the extent that they are comparing the gap between projected government revenues and planned government spending, they are correct.

“There’s a price tag on this bill that according to some it doesn’t actually—it’s not spending,” Gibbs said.

But Republicans like Coburn argue that keeping rates the same only adds to the deficit if you are working off a budget projections that assumes rates were going to go up, as the White House has done. And the answer of many conservatives to liberal complaints about tax cuts is that to keep the deficit from ballooning, spending should be cut. (Democrats often say Republicans are much better at cutting taxes than cutting spending, and based on the past decade, they are largely correct).

In the present scenario, however, it is the hope of some conservatives like Coburn that maintaining current tax rates will put pressure on the government to cut spending. Keeping tax rates steady and lowering spending, they believe, will create sustainable economic growth – the key ingredient to ultimately bringing down the nation’s debt.

Swindle of the Year

Barack Obama won the great tax-cut showdown of 2010 - and House Democrats don't have a clue that he did. In the deal struck this week, the president negotiated the biggest stimulus in American history, larger than his $814 billion 2009 stimulus package. It will pump a trillion borrowed Chinese dollars into the U.S. economy over the next two years - which just happen to be the two years of the run-up to the next presidential election. This is a defeat?

Read the full op-ed

Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for the two links below:

Jonah Goldberg's response to this op-ed: Dr. K’s ‘Swindle’

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: There is No Tax Deal

A few pics from Haiti

via GretaWire

Greta Van Susteren | December 11, 2010 4:54 PM

Here's a few pictures from my trip to Haiti with Rev. Franklin Graham...we're here to give out gifts to children through Samaritan's Purse Operation Christmas Child.

Gov. Palin is also here to help Samaritan's Purse

See the rest of the pictures

Saturday, December 11, 2010

In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

I heard Mark Levin talk about this on his radio show and was stunned at this information. Our government is stealing our money, brainwashing our citizens and destroying our country. God help us! Read the article below and weep.  - Reggie

Tonight's stunning financial piece de resistance comes from Wyatt Emerich of The Cleveland Current. In what is sure to inspire some serious ire among all those who once believed Ronald Reagan that it was the USSR that was the "Evil Empire", Emmerich analyzes disposable income and economic benefits among several key income classes and comes to the stunning (and verifiable) conclusion that "a one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimum wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year." And that excludes benefits from Supplemental Security Income disability checks. America is now a country which punishes those middle-class people who not only try to work hard, but avoid scamming the system. Not surprisingly, it is not only the richest and most audacious thieves that prosper - it is also the penny scammers at the very bottom of the economic ladder that rip off the middle class each and every day, courtesy of the world's most generous entitlement system. Perhaps if Reagan were alive today, he would wish to modify the object of his once legendary remark.

From Emmerich:

You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job.

My chart tells the story. It is pretty much self-explanatory.

Stunning? Just do it yourself.
Almost all welfare programs have Web sites where you can call up "benefits calculators." Just plug in your income and family size and, presto, your benefits are automatically calculated.

The chart is quite revealing. A one-parent family of three making $14,500 a year (minimu wage) has more disposable income than a family making $60,000 a year.
 Read the full article

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The Daily News: December 8, 2010

Government Must Cut Spending

FCC Commissioner: Media Has "Bad Case Of Substance Abuse"

This man and the current FCC members are beyond spooky. We are in danger of  losing our First Amendment rights. - Reggie

Moderate committee picks jar conservative ascendancy in House

The hope I had about the upcoming Republican majority in the US House is quickly disappearing. It seems all of these politicians (Democrats & Republicans) are determined to destroy our country. 
- Reggie

In a move at odds with a Republican transition into control of the House of Representatives that has left many on the right smiling, GOP leaders Tuesday paved the way for three moderates to head crucial committee slots over their more conservative challengers.

The Republican Steering Committee backed Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan to head the Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky to head the Appropriations Committee and Rep. 
Spencer Bachus of Alabama to head the Financial Services Committee.

Each of the three new chairmen-to-be has come under fire from conservatives hoping GOP leaders would pick their more conservative rivals.

Upton, 57, faced revolt from the Tea Party group FreedomWorks for a long record “full of votes for more regulation, more spending, and more taxes.”

Though he spent the past month sprinting to the right, Upton has for years often found himself among a small minority of Republicans siding with Democrats on key votes.

Rogers, 72, is a longtime champion of earmarks who just this past August was dubbed “Porker of the Month” by the group Citizens Against Government Waste for “sponsoring legislation that could give federal funding to his daughter’s nonprofit organization, which promotes overseas wildlife protection for cheetahs.”

Bachus, 62, negotiated the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) bailouts with Democrats on behalf House Republicans, but lost the confidence of many conservative members in the process. He was one of 59 Republicans who voted for President Obama’s “cash for clunkers” program which paid individuals to destroy their used cars and buy new ones instead.

By picking Bachus, the Steering Committee put itself at odds with former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who blasted Bachus’s “bigger government agenda” in an exclusive statement to The Daily Caller.

GOP sources said Palin’s call galvanized conservatives on the race but angered some insiders who resented her interfering in the matter.

The picks jar what has in many other ways been a conservative ascendancy in the House.
For instance, incoming Speaker John Boehner backed anti-earmark crusader Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona Monday for a slot on the powerful appropriations panel only three years after he punished the right wing rebel for insubordination.

“He’s listening. He gets it,” Leslie Page, a spokeswoman for Citizens Against Government Waste, said about Boehner before the committee picks had been announced.

Republicans “are determined not to blow it,” said famed political handicapper Charlie Cook in his weekly column, “the leaders seem to know that they scored an unearned run in this election and that they have been given an opportunity that they probably didn’t deserve.”

Though the committee picks are unlikely to poison relations between GOP leaders and conservative activists, it will surely raise conservatives’ suspicions about the long-term trajectory of the party.

Many on the right privately express fear Republicans will drift from their campaign promises, especially as the large class of freshmen become accustomed to Washington’s ways.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Sarah Palin Talks About New Book

America by Heart by Sarah Palin

Al-Jazeera owned website celebrates human carnage caused by fire, owned and operated by Aljazeera Publishing, published a series of posts about the fire raging through Northern Israel which can only be described as a celebration of the death, carnage, and misery caused by the blaze.  Though the post is in Arabic, Google Translate, along with the grotesque imagery, provides sufficient context to conclude that the prose and accompanying photos indeed represent a celebration of the death of Jews.

CiF Watch is posting this to highlight a fact that is painfully obvious to many – but is frequently ignored by those (like the Guardian) who are not capable of assimilating information which doesn’t conform to preconceived notions of immutable Arab victimhood and Israeli culpability: that the problem of Jew hatred in the Muslim/Arab world is simply unparalleled (in depth and scope) in the modern world. (Indeed, is far from the only Arab media outlet celebrating the death and destruction caused by the Carmel fire.)

Historian Robert Wistrich has referred to anti-Semitism in the Arab world as comparable to Nazi Germany at its worst, and while any hatred is unjustifiable, those who would actually compare the problem of Islamophobia in Western countries to anti-Semitism in the Arab/Muslim world (for instance) are, at best, horribly and tragically misguided. 

Thoughts About The Federal Reserve

First, three clips from Freedom Watch...

Links to the videos below, were sent to me by a friend who is very impressed with this man and his ideas. I haven't watched them yet but I trust my friend's judgment enough to post them. - Reggie

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

The Daily News: December 1, 2010

The Dead Enders

Even after their defeat, Democrats keep insisting on a tax increase.

'It is not a sensible way to run a country to have this magnitude of tax issues left to annual uncertainty," said Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner earlier this month, and he's certainly right about that. But at the current moment the single biggest obstacle to more certainty is his boss, President Obama, who still refuses to compromise on the tax increase set to whack the economy in a mere 30 days.

After meeting with Congressional leaders yesterday, Mr. Obama dispatched Mr. Geithner and budget director Jacob Lew to negotiate a deal. Yet the President is still holding out against even a temporary extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax rates. Republicans won 63 House seats running against those tax increases, but Mr. Obama still seems under the spell of the dead enders led by soon-to-be-former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The magnitude of the looming tax increase ought to snap him out of this hypnosis. If the Democrats who still run Capitol Hill for another month fail to act, tens of millions of American households will see their paychecks shrink immediately in the New Year.

Congressional Earmarks: Embracing and Ignoring a Message From Voters

As the installation of a new Congress with a Republican House majority and a larger Republican presence in the Senate approaches, the debate over congressional earmarks has resumed.

House Republicans seem ready to declare at least an earmark moratorium. After early resistance, most senior Senate Republicans accepted the people's November 2 verdict on earmarks, but the body, with eight foolish Republicans defending them, resolved to retain earmarks. Big mistake.

This year, among other disappointments, voters reacted to congressional Democrats' failure to keep Speaker Pelosi's promise to bring honesty, ethics, and openness to Congress, including earmark transparency and control.

Earmarks are the practice of requiring federal agencies to fund members' pet projects, some of which were denied funding through merit-based competitive bidding processes or formula-driven methods.

Earmarks -- unregulated, un-reviewed spending projects inserted into appropriations bills -- cost American taxpayers billions of dollars annually. Earmarks represent the worst of Washington's corruption and fiscal promiscuity. They are central to the overall crisis of runaway federal spending.

Read the full article

The names of the "eight foolish Republicans" (h/t The Hill) are:

Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), James Inhofe (Okla.), Dick Lugar (Ind.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Richard Shelby (Ala.). Retiring Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) and defeated Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah) also voted against it.

 We've cleaned The House. It's time to clean The Senate. - Reggie

It Is All About Liberty

On March 23rd, 1775 in Virginia, the largest colony in America at that time, a meeting of the colony’s delegates was held in St. John’s Church in Richmond to vote on resolutions of defense for the colony as the war with England loomed and on its participation should war break out.

Patrick Henry, before a vote was taken on resolutions he presented in support of joining the other colonies in a war for freedom, spoke without any notes in a voice that became louder and louder, climaxing with the now famous ending,
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Have we come so far from those words and the meaning of liberty itself, that we are now a nation of people who would accept chains in return for a government providing for our every need?  Are we a people who would give up our principles and perhaps most of our own sovereignty in exchange for peace defined as not having to take any individual action or responsibility?

We are burdened with crushing debt and even heavier unfunded liabilities necessary to support an expanding central government that is attempting to control every aspect of the lives of the American people.  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, health care and business regulation are not found in the Constitution as powers of our central government.  However, liberal interpretation – false interpretation if one reads the Federalist Papers – of the Commerce Clause and the Social Welfare Clause of the Constitution opened a back door for the central government to assume powers well beyond the seventeen outlined in the enumerated powers specifically granted therein.  Each time a new power was taken, it was in return for some form of entitlement or relief from self-reliance.  It has reached a point today where it is difficult to distinguish who has the greater hand, the central government or the people.

Can Republicans Talk?

  Thomas Sowell

Republicans have the stronger case, but they still need to make it.

The biggest battle in the lame-duck session of Congress may well be over whether or not to extend the Bush administration’s tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire in January. The fact that this decision has been left until late in the eleventh hour, even though the expiration date has been known for years, tells us a lot about the utter irresponsibility of Congress.

Neither businesses nor individuals nor the Internal Revenue Service will know what to do until this issue is resolved. In a stalled economy, we do not need this prolonged uncertainty that can paralyze both consumer spending and investment spending.

Read the full article

Senate Republicans Vow to Block Dem Legislation Until Tax Cuts, Budget Pass

Every Senate Republican has signed onto a letter vowing to block all Democratic-backed legislation until the chamber extends the Bush tax cuts and approves a spending bill to keep the government running, Fox News has learned.

Throwing down the gauntlet, all 42 members of the GOP caucus are sending the letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warning him that they will bring matters to a standstill unless he swiftly brings those tax-and-spending issues to the floor.

That means putting on the backburner a push to repeal the military's policy banning gays from serving openly in the military, a bill giving illegal immigrant students and military members a pathway to legal status and an extension of long-term unemployment benefits.

"While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike," they wrote. "Given our struggling economy, preventing the tax increase and providing economic certainty should be our top priority."

Coming: Gov't By Regulation Instead Of Law


Republicans are assuming that cap-and-trade (aka cap-and-tax) is dead because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lacks the votes to bring up the House-passed bill and because this issue proved a loser in the 2010 House races. Like the famous Mark Twain saying, its death may be exaggerated.

The Senate's environmentalism expert, Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., warns us that the Obama administration is trying to implement cap-and-trade anyway by bureaucratic regulations. Directives issued by the Environmental Protection Agency are coming down the pike to increase energy costs and kill jobs.

Last May, the EPA issued what it called a tailoring rule to govern new power plants, oil refineries and factories that yearly emit 100,000 tons or more of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride. Inhofe reports that this tailoring rule will further reduce our manufacturing base and especially hurt the poor and elderly.

Inhofe predicts that the EPA standards planned for commercial and industrial boilers will cost 798,000 jobs. He also warns about the harmful effects on jobs caused by new rules on ozone emissions.

We Need Much More of This...

click image for larger view

PPP poll: Romney voters a risk to switch to Obama if he loses nomination?

In my opinion, this is a big reason not to nominate Romney. If his supporters consider Romney and Obama interchangeable, why on earth would the Republicans or conservatives want Romney? I sure don't. We need a conservative nominee and Romney is not conservative. RomneyCare, anyone? 
- Reggie

from Hot Air:

I could have gone two ways with the headline here. One was to note that Palin’s now leading the field, albeit narrowly — 21 percent to Gingrich’s 19, Romney’s 18, and Huckabee’s 16. The other was to note that those darned RINOs in Mitt’s base just might be ready to bolt, Delaware-style, if their man’s not the pick in 2012.

I went with my gut that you guys might just be in the mood for an ol’ fashioned RINO stomp.
-Huckabee voters give Palin a 64/27 favorability, Gingrich a 53/23 one, and Romney a 59/26 one. That makes the net favorability for the other candidates an average +33.
-Palin voters give Huckabee a 52/19 favorability, Gingrich a 42/38 one, and Romney a 40/35 one. That makes the net favorability for the other candidates an average +14…
-Romney voters give Huckabee a 46/25 favorability, Palin a 46/36 one, and Gingrich a 41/42 one. That makes the net favorability for the other candidates an average +10.
The Gingrich and Huckabee voters are going to be fine if someone else gets nominated. They’re pretty happy with all the other candidates. The Romney folks perhaps are a greater concern for Republicans because some of them might actually vote for Obama if a Gingrich or Palin gets nominated. The Palin folks aren’t all that big on the other candidates either- the chances of them voting for Obama seem quite slim but might they sit home or throw some of their votes to a conservative third party candidate if Romney wins the nomination?