There was an error in this gadget

Sunday, December 25, 2011

The Christmas Story

Luke 2: 1-21

The Birth of Jesus

1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”

15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told.

21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Christmas Greetings 2011

Christmas Greetings!

Merry Christmas! A little over two years ago my friend, Michael, started Republic Heritage and he asked me to write for it. Before long I had practically taken over this blog but Michael will post something here occasionally.

After an almost daily dedication of scouring the political news in search of stories revealing the damage our government is doing as well as writing my own editorials and opinions I have taken a much needed break this past week. Soon I will be back in the fight trying to help save our republic but I did not want today to go by without wishing all a very Merry Christmas and posting Christmas greetings from current Republican candidates for President.


Merry Christmas from the Bachmann Family

Newt and Callista Gingrich Christmas Greetings

Congressman Ron Paul

To see Governor Rick Perry's full tweet, click here.

Mitt and Ann Romney

To see Rick Santorum's full tweet, click here.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Have Question about Ron Paul's Forign Policy?

Let's face it.  The number one hurdle that Ron Paul faces in this presidential race is his foreign policy.  No other candidate has come under more attack regarding their foreign policy then Ron Paul.  This may be in part because every other candidate except Ron Paul basically has the same foreign policy.  To control...I mean to protect Israel and to nuke...ummmm I mean to put sanctions on Iran and to make sure that they never ever  get a weapon of mass destruction, like all the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had....remember????  Oh wait...they didn't have any.  

I have heard many talk show host including Rush Limbaugh praise Ron Paul's financial views but abhor his foreign policy. 

With that being said some grassroots supporters put together the following video.  I encourage anyone that has questions about Ron Paul's foreign policy to take the time to watch it.

- Michael

Saturday, December 17, 2011

The Limbaugh Take on National Review's Newt Editorial

I'm posting a partial transcript from the Rush Limbaugh radio program on December 15th where he gives his opinion about a National Review editorial attacking Newt Gingrich that was posted December 14th. - Reggie

Rush Limbaugh on the radio
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, and I'm glad I got e-mails on this.  I was not gonna discuss this, other than the brief mention I gave it, but I've had a lot of e-mails in the subscriber account, the website subscriber, Rush 24/7 account wanting to know what I think of National Review's editorial late yesterday afternoon, National Review Online and the magazine.  It's William F. Buckley Jr.'s magazine.  And I mentioned this the other day, I'm sort of imprisoned here and limited by what I can discuss because I, of course, make everything bigger than it is when it's just standing alone.  And not to put down National Review or anything of the sort but this audience is far bigger than their blog subscriber base. So if I talk about it, it's gonna just take it to more people and I decide whether I want that to happen or not.

So I wasn't going to really talk about it because I'm not convinced that it has that much impact. National Review used to be indisputably the voice of conservatism. There was no question. Now, it's not so much that as it is the voice of Republicanism, which could also be said to be the inside-the-Beltway or the Washington/New York conservatism. They've got great people there, there's some nice people, but it's changed a bit from what it was. They had an editorial yesterday, unsigned, which meant that it was written by a number of editors that didn't endorse anybody but just excoriated Newt Gingrich. It wasn't the long knives that came out, the bayonets came out. It was scorched earth. It was crash and burn.

The implication in the editorial was they were for Romney, but the only other candidates they actually disparaged were Ron Paul and Rick Perry. They held out hope for Bachmann and Santorum, but the point of the editorial was to tell anybody and everybody who read it to forget Newt. So people are wondering, "What do you think of this?" Romney was the National Review endorsement pick in December 2007 for the 2008 race. And of course that was the campaign that McCain eventually won. I think what's happening here, it's not just National Review. There are a lot of so-called conservative media publications inside the Beltway and in New York. There are other elected Republicans, some of them who work very closely with Newt, who have just fired both barrels, and it's starting to take a toll.

Newt's numbers have peaked. Newt is starting to fall away, in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's not that he's just leveled off; he's starting to fall away now. George Will has called Newt a Marxist. Others have piled on pretty heavily, some pretty rough stuff, and Newt's opened the door to it. I mean Newt going after Romney as a guy who destroys companies and jobs. Bain Capital I think was involved in the mergers of 150 or so different companies and corporations, and only two of them went out of business. So Romney's Bain Capital does not destroy jobs, did not destroy jobs or eliminate companies. Anyway, Newt launches that. Romney, in his own self, has come out for global warming, it's man-made. In 2002 he said he's not a partisan Republican, that he's a moderate.

Read the full transcript here and the editorial Limbaugh talked about is - National Review: Winnowing the Field

Today another writer at National Review has written a column disagreeing with the editorial from Thursday. Andrew McCarthy: Gingrich’s Virtues

Finally, from the same magazine in 2006. National Review: Run, Newt, Run! Gingrich 2008? What has happened to make National Review hate Newt Gingrich in 2011?

A Shameful End to the Year

Jim DeMint
by Senator Jim DeMint

The hard choice Democrats have given Republicans has paid off for the big-spenders again.

Refusing to work together to cut spending, Democrats demanded that Republicans compromise with them to increase spending, or shut down the government.

As a result, Congress rammed through a 1,000-page, trillion-dollar omnibus spending bill that lumped 9 different appropriations bills in a single package at the very last minute rather than debating, amending, and voting on these bills in a transparent manner.

Spend more and pass this bill, the Democrats said, or force the government to close its doors. They said the same thing this past summer when President Obama insisted on a $2 trillion increase to the debt ceiling and during the budget fight in the spring.

Sadly, it's a tactic that keeps working. Witness the final votes members of Congress took this year.

Republicans have pledged to cut spending and quit passing legislation no one had read, but that’s exactly what members of Congress did before leaving for their Christmas vacations. The 2012 omnibus increased spending by more than $18 billion over 2011 levels. Once that bill is signed into law by the President, the total tab for all twelve 2012 appropriations bills will be more than $1.8 trillion, a nearly $21 billion increase over 2011 spending.

It’s become a cynical yearly tradition in Washington to delay the big-spending votes until just before Christmas. After all, it’s how Democrats in the Senate passed ObamaCare. Members of Congress are now hurrying home after the vote without much talk, but it should not be forgotten. It represents a shameful end to a year that began with many bold assurances.

After the 2010 midterm elections, Republican promised to cut $100 billion from the federal budget. House Republicans did pass several appropriations bills to cut spending, but they ultimately died in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

The cuts never came. In fact, spending went up! Under no circumstance can a spending increase above last year’s levels be considered a cut. That promise to cut spending has been broken.

Friday, December 16, 2011

Ron Paul on Israel - The Truth

Ron Paul is a very outspoken person when it comes to his views.  You can find videos all over You tube from years and years ago and Paul holds the same views now as he has held for years.  Ron Paul has been accused of many things including being a racist and anti-Israel.  The fact is there is zero evidence for this.

Here is a short video that touches on some of the already debunked concerns with Ron Paul's past views.  The main focus though is Ron Paul's views on Israel.

Take a look,


Great Britain, the Green Movement, and the End of the World

YouTube description: This week on Uncommon Knowledge columnist James Delingpole discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, the European Union, the Green movement, and socialized medicine.

Fox News Iowa GOP Debate, Sioux City

This is the final Iowa debate before the real voting begins. This event took place on December 15th.

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Ouch! - 'You're Clearly Working for the Re-Election of Barack Obama'

Iowa radio host, Simon Conway, slaps Chris Matthews.

Rush Limbaugh 'On the Record'

from December 14th

Military given go-ahead to detain US terrorist suspects without trial

Today is the 220th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights and we are all guilty until proven innocent now. Unfortunately, we will not be allowed to prove our innocence as we are held indefinitely without trial. Political prisoners will become the norm with this unconstitutional law. 

Every Congressman and Senator that voted for this law is a traitor to our Bill of Rights and the fact that it has been approved during the anniversary is a blatant act of arrogance and disregard for the Supreme Law of the land.

Whatever happened to America? Where did she go? Who are these evil people that are in elected office destroying our nation and usurping our God given rights?  - Reggie

Civil rights groups dismayed as Barack Obama abandons commitment to veto new security law contained in defence bill

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.

Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of "a war that appears to have no end".

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

There was heated debate in both houses of Congress on the legislation, requiring that suspects with links to Islamist foreign terrorist organisations arrested in the US, who were previously held by the FBI or other civilian law enforcement agencies, now be handed to the military and held indefinitely without trial.

The law applies to anyone "who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces".

Senator Lindsey Graham said the extraordinary measures were necessary because terrorism suspects were wholly different to regular criminals.

"We're facing an enemy, not a common criminal organisation, who will do anything and everything possible to destroy our way of life," he said. "When you join al-Qaida you haven't joined the mafia, you haven't joined a gang. You've joined people who are bent on our destruction and who are a military threat."

Read the full article

Courting Conservatives

from December 14th

Pretending That Ron Paul Doesn't Matter Won't Make Him Go Away

I have read many articles lately that blast Ron Paul.  More times then not the authors of those article are either lying, exaggerating or just misinformed.  The media continually tells us that Ron Paul is anti Israel and is a 9/11 truther that blames the people of the United States for 9/11.  This only scratches the surface of all of the exaggerated accusation and/or lies that are told about him.

I am sorry but Ron Paul is right on almost every political point including foreign policy.  Rush a few days ago called his financial proposals good but his foreign policy wacky.  He went on and on about how wacky it is but never said why it was wacky.  There are forces in our country that do not want Rep. Paul to become president because he is the only one that will bring us back to a constitutional government with no apologies.   

- Michael

In a mostly brave, mostly sensible editorial posted Wednesday evening at National Review Online, the editors of the conservative movement's flagship magazine took an emphatic stand against the rise of Newt Gingrich, listing his specific character flaws, laying out how he has demonstrated them recently, and explicitly urging GOP primary voters to back a different candidate. Who? The editorial argues that Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum are all worth another look, meanwhile making brief cases against the remaining Republican candidates.

Rick Perry "has seemed curiously and persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage," the editors argue, while Michelle Bachmann has demonstrated poor judgment with some of her rhetoric. And the brief against Congressman Ron Paul? Here's the whole argument: "Representative Paul's recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence."

It nearly made me spit out my drink.

The implication is that Rep. Paul is a 9/11 truther -- you'd think, reading that one sentence, that Paul stated or implied the U.S. government either orchestrated or had foreknowledge of the attacks. In fact, Rep. Paul responded to the September 11 attacks by voting to authorize an actual war against its perpetrators; and as anyone who is even passingly familiar with his worldview knows, his controversial opinion is that Islamist terrorists attack the United States partly because they are furious about the quasi-imperial role America plays in their countries. The blow-back theory is itself controversial, but it is obviously different from 9/11 Trutherism.  Read More>>

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Currently on Drudge

The Mr. IOWA link points here:


Denver QB, Tim Tebow
Please, let me explain the reason I keep posting Tim Tebow articles. First, I love football. Second, Tim Tebow has become the talk of the nation. Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and others talk about Tebow almost daily and legitimate news reporters (not just sports reporters) are writing about him. When was the last time you recall a straight news organization focused on a football player? I can't remember any unless a player was arrested or accused of a crime. Actually, the title of this editorial is from an article in the American Spectator I have linked to, below.

Let me tell you what I see. There was a time in this country when a man of God, a clean cut young man, a virgin in his 20s was the norm and in that day, Tim Tebow would have been one of many. Our culture has eroded to such a degree that the godly, squeaky clean, virgin is mocked, ridiculed, insulted and hated instead of admired, respected, revered and imitated.

What kind of people have we become? A friend and I have talked, for years, about how the fall of the church and the fall of the nation have traveled on a parallel course. As the church's light has dimmed the evil in our nation has grown to encompass the land.

The light of God that shines from Tim Tebow is pushing against the darkness and the evil can not stand the light hence, the outrageous attacks aimed at the one shining that light.

As I write this, I am watching the replay of the Chicago/Denver game from three days ago. Yes, it was another unbelievable comeback victory of the Denver Broncos in the last two minutes of the game that led to an overtime victory for Denver. Only God knows if the Broncos will continue to win or if Tim Tebow will be another quarterback that is in the news for a season and then fades away. However, I do believe God will show Tebow favor wherever he goes and whatever he does because Tim Tebow gives honor and glory to God, his Creator.

I seem to remember there were men in the 1700s that gave glory and honor to their Creator and because of that he showed them favor against a tyrannical king. God's great favor helped them birth a nation like no other with an emphasis on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

When a nation gives glory and honor to God there is no limit to the blessings they will receive and the world will see their light shine. When that nation rejects God, the depth of the darkness and deception is so oppressive that when the light of God is shone through one person, the nation takes notice because they are no longer living in the light and it startles them. 

America, as a nation, we used to live in the light of God. After years of rejecting God, we have become comfortable in the darkness and one young man is letting God use him to show us, once again, that we need God's light and favor in our land.



Perry has been horrible in most of the debates and yet this ad uses appearances from the debates to tout his message. Who would have thought that would happen? - Reggie

New Rick Perry ad

See Anything Strange about this Picture?

Thank you, Fox News! Even they know that Romney is Obama lite! - Reggie

The mistake was from Megyn Kelly's show, America Live. Watch...

Ron Paul: Foreign Policy & Israel

This is a great interview that answers some of the questions people may have
about Ron Paul.

- Michael

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Obamacare: Leviathan Rising

Obamacare has handed the Supreme Court a golden opportunity.

Did our Founding Fathers create an all-powerful federal government that can wield unlimited authority over its citizens? Can it bludgeon the 50 sovereign state governments into submission on fiscal and other matters? Specifically, can Uncle Sam regulate not just our everyday activities, but our everyday inactivity as well? Moreover, can it set in motion fiscal forces that, over time, will effectively subjugate the states to the federal Leviathan? What, if any, limit is there with respect to federal authority over individuals and the states?

Only rarely does the Supreme Court accept a case that could define the constitutional limits of the federal government. Its decision to hear the many constitutional challenges to Obamacare is one such occasion. The Obama administration’s signature achievement promises to be the central domestic issue in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections — and the very nature of the issues raised in this suit all but guarantees that the political debate over Obamacare’s future will favor conservatives.

Why? Americans instinctively tilt to the ideological right on the most basic questions concerning the size and scope of government, and concerning the government’s inability to deliver, with efficiency, high-quality services. This means conservatives control the high ground in our public-policy debates. Show me a legislative battle that boils down to a choice between a larger government that offers us more services but takes more of our money in taxes and a smaller one with fewer services and lower taxes, and I’ll show you a conservative victory for limited government. Show me a debate that requires citizens to choose between the wisdom of government bureaucrats and that of small-business owners, and I’ll show you a decisive vote for the common sense of the private sector. Ask us to evaluate the relative efficiency of federal, state, and local governments, and you’ll find a clear bias in favor of the government closest to the people. Force us to choose between personal responsibility and dependence on government, and the result will dismay our liberal friends. You get the point.

But when the debate moves down to the ground level, liberals often prevail. It is easier, after all, to argue for an increase in the budget for one isolated child-nutrition program than to defend an across-the-board increase to fund the myriad other programs that constitute our trillion-dollar welfare state.

This tug of war was painfully evident in the titanic struggle over Obamacare. Liberal Democrats and their allies knew that if they could succeed in limiting the scope of the debate to health-care issues — who will be covered, how generous their subsidies will be, and what services those subsidies will buy for them — they would prevail. The natural instinct of Obamacare’s conservative opponents, in contrast, was to elevate and broaden the debate, to raise foundational concerns that transcend health care and go to the very nature of the role and purpose of our government: Obamacare’s erosion of individual freedom, the tax and regulatory burdens it would place on businesses and individuals, its effect on jobs, its suffocating effect on the fiscal integrity and overall autonomy of the states, and even its impact on government’s role in making decisions about the beginning and end of life.

Conservatives ultimately prevailed on just about all of these arguments, it seems, but lost the final roll-call votes. Proponents of the most breathtaking expansion of government power in many decades were downright inarticulate in responding to the most frequently repeated question concerning the individual mandate: If it is constitutional for the federal government to regulate inactivity — or, as one federal court of appeals put it, to require “Americans to purchase an expensive product from a private insurance company from birth to death,” or else incur a fine — is there any sphere of our individual freedom that the federal government cannot control?

It is worth recalling the memorable way Judge Roger Vinson, the Florida district-court judge who struck down the individual mandate as unconstitutional, expressed this conundrum: “It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”

Read the rest of the column

Cheney on Obama's Drone Gift to Iran

Mitt Romney: "My Views are Progressive"

In 2002, during his campaign for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney plainly admitted to being a Progressive. I have been saying this for weeks and now the truth has been found coming from the man himself. Reject this man because he is Obama lite! He would just slow down our destruction but he would not change the road Obama has put us on. - Reggie

Monday, December 12, 2011

Jon Huntsman - Newt Gingrich Debate

The Jon Huntsman - Newt Gingrich Debate took place today and the reports I've seen highly recommend watching the debate. You can read Hot Air's analysis here.

I hope to find the time to watch this sometime this week. - Reggie

Arizona’s Immigration Law Gets to the Supremes

In a decision that should cheer those who believe in the rule of law and want to see our federal immigration laws enforced (despite all of the efforts of the Obama Administration to prevent that from happening), the Supreme Court today accepted Arizona’s petition for certiorari in the lawsuit filed against the state’s immigration law by the Justice Department. That means that the Supreme Court will make the final decision on whether Arizona’s law (SB 1070) is constitutional.

SB 1070, which has served as a model for other states such as Alabama and South Carolina, has a number of provisions that attempt to help the federal government enforce immigration requirements. The most controversial, at least from the standpoint of the Obama Administration, is a provision that requires police officers to check on the immigration status of individuals they have arrested or detained for some other violation, if the officers have a reasonable suspicion the individuals are in the country illegally. Race and ethnicity cannot be a consideration in that determination.

In a badly reasoned decision, a federal judge in Arizona issued an injunction against that requirement. The judge essentially ignored a provision of federal law that specifically requires the federal government to respond to all inquiries from federal, state, or local officials about the immigration status of any individual and the fact that Congress funds a “Law Enforcement Support Center” administered by the Department of Homeland Security to provide alien status determinations to state and local law enforcement officials 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is even another provision in federal law that encourages states “to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.”

New Ron Paul Ad: Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

Newt Gingrich Wants the Constitution to Die

This guy is scary!

- Michael

Newt Gingrich wants the Constitution to die. This is not hyperbole and I’m not kidding.
In 1995, Gingrich wrote the foreword to the book Creating a New Civilization: The Politics of the Third Wave by authors Alvin and Heidi Toffler. Gingrich “urged all Americans to read” this book. See for yourself on the back cover:

Read More>>

Ron Paul is striking chords with Iowa GOP voters

 I hope everyone takes a second look at Ron Paul!

- Michael

Iowa Republican voters are taking Ron Paul very seriously.
So seriously, in fact, that few would be surprised if he finished a strong second - or even won - the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.
The 76-year-old Texas congressman's potential is evident in recent statewide polls that show him in or near second place, trailing former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich and in a virtual tie with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
Paul's strength is also apparent anecdotally - he draws big, diverse crowds, like one recently in this small northeastern Iowa town.
People in the audience at the community library last week shoehorned themselves into the meeting room, listening intently to the libertarian Republican presidential candidate, as have people in meeting halls and college auditoriums all over the state.
They were sympathetic to his no-frills message of dramatically smaller government and a scaled-back foreign policy - a message he's long preached, but one that now has wide mainstream appeal. And they appreciate how he's engaging Gingrich, accusing the front-runner of "serial hypocrisy."
Paul draws no big cheers; his audiences are serious and polite. They applauded in Waverly when he told them that the U.S. government can't possibly continue spending at its current pace because the world economy is on the brink of chaos.

Sarah Palin Pitching New Reality Show

This is very disappointing because I was hoping Palin would re-enter the political arena and run for office in the near future. However, it has become increasingly clear that she no longer has the desire for a life in politics. Of course, it is her life, her family and her decision and I wish her the best. - Reggie

Sarah Palin Pitching New Reality Show About Husband Todd's Snowmobile Adventures (Exclusive)

But TLC, A&E have passed on an "Alaska" sequel.

Sarah Palin announced in October that she would not run for president, leaving her free to focus on her media career. But the GOP kingmaker and Fox News contributor is having some trouble selling a follow up to the Mark Burnett-produced Sarah Palin's Alaska, her TLC show that bowed in November 2010 to a record-breaking 5 million viewers.

The Hollywood Reporter has learned that Palin and Burnett are pitching another reality series, this one more focused on Palin’s husband Todd and his career as a championship snowmobile racer. But for now, TLC owner Discovery Communications has passed, say sources. And A&E Networks, which entered into a bidding war with Discovery for Sarah Palin's Alaska, also is not interested.

Allen West Talks about 'Authorization for Use of Military Force' Bill

I think we are on a slippery slope to tyranny and we are traveling at light speed. - Reggie

Sunday, December 11, 2011

Tim Tebow: God's Quarterback

Tim Tebow on sidelines
He has led the Denver Broncos to one improbable victory after another—defying his critics and revealing the deep-seated anxieties in American society about the intertwining of religion and sports.

On a brisk Thursday evening in mid-November, I sat high in the stands at a Denver Broncos home game, covering the ears of my 4-year-old son as the fans around us launched f-bombs at Tim Tebow, the Broncos' struggling second-year quarterback. Mr. Tebow was ineffective and off-target for most of the game, and one of his more voluble and obnoxious critics was standing right in front of us.

But the heckler's friend wasn't joining in. "Just wait until the end of the fourth quarter," he said. "That's Tebow time."

And so it was. In the waning moments against the New York Jets, Mr. Tebow manufactured a 95-yard game-winning drive, punctuated by his own 20-yard touchdown dash. He brought the Broncos back from imminent defeat, just as he had done in previous weeks against the Miami Dolphins, Oakland Raiders and Kansas City Chiefs.

And when the shouting was over, Mr. Tebow did what he always does—he pointed skyward and took a knee in prayer. In postgame interviews, the young quarterback often starts by saying, "First, I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" and ends with "God bless." He stresses that football is just a game and that God doesn't care who wins or loses.

This combination of candid piety and improbable success on the field has made Mr. Tebow the most-discussed phenomenon of the National Football League season. Most expert analysts still consider him poor material for a pro quarterback. An inexperienced passer with awkward throwing mechanics and the build of a fullback, he likes to run over defensive players, which is a no-no in the NFL, whose starting quarterbacks are expensive and hard to come by.

But onward he and the Broncos have marched, winning six of their last seven games and now tied for the lead in their division as they face the Chicago Bears this Sunday. Mr. Tebow continues to defy his critics—and to embody the anxieties over religion that are dividing today's sports world and embroiling players and fans alike.

Sports culture is among the most fervently religious sectors of American life. If you turn on ESPN's "SportsCenter" almost any night, you will see baseball players who point to heaven after a clutch hit and basketball players like the Orlando Magic's Dwight Howard, who once intimated that a playoff series victory against the Boston Celtics was proof of God's presence with his team.

These claims by athletes—"God helped me do that" or "I thank God that I was able to do that"—are so commonplace that they usually draw little notice. Most sports fans seem to think that such religious talk doesn't really affect how the games are played or credit it with a powerful placebo effect. So what if Adrian Gonzalez of the Boston Red Sox has a Bible verse inscribed on his bat? Fine—whatever helps him to hit the long ball.

But Mr. Tebow has never been content to leave his evangelical faith on the field. Well before he became the starting quarterback for Denver, he was a lightning rod in America's intermittent culture war of believers vs. secularists.

Read the full article at The Wall Street Journal.

UPDATE by Reggie: Earlier today Tim Tebow led his team against Chicago to another overtime victory. Denver is 7-1 with Tebow as their starter and they are now the number one team in their division. The NFL Network will re-air today's game on Wednesday night at 8pm ET.

Tim Tebow rejoices!

'Throw Them All Out'

Heritage Foundation description: Peter Schweizer delves into the full story of the inside game in Washington and shows how the permanent political class enriches itself at the expense of the rest of us. Insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, yet it is routine among members of Congress. Normal individuals cannot get in on IPOs at the asking price, but politicians do so routinely. By funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to supporters, even more campaign donations are ensured. An entire class of investors now makes all of its profits based on influence and access in Washington. Having researched mountains of financial records, Schweizer tracks complicated deals and stock trades back to the timing of briefings, votes on bills, and every other point of leverage for politicians in Washington. His conclusion: the permanent political class must go. 

Peter Schweizer is a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. From 2008-9 he served as a consultant to the White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting, and he is a former consultant to NBC News. He has written for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, Foreign Affairs, and elsewhere. His books include The Bushes, Reagan's War, and Do as I Say, Not as I Do.