Thank Jim DeMint

Jim DeMint SC Thank Jim DeMint

You can thank Jim DeMint for Rand Paul’s filibuster.

Rand Paul would not be in the Senate but for Jim DeMint’s help. In fact, during the filibuster, Rand Paul has been assisted by Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others who would not be there but for Jim DeMint.

Had Jim DeMint not created the Senate Conservatives Fund, we’d have David Dewhurst, Charlie Crist, Arlen Specter, Trey Grayson, and Bob Bennett in the United States still.

Jim DeMint challenged that status quo with the Senate Conservatives Fund.

Read More at Red State . By Erick Erickson.

The Real Reason Romney Lost

Mitt Romney CPAC 2011 SC The Real Reason Romney Lost

Now that Mitt Romney lost to one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history, the question many are asking is why?

Political pundits on the Left and Right are claiming that Romney appealed too much to the “extreme Right fringe” and was not “moderate enough.”

The truth is that the exact opposite is true.

Prior to the 08’ election, I wrote an article entitled, “RINO=GOP RIP” and warned the GOP not to nominate a liberal establishment candidate like Rudy McRomney for the simple reason that it is virtually impossible to win a national presidential election without your base on election day as 1976, 1992, and 1996 all demonstrated. Unfortunately, the GOP elites thought the pro-family/pro-life Christian base would hold their proverbial noses and vote for their candidate who was essentially a liberal Democrat, John McCain regardless.

They were wrong.

Obama won in an historical landslide.

Fast forward to 2012, and many of us warned that if the GOP once again nominated an establishment-approved liberal like Romney that it would virtually assure 4 more years of the Neo-Marxist radical community organizer in the White House since, again, it’s virtually impossible to win without your base on election day.

But once again, the liberal elites who essentially run the GOP (Reince Priebus, Karl Rove, The Bushies, the folks over at Fox News, the Weekly Standard, and National Review) rammed yet another establishment liberal RINO down our throats who was, from the very beginning, destined for defeat.

Obama’s base turned out Tuesday night.

Romney’s  didn’t.

And why should they have?

After all, in just the past few months, Romney did virtually everything possible to snub the very same Evangelical conservative GOP “Values Voters” base (whose support he would need in every one of the key swing states he lost the other night) by:

  • Refusing to sign the Susan B. Anthony and Personhood U.S.A pro-life pledges.
  • Reaffirming his opposition to bans on homosexual scoutmasters.
  • Opposing 100% pro-life, pro-family, across the board conservative Senatorial candidate Todd Akin.
  • Running pro-abortion ads in key pro-life swing states.
  • Stating that “abortion legislation” and Chick Fill-A was not “part of his agenda.”  (marriage, life, and small business not “part of your agenda?”)

Santorum was right when he said that Romney was the “worst Republican in the country to run against Obama.”

Having lost his own senate re-election bid by 18 points in 2006 by snubbing his own base (by supporting uber-liberal Arlen Specter over conservative primary challenger Pat Toomey), Santorum was all too familiar with what happens when your base stays home on election day.

The GOP elites should have listened to sweater vest Santorum.

So, how do we stop perpetually repeating this mistake every 4 years, you ask?

Simple.

Christian and conservative leaders and grassroots citizens must make it clear that we will, under no circumstances, compromise our core moral and spiritual beliefs by supporting godless liberals like Romney for public office, no matter how many times the liberal GOP inside-the-beltway elites tell us our 100% pro-life, pro-marriage, pro- rule of law Constitutional conservative Christian candidate isn’t “electable.”

When we set the standard based on God’s authoritative Word and tell those running to represent us that if they don’t meet that standard that they will not get our support, I believe we will get candidates who truly represent us.

I’m talking about candidates who believe that our rights come from God and who actually understand that the primary purpose of civil government is to protect and defend those God-given (inalienable) rights (chiefly the right to life without which all other rights are meaningless) and that every elected official at every branch and level of government possesses the same sworn obligation to enforce the imperative requirements of the Supreme Law of the Land.

There were obviously millions of Christians and conservatives who don’t subscribe to the utilitarian-secular-humanist and anti-Biblical “lesser of two evils” construct who refused to cast a vote for the most radically pro-abortion, pro-homosexual governor in the history of the Republic, regardless of who his opponent was.

If the GOP is serious about reversing course in the next election, they may want to run actual candidates whom the base will actually turn out for on election day.

Because, as Romney proved Tuesday night, you don’t win without your base on election day…

 

Gregg Jackson is the national best-selling author of Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies, former radio host on WRKO in Boston and KDAR in Los Angeles, an accomplished speaker who speaks to groups on college campuses nationwide, and writer whose articles have been published in The Wall St. Journal, Washington Times, Human Events, and Townhall.com. His new book that he co-authored with nationally syndicated radio host, Steve Deace, is called, We Won’t Get Fooled Again: Where the Christian Right Went Wrong and How to Make America Right Again.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore (Creative Commons)

 

Do Conservatives Really Have A Choice In Politics Anymore?

Republican Democrat SC Do Conservatives Really Have A Choice In Politics Anymore?

Photo credit: DonkeyHotey (Creative Commons)

For years and years, the American electorate has allowed politicians, the heads of both parties, the liberal and conservative mainstream media, and lawyers to lie to them about only having two choices when they go into the voting booth. But is that really true?

Remember Arlen Specter, the turncoat Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat again who provided the 60th vote for Obamacare? In the last race he actually won, the 2004 Pennsylvania senatorial  election, he won with 53 % of the vote. An under-reported result from this election was that the candidates from the arguably more conservative (albeit much smaller) Libertarian and Constitution parties got more than 5% of the vote.

I know you are probably wondering why I brought this seemingly insignificant fact up. Well, I don’t doubt that a lot of people were pressured by their family, friends, the politicians, and the media to vote for the guy who “stood the best chance” of winning and compromised some of their principles in order to vote for Specter. (I also don’t doubt that one of the reasons he was defeated by the Democrats in the 2010 primary was because he was an opportunist and did not have any actual philosophy about government.) But how do you think the Republicans who voted for Specter in 2004 felt five years later when he changed parties for the sake of getting re-elected? Betrayed probably doesn’t even begin to describe what they felt.

Subsequently, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the people who voted for the Libertarian or Constitution candidates felt vindicated in their decision. At least they did not seem afraid to vote on principle, as this seems to be the only tangible reason why someone would risk the outright humiliation of voting for someone certain to lose the election.

I have been convinced for at least a year that there are more similarities between the two parties than there are differences. If one takes the time to see through the rhetoric of the Republicans and Democrats and look at the big picture, they will agree with me.

Take the Republicans; shrinking government is the exception to rather than the rule for them. They voted for the NDAA. They voted for the Patriot Act. They voted to increase the size and scope of Medicare with Medicare Part D. They voted for No Child Left Alone, I mean, Behind. They supported the bailouts and earmarks under President Bush’s regime. They had no problem voting to raise the debt ceiling multiple times when Bush was president, adding trillions of dollars to the national debt. They didn’t repeal Roe v. Wade when they had the presidency and the majority in Congress (and yes, they do have the ability to do so.) They still don’t recognize the detrimental impact that the Federal Reserve has on the dollar. If you consider fighting a war like the two we are fighting now (and the two in Syria and Iran we are about to launch) big government on steroids, as I do, well, you know where Republicans stand on that.

My point is that the Republicans are not to be trusted at all by conservatives. We gave them back Congress, and it turns out that they spent more money than the Congress before them. How much? $150 billion more. It was never their intention to actually cut from the baseline of the budget; instead, they cur projected increases to spending in the years ahead (hence all the talk about cutting so and so over 10 years.)

We conservatives should really think about supporting independents or third-party candidates, complete political outsiders. The two years we spent propping up the Republican Party during the infamous Pelosi-Reid 111th Congress should have been spend building up an existing third party or starting our own political party. We should vote on principle and not on polls. I thought that we in the tea party movement were very principled people. Why vote for someone who doesn’t share your principles? That is the worst and most hypocritical thing that a voter who refers to himself as principled can do.

Elections should be about principles and not about who is supposedly the most popular candidate in a political party. Voting on the issues needs to become popular again in America. It’s much more important for me to tell my unborn children and grandchildren that I voted for who I thought was the best person rather than who the polls and media said was the most electable person.

And don’t let anyone tell you that by voting for a third party candidate that you are handing Obama a victory in 2012. I get this often from my elders at my local tea party’s meetings all the time. This is really a bunch of nonsense if you think about it. If you really wanted Obama to get re-elected, why would you go to all that trouble of voting for an outsider (third partier) when you could have just voted for Obama? This is a lie that has been repeated over and over and over again by the media, party bosses, and Republican AND Democrat politicians for the last several decades if not longer.

To answer the question I ask in the title of my commentary, I would say that it depends on whether you vote based on the standing of a candidate in the polls or the candidate’s philosophy. If you vote by the polls, yes. If you vote by philosophy, not really, unless you are willing to “waste” your vote on a third party candidate.

Backstabbing Arlen Specter Upset That Obama Backstabbed Him

Arlen Specter SC 300x270 Backstabbing Arlen Specter Upset That Obama Backstabbed Him

Former Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) writes in a new book that President Obama ditched him in the 2010 election after he helped Obama win the biggest legislative victory of his term by passing healthcare reform.

Specter also claims that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not uphold his promise to grant him seniority accrued over 28 years of service in the Senate as a Republican.

Specter, who rocked Washington’s political establishment and made headlines around the country when he left the Republican Party to join Democrats in April of 2009, has kept quiet about these slights until now.

He makes surprising revelations about Republican leaders, as well — he writes that former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) told him that he would have made the same decision to defect from the GOP if he had been in Specter’s position.

Specter says that one of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) first concerns after learning of the impending party switch was that he might be blamed for driving Specter out of the GOP.

Read More at The Hill By Alexander Bolton, The Hill

Can A Brokered Convention Decide The GOP Nominee?

mitt romney newt gingrich8433 Can A Brokered Convention Decide The GOP Nominee?

Those who scoff at Newt Gingrich’s plans for space should keep in mind that similar arguments were made against John Kennedy when he proposed his moon quest.

JFK had a cold war going on, but he still saw the necessity of going to space.

Today, our President will face China in the race to a moon base.

Does anyone really want China controlling space from a militarized moon base? Or controlling all of the minerals available on the moon?

Along with the great idea proposed by Rick Santorum concerning manufacturing companies and capital gains taxes, a US/China “base race” would make America’s economy take off like a rocket.

Between the manufacturing jobs created throughout the country and NASA in the southern states building our own moon base facilities,  the jobs spurred by re-invigorating the American oil industry by creating the Keystone pipeline, and allowing drilling (and frakking) in the US and off shore, unemployment would statistically disappear.

Unfortunately, Newt Gingrich, the only candidate with the foresight to think outside the box, is considered un-electable. This is his own fault. Thinking outside the box put him on a couch with Nancy. It leads him to consider the racist Woodrow Wilson, the man who gave us the Fed and the Income Tax, in a favorable light, calling himself a “Wilsonian” progressive! He says and does things that bring voting for him to the point of near impossibility, but then you have to remember that he did lead the most successful Republican revolt in our age, bringing us the only balanced budgets in my lifetime.

I must give Rick Santorum credit. He has not run as I expected him to.  Unlike Bachmann, he has run as a man of deep faith, but has kept it in the context of who he is, not beating people over the head with fear based warnings about natural disasters being warnings from God.  He has not taken the bait concerning the contraception issue.

Obama has different traps to spring on whichever candidate he has to face.

Mitt Romney will be attacked through Wall Street and Romney-(Obama)-care.

If he puts his religion in the forefront,  Santorum will be attacked as a religious fanatic out to hurt women through radical church teachings. Up to this point, he has struck a perfect balance. Pointing out his past defeat means nothing when taken out of context of the election as a whole. His support for Arlen Specter shows a glaring lack of vision and courage, and this is my remaining strike against him. His support of Spector makes it hard to consider trusting him.

Gingrich will face his government shut-down and “tantrums” besides his personal moral failings.

It seems the best we can hope for is for all of them to keep any of them from being a clear winner, keeping the Obama slime machine from being able to get focused on anyone for a while and having a brokered convention where we can pick a real Conservative on the second ballot.

Ron Reale can be contacted at realetybytes@yahoo.com and read at http://realetybytes.com/

Koran-Burning Pastor: Impeach Obama

Screen%20shot%202012 01 03%20at%203.57.23%20PM Koran Burning Pastor: Impeach Obama
Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who threatened to burn a Koran (and eventually did), is running for president. And his campaign website, Stand Up America, just posted an article entitled, “8 Reasons to Impeach Obama.”

“A US President can be disqualified and removed from office for ‘Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’” the campaign statement begins. “We see Obama’s ‘service’ to our country as a trail of bribery, fraud, intimidation and lies.”

Among the actions that outrage Jones are:

The Impeach Obama Campaign is not associated with Pastor Jones. Its founder, Floyd Brown, has strongly denounced the pastor. Many of the campaign’s supporters disagreed with his stance at the time.

Whatever one’s opinion of Jones’ Koran-burning past, it seems he is thinking clearly on the impeachment issue today.

For more information on the Impeach Obama Campaign, click here. To sign the impeach Obama petition, click here.

The Huffington Post Gets Punk’d

5784174080 d426370f97 o The Huffington Post Gets Punk’d

Despite a newfound reputation as an unbiased news source, an influx of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the new ownership of a massive media conglomerate, The Huffington Post is apparently incapable of fact-checking the articles that appear on its website. An entry posted late this morning on the website attributes an apparently erroneous quotation to Sen. John McCain.

The line comes in a Huffington Post article written by legal scholar Bruce Fein entitled, “McCain Dethrones the Rule of Law.”

This author reported last month that Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against Bill Clinton, has drafted articles of impeachment against Barack Obama over the president’s unwise, unauthorized, and unconstitutional military action against Libya. This author is fully supportive of Fein’s goals and actions on this matter.

Unfortunately, it appears an online prank got past him – and The Huffington Post.

Too-Subtle Satire

Fein quotes McCain as saying, “Any [p]resident, Republican or Democrat, should be able to deploy armed forces whenever and wherever he deems necessary.”

This author has written extensively about the president’s usurpation of the Congress’ war-making power, as well as the collective Congressional abdication led by John McCain. After reading Fein’s article, I started to include the quotation in a short post on the topic. However, I could find no authentication for it anywhere.

It appears to have originated on the website of the Arizona Sunlight, which bills itself as “the home of John Semmens’ semi-news, a satirical review of the events shaping our nation and the world.” The original source of the words is a May 21 post entitled, “Wrangling Over the War Powers Act.”

Immediately before the McCain “quotations,” Semmens attributed a number of humorous, fictitious quotations to Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI. “The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 by a Democratic Congress to protect the country from being dragged into an unnecessary war by a Republican President,” Semmens has Levin declare. “Its attempted use by Republicans to try to tie the hands of President Obama is politics at its worst.”

Someone reposted Semmens’ satire on FreeRepublic.com, where not all of the readers got the joke. It likely passed from there to Fein.

The Rest of the Article is Fein

All the remaining quotations in Fein’s article – from James Madison, James Wilson, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, Justice Robert Jackson, and John Bassett Moore – are authentic. The Founding Fathers vested the decision to go to war solely in the hands of the legislative branch.

Unfortunately, all the remaining quotations of Senator McCain are authentic, as well.

McCain did, indeed, say: “No president has ever recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, and neither do I. So, I don’t feel bound by any deadline.”

In a 1994 debate over the presidential use of military force, McCain said if the president unilaterally initiates a war Congress has no “right to declare peace,” because “the president of the United States is given the responsibility, the most grave responsibility of sending into harm’s way our greatest national treasure, our young men and women.”[1]

McCain’s blasé indifference to the Constitution, or the law, simply made the satirical quip seem all-too-believable.

Impeachment or Indifference?

If McCain never uttered the exact words in question, he has supported the concept of unlimited, unilateral war-by-decree. The 2008 Republican presidential candidate has told news outlets Barack Obama has the unquestioned authority to send troops into Libya without congressional approval. In his 1994 debate, he stated, “[A]t no time during those [Cold War] years would I have contemplated prohibiting the president of the United States from military actions any place in the world.”

If that does not excuse the misquotation, at least it makes it more understandable. It also renders Fein’s analysis of McCain accurate despite it.

Senator McCain’s blather betrayed a sub-literate understanding of the Constitution and infidelity to his oath of office. The latter requires him to demand the impeachment and removal of President Obama for the greatest usurpation of congressional authority in the history of the United States. Instead, the Senator is conspiring with the president to facilitate the usurpation. (Emphasis added.)

If McCain finds these matters mundane, the law could not be more insistent.

Barack Obama sent U.S. troops to Libya while the Congress was in recess, without prior approval. He has since extended this war beyond the 60-day period provided by the most liberal reading of the War Powers Resolution.

George F. Will recently told Laura Ingraham that Barack Obama is “traducing” the law. Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman accused Obama of “shredding the Constitution,” saying his action “defiantly violates the law.”

Republicans Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Walter Jones, John Cornyn, and Richard Lugar, among others, have been critical of the president’s policy. So, too, have Democrats like Dennis Kucinich, Jim Webb, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters.

On the other hand most Democrats and such Republicans as John McCain, John Thune, and Mark Kirk have defended Obama.  Others, including blogger Pamela Geller, have been hopelessly contradictory about American policy toward Libya.

Congress has chosen to take no action over the matter. Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, as well as House Speaker John Boehner, have chosen inaction in the face of intransigence.

However, the House passed two amendments last week, authored by Republican Scott Garrett of New Jersey and Democrat John Conyers of Michigan respectively, stating that the National Defense Authorization Act does not authorize the war in Libya and prohibiting the use of U.S. ground troops in the conflict.

As Obama promises “no let-up” against Muammar Qaddafi, Congress is moving toward a vote against any authorization of the war at all.

This unprecedented state of affairs demands redress. Fein could not have been more correct about the bulk of his article.

Is There an Editor in the House?

I learned during my many years as a Managing Editor that scrupulous authors, including first-rate scholars, make honest mistakes. Dealing with various subordinates (and not infrequently, superiors), I emphasized that editing requires more than cut-and-pasting articles as they arrive in one’s inbox; they must be, well, edited, as well as fact-checked, before they appear under the publication’s masthead. Witnessing deadline-driven errors and editorial laziness firsthand makes it easier to spot in other publications.

One would think it would be harder to find in a multi-million-dollar venture like The Huffington Post.

Then again, many of those millions come from the denizens of the Shadow Party. In March 2009, The Huffington Post received a $1.75 million grant to begin an Investigative Fund from George LaMarche, a member of Democracy Alliance – another funnel of Soros’ mega-bucks into politics. According to Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center, HuffPo’s “investigations merged with the possibly even more left-wing Center for Public Integrity, on whose board Arianna Huffington sits.” CPI received $651,650 from George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) in 2009.

Gainor recently published a comprehensive study exposing Soros’ contributions to at least 30 mainstream media outlets.

In February, Arianna Huffington sold her website to AOL for $315 million.

Somehow this influx of money could not assure one article was adequately verified before being posted.

Once again, a citizen journalist has fact-checked the “mainstream media” and found it in error. Wise readers would bypass the mainstream altogether and begin by reading this website instead.

ENDNOTES:

1. This took place during debate over an amendment introduced by Sen. Arlen Specter, then a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, banning Bill Clinton from sending troops to Haiti without congressional authorization. (It was defeated on August 5, 1994, by a 63-31 vote.) McCain’s words appear in 140 Congressional Record, 1994, 190809.

Video: The Donald Is Out Of The Race

NDBjNzQmb2Y9MA== Video: The Donald is out of The Race

Donald Trump decided today he won’t be apprenticing for the presidency. The Donald declared today he will not be making a 2012 White House bid through a press release (see below). His announcement came a day after Mike Huckabee opted out of a presidential run.

Trump had publicly flirted with running for president for the third time in his life. He previously toyed with a race in 1988 and made overtures to the Reform Party in 2000 before backing out each time. In 2011, Trump brandished a typically bombastic and eclectic blend of issues, raising the question of Barack Obama’s birthplace and personal secrecy, the U.S. trade imbalance with China, and the possibility of claiming Iraqi oil fields as war reparations. He — along with Tea Party favorite Ron Paul and long shot Gary Johnson — expressed often harsh criticism of former President George W. Bush. However, his flip-flops had many raising questions even before his history of deep-pocketed generosity toward liberal Democrats and RINOs — including Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel, Frank Lautenberg, Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist, and John McCain — became public knowledge.

At his core — stripped of his bluster, media savvy, and questionable pompadour — Trump enjoyed his boomlet because he enunciated the nation’s questions about our enigma-in-chief, questions that exist because the media have failed to vet his background in any meaningful way. Two years into his disastrous administration, many Republican and “conservative” leaders still shy away from branding Obama the radical his words and deeds show him to be. The Republican presidential debates will be more boring, although far more serious, without him. They will also be more disconnected from grassroots concerns without some of the issues he had the audacity to raise.

Trump issued the following press release today:

After considerable deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of the Presidency. This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country. I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.

I want to personally thank the millions of Americans who have joined the various Trump grassroots movements and written me letters and e-mails encouraging me to run. My gratitude for your faith and trust in me could never be expressed properly in words. So, I make you this promise: that I will continue to voice my opinions loudly and help to shape our politician’s thoughts.  My ability to bring important economic and foreign policy issues to the forefront of the national dialogue is perhaps my greatest asset and one of the most valuable services I can provide to this country.  I will continue to push our President and the country’s policy makers to address the dire challenges arising from our unsustainable debt structure and increasing lack of global competitiveness.  Issues, including getting tough on China and other countries that are methodically and systematically taking advantage of the United States, were seldom mentioned before I brought them to the forefront of the country’s conversation. They are now being debated vigorously. I will also continue to push for job creation, an initiative that should be this country’s top priority and something that I know a lot about. I will not shy away from expressing the opinions that so many of you share yet don’t have a medium through which to articulate.

I look forward to supporting the candidate who is the most qualified to help us tackle our country’s most important issues and am hopeful that, when this person emerges, he or she will have the courage to take on the challenges of the Office and be the agent of change that this country so desperately needs.

Thank you and God Bless America!

Donald J. Trump

GOP Promises: Obama Investigations Are Coming

As news has broken overnight that an Obama administration official may have perjured himself about the dismissal of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case, Congressional Republicans have promised they will investigate Barack Obama’s crimes in the new year.

The Hill newspaper reports today Congressman Darrell Issa’s “Oversight and Government Reform Committee anticipate a ramp-up of investigations next year on bailout measures, the economic stimulus and healthcare.”

Jason Chaffetz, R-UT, who sits on the committee, told the paper, “No doubt about it, there needs to be a lot more examination of the TARP, stimulus and Fannie [Mae] and Freddie [Mac].” Committee aide Kurt Bardella added the GOP will take on “anyone [who] is misusing taxpayer dollars,” naming ACORN and General Motors, among others.

Many believe any honest inquest will inevitably turn from investigative hearings to impeachment proceedings.

If the committee has proven anything to date, it is that its members have much to investigate. It produced a 36-page report recounting the Obama administration’s use of tax dollars for covert propaganda, a potentially illegal — and hence, potentially impeachable — offense.

Congressman Issa is asking Americans across the country to send him pictures of the stimulus signs announcing that Obama and local functionaries are “Putting America Back to Work” with porkbarrel projects. Misappropriation of bailout funds, especially by entities Obama forced to take the funds, are sure to make the investigate docket in 2011.

As today’s news shows, not all investigations are limited to the misuse or misappropriation of funds. Allegations remain that the administration illegally offered Joe Sestak a job to drop out of his primary race against Arlen Specter. Bill Clinton’s recent words on the subject contradict the White House party line and could open the door to the president’s downfall. Rep. Issa has already promised to investigate. Issa’s colleague from New Jersey, Rep. Chris Smith, believes the administration’s lobbying for Kenya’s new, pro-abortion, pro-Shari’a constitution is illegal, and thus an impeachable offense, the State Department’s whitewashing notwithstanding.

Issa’s chairmanship, and the ascension of Rep. Chaffetz, will be necessary, not merely to restore honor and decency to the White House, but if Americans ever hope to drain the swamp of kickbacks and goldbricking D.C. insiders have raised to a new art.

Ultimately, only conservatives (and not merely Republicans) can end Washington’s corruption. As long as the federal government continues to dole out trillions of dollars in “stimulus,” businesses will try to obtain as many tax dollars as possible. As long as left-wing Democrats regulate every activity under the sun, they will hire lobbyists to protect themselves from Obama’s extortion racket. As long as the administration threatens to punish success with confiscatory tax rates, they will hire lawyers to exploit every loophole in the IRS code.

And they will hire Congressmen to write them.

The problem of corruption is an out of control government that exceeds any limits dreamed of by the Founding Fathers. Indeed, at times it seems the government exceeds the limits dream of by Thomas Hobbes.

The corruption is a symptom and necessary correlate of the welfare state. The long-term solution is to return the government to its constitutional limits and specifically enumerated functions. Only by shrinking the size, scope, cost, and reach of government — by depriving it of boons to hand out and selective punishments to impose — can corruption come to an end.

Until then, the best budget investment taxpayers can make is in Congressman Issa’s committee.

Will Clinton’s Sestak Denial Re-Open Calls For Impeachment?

Bill Clinton 2 SC Will Clintons Sestak Denial Re Open Calls for Impeachment?

The last impeached president has denied he helped another president commit an impeachable offense.

While stumping for Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, Bill Clinton denied offering Sestak an unpaid government position as an enticement to suspend his successful primary challenge against Arlen Specter.

Clinton can be seen on a recent video stating three times that he made no such efforts. (See below.)  “I didn’t try to get him out of the race,” Clinton said. “In fact, I wasn’t even accused of that.”

The ex-president had previously dodged the question altogether.

His comments contradict a memo the White House released in May to quell Republican charges the Obama administration had bribed [Read more...]