Thursday, September 30, 2010

Is Satan real?


“Is Satan Real?

Ephesians 6: 10-13

Hello, Friend! I’m Mack Lyon and the program’s a Bible study In Search of the Lord’s Way. Is Satan real? Should we take him seriously? Does Satan really tempt us? Should I be afraid of Satan? What does the Bible say about him? Phil Sanders has prepared some thoughts about the devil. Oh say, you’re going to want to stay tuned for this.

Thank you, Mack. Hello, I’m Phil Sanders and we’re here to search the Scriptures for the Lord’s Way. Thanks for spending this time with us, and we love to hear that you’re watching or listening. We want to be a part of your life each week.

For most people Satan is a riddle that won’t go away. We’ve heard about him, known about his evil influence, and wrestled with him more than once. Many folks, however, don’t know what to make of Satan. A recent Barna poll found that more than half of American adults say that the devil, or Satan, is not a living being but a symbol of evil.

Medieval Christians depicted Satan as a character with a tail, dressed in a red suit, smelling of sulfur and carrying a pitchfork. They believed that he was the warden of hell and will torture for an eternity the unfortunate, evil souls who are cast from the presence of God.

Hollywood usually depicts Satan as a rich, cunning, successful, powerful and good looking man. He appears as a winner with every pleasure he wants. His prime work seems to be to roam over the earth seeking individuals who will sign over their souls to him in exchange for special powers or possessions. Well, in the end of a Hollywood script Satan never wins but gets outwitted and reverts to a more familiar angry, immature, hate-filled guy with horns and revenge in mind. To Hollywood Satan doesn’t seem particularly intelligent, because he’s easily tricked by humans. But is that the real Satan?

The Bible always tells the truth; and if we want to know what Satan is really like, let’s go to the Bible. We don’t want someone’s imaginary idea about Satan. We want what God has to say, and only the Bible gives us a true picture.

For thirty years Search has offered the information on this program free. And if you’d like a printed copy, a CD or tape of our study, mail your request to In Search of the Lord’s Way, P.O. Box 371, Edmond, OK 73083 or by e-mail to searchtv@searchtv.org. Or, if you like, call our toll-free telephone number. That number is 1 (800) 321-8633 . We also stream this program on our website at http://www.searchtv.org/.

Ken Helterbrand will lead the Edmond church in song, and then we’ll read from Ephesians chapter 6, verses 10 to 13.

Our reading today from God’s Word comes from Ephesians 6, verses 10 to 13. ‘Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.’ Now that’s God’s Word for us today. Let’s pray together. Father, we are so grateful to call You our Father and to know that You can help us to withstand in the evil day. Help us to do all that we can to please You and to serve You. In Jesus’ name, Amen!

People who deny the supernatural usually regard Satan as merely a symbol of evil. For them, Satan is a spiritual threat but not an actual being. The devil or Satan is only an impersonal evil force present and operating in the world. Since mentioning hell or judgment is politically incorrect for some people, they have no need for Satan. Many people believe that everyone is ultimately going to be saved, so Satan is merely a token, spiritual opposition. For 13 percent of Americans hell is just a symbol for a bad outcome after life is over. Many people regard Satan as the personification of an influence.

Well, the Bible describes Satan and demons as actual beings during the days of Jesus, but churches that hold classical liberal views explain Satan away by saying the first century was pre-scientific and used the concepts of demons and Satan to frighten people into obedience and to account for events and diseases for which they had no other explanation. They regard belief in Satan and demons as a real being today as a view that was left over from a pre-scientific day.

The word ‘Satan,’ though as it appears in both Hebrew and Greek, means ‘adversary.’ The word describes a person who lies in wait as an enemy. Satan is commonly called ‘the devil,’ which points to one who engages in slander or accusing. In addition to these two principal names, the Scriptures also call Satan the tempter (Matthew 4, verse 5); Beelzebub (Matthew 12, verse 24); the enemy (Matthew 13, verse 39); Belial (2 Corinthians 6 and verse 15); an adversary (1 Peter 5 and verse 8); the deceiver (Revelation 12, verse 9); and the father of lies and a murderer is found in John 8 and verse 44. First John 3 and verse 8 says that the devil has ‘sinned from the beginning.’ And the Lord Jesus describes Satan as the ‘evil one’ in Matthew 13, verse 19, that is, the one whose nature and his will are given over to evil. Now, moral evil is his dominant attribute. The devil stands in stark contrast with God, our God the Father who is the ‘Holy One.’ (Isaiah 1 and verse 14)

The devil’s also called ‘the dragon,’ and ‘the old serpent’ in Revelation 12, verse 9; he’s ‘the prince of this world’ (John 14, verse 30); he’s ‘the prince of the power of the air’ in Ephesians 2 and verse 2. Paul calls him ‘the god of this world’ in 2 Corinthians 4, verse 4 and ‘the spirit (the devil is that spirit) that now works in the children of disobedience.’ (Ephesians 2 and verse 2)

The devil’s power is very great in the world. He’s a ‘roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour’ according to 1 Peter 5 and verse 8. Satan is the one who takes the word away from men in Mark 4 and verse 15. The Bible says that people are ‘taken captive by him’ in 2 Timothy 2 and verse 26. And Paul warned Christians against his ‘devices” or his schemes in 2 Corinthians 2 and verse 11. James called on Christians to ‘resist’ the devil in James 4 and verse 7.

The Lord Jesus faced Satan when he was led into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil in Matthew chapter 4. And Satan tried to persuade Jesus, the Son of God, three times to follow His desires and to disobey the will of God. Well, Jesus met each temptation by citing to the devil principles from the word of God. He quoted from Deuteronomy 8: 3; and Deuteronomy 6: 16; and Deuteronomy 6: 13. And in the end, the Lord Jesus said, ‘Go, Satan! For it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.’ Well, then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him according to Matthew 4, verses 10 and 11. Luke 4: 13, which also tells of that story, notes that when ‘the devil had finished every temptation, that he left Him (but he left Him) until an opportune time.’

Now, in this Biblical passage one has to admit the devil is just as real as the angels. If Satan is merely an influence, this passage becomes nonsense. When Jesus told Satan to ‘go,’ He was not speaking to a symbol but to a person. And in these verses, the Bible speaks of the devil as a person who travels, and reasons, and speaks, and is persistent. Such characteristics belong to a person.

When Jesus predicted to his apostles that He must go to Jerusalem and there suffer many things, to be killed, and rise again the third day, you remember that Peter took Jesus aside and he rebuked him saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you.’ And in response, Jesus said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.’ Now that’s from Matthew 16, verses 21 to 23. When Jesus called Peter ‘Satan’ that suggests that Jesus considered Peter’s behavior like that of the evil person Satan, who sets his mind on human interests. Personalities (not symbols) set their minds; personalities make decisions, and oppose the will of God. My friend, Satan is a person!

In Luke 22 and verse 31 Jesus revealed that Satan had asked permission of God to sift Peter like wheat. Well, such language again suggests that Jesus considered the devil a person.

Again, the Lord Jesus recognized the problem that the church at Smyrna faced in living in a city where they were being blasphemed. And Jesus condemned ‘the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews but are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.’ (Revelation 2 and verse 9) Now, the book of Revelation reveals the final end of Satan, the devil. And if Satan were just a symbol, such a graphic statement would be meaningless. Revelation 20 and verse 10 says that, ‘the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.’ One cannot torment a symbol; one can only torment a person.

That Paul regarded Satan as a real person may be seen in many of his statements in Scripture about Satan. When he wanted to visit the Thessalonians, Paul said that ‘Satan hindered us.’ (1 Thessalonians 2 and verse 18). In 2 Corinthians 2 and verse 11 Paul described Satan as one who had ‘schemes;’ well, now that’s a sure indication of intelligence and personality. In 2 Corinthians 11 and verse 14 Paul reveals that Satan ‘disguises himself as an angel of light.’ And from this Paul says it’s not surprising that ‘his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.’ (chapter 11, verse 15)

Paul judged the man who had his father’s wife by delivering ‘such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.’ (1 Corinthians 5 and verse 5) And in 1 Timothy 1, verse 20 Paul handed over Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, ‘so that they will be taught not to blaspheme.’ Now, such statements don’t reflect a mere influence, but rather suggest one who has the ability to do physical harm to disobedient saints.

In a different way Paul also speaks of being given a ‘thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me—to keep me from exalting myself!’ He mentions this in 2 Corinthians 12 and verse 7. Well, Paul was well aware of the powers in the heavenly places with which he wrestled. Satan was not an influence, not a personification, and not a symbol; he is a person.

And so God’s Word says as we read in Ephesians 6, verse 10 to 13, ‘Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.’

Now, each of us faces a battle in life against the devil. It is a personal battle, and we can’t pass this battle off to someone else. When people fought battles in ancient times the one who was standing at the end was the winner. The other person perished in death. Now, our battle is spiritual; we’re not fighting for our lives but for our souls. We’re also fighting to show others what side we are on—to encourage others to fight the good fight and to stand.

We need the Lord’s help in fighting this battle. We need His strength and the armor that He provides to us. If we ignore the fact that we’re engaged in a spiritual battle, we will surely lose. If we fail to arm ourselves with God’s strength, we will fall victim to the devil. If we are unwilling to fight, we’ll perish spiritually. If we don’t give it all, our all, then we’ll likely come in second place. Now to lose this battle means that we will lose our souls. And this is no matter to take lightly.

God’s Word says in Ephesians 6, verses 14 to 17, ‘Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish the flaming darts of the evil one; and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.’

The Lord loves us and so He equips us with armor that will help us win against the devil. Fasten on ‘the belt of truth.’ Why? Because the devil is a liar, and the truth exposes his lies. God gives us the knowledge of the truth. My friend, the best way to defeat the devil is to expose him for what he is, an enemy who lies and accuses people falsely in order to gain power. He gains power when he enslaves people to sin. Oh, he promises the pleasure of sin, but that pleasure never lasts. In the end it enslaves and destroys.

The Lord equips us with the breastplate of righteousness. God lovingly forgives and cleanses us from sin. Righteousness motivates us to do what is right and to avoid destructive sins. The Lord equips us with protective shoes that allow us to move quickly in the gospel of peace. Oh, the gospel of Christ gives us peace and confidence, so that we can handle life’s spiritual challenges without fear.

The Lord equips us with the shield of faith, which is able to put out the fiery arrows of the devil. When a Christian believes in Christ and believes Christ and everything He said; he has a power to block the lies the devil tells. He knows that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that every word, every word, that He spoke is true and righteous altogether. He knows whatever Jesus says is right and there is a difference between right and wrong. He knows that he’s a created being and not a product of evolution. He knows heaven and hell are real destinies of souls for each of us.

The Lord equips us with the helmet of salvation. The helmet protects the head from the blows of an opponent, and our salvation protects us. The Scriptures marvelously promise us in 1 John 1, verse 7 ‘that if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, that we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.’ Verse nine says that, ‘If we confess our sins, that He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.’ If we walk with the Lord and confess our sins, asking God to forgive us, we as Christians have an ongoing relationship with God that keeps us completely free from sin.

The Lord also equips us with the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. God’s Word instructs, reproves, corrects, and trains us, so that we might fight the good fight of faith. Soldiers used the sword both defensively and offensively. The Scriptures keep us from sin and defeats the devil by exposing his wicked ways. You can trust the Bible to give you the answers that you need to overcome temptation, to overcome sin, and overcome the devil. Ah, keep your Bible close to your heart if you wish to win this battle for your soul. Let’s pray together. O Father, we are thankful that through Your kindness and mercy You have equipped us with this wonderful armor to protect us and help us to win against the devil. This is our prayer in the name of Jesus. Amen!

The Scriptures reveal that the devil is a deceiver, a liar in disguise. He wants people to think he’s an angel of light, while in reality he is pure evil. Make no mistake, Satan is not now, nor has he ever been, your friend. The Bible says in 1 Peter 5, verses 8 and 9, ‘Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world.’

God’s Word says in James 4, verses 7 and 8, ‘Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.’ God wants us to draw close to Him and submit to His commandments. If we draw close to God and resist the devil, the devil will flee from us; and we’ll win this battle!

Well, how do you draw close to God? Well, submit your heart and will to Him and place your trust in Him. You can’t draw close to God if you doubt Him or you’re fighting with Him. You can’t be friends with sin and be friends with God. You must give up the sin and submit to God. And with your faith and repentance, you must be willing to confess your faith in Jesus Christ before others and to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins according to Acts 2 and verse 38. And it’s at that point that God cleanses you from sin; He adds you to His family the church; and you can draw close to Him and He will draw close to you! Now, if you are a Christian who has moved away from Christ, come back to Him by repenting of sins and praying to God for forgiveness.

We hope that you’ve been blessed by today’s study of God’s Word. And if you want a free printed copy, a CD, or a tape of this message, ‘Is Satan Real,’ then mail your request to In Search of the Lord’s Way, P.O. Box 371, Edmond, OK 73083 or e-mail us. Send it to searchtv@searchtv.org.

Or, you can call the Search office toll-free at 1 (800) 321-8633. Now all of our programs also appear on our website at http://www.searchtv.org/. You can access them or download them in a printed, audio, or video format. We also now offer free study sheets to go along with our programs. You can download them free at our website, too. They will help you study God’s Word with us.

Now, please attend worship at one of the churches of Christ in the area served by this station or network. They love guests, and you’ll be glad you visited. Mack and I will be back next week, Lord willing; so keep searching God’s Word with us and tell a friend. God bless you and we love you from all of us at In Search of the Lord’s Way.”

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Mark Kirk—the immoral Republican choice for the U.S. Senate from Illinois


Monday, my post was entitled “Moral issues don’t matter?” Yesterday, I posted the schedule for the Tea Party Express for the last two weeks of the campaign. Today, it’s back to moral issues and specifically Mark Kirk—the immoral Republican choice for the U.S. Senate.

From: http://www.illinoisfamilyaction.org/?p=295

“Does a “Truce” on the Social Issues Serve the Public Good?

by Laurie Higgins

The Republican governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels, recently called for a ‘truce’ on divisive social issues. Republican governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, concurs saying, ‘Any issue that takes people’s eye off of unemployment, job creation, economic growth, taxes, spending, deficits, debts is taking your eye off the ball.’

Earlier I asked, if one of the ‘social issues’ that divided the country were not the slaughter of the most defenseless but were instead the enslavement of African Americans, would these same ‘moderates,’ be chastising conservatives for refusing to subordinate social issues to fiscal issues? (As I said in Monday’s post, fiscal issues are a symptom. The sin—the root cause of our problems—is our abandonment of GOD’S moral values!—my addition)

When social conservatives retreat from the cultural and political debate, the cultural and political views of the public are shaped by those who are publicly engaged. (Absolutely true and that’s the tragedy! Too many Christians have dropped out of the fight and said let the libertines have their way—my addition.) Our retreat creates a vacuum that leftists are only too glad to fill with false moral propositions and destructive legislation. (And destructive court decisions that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution as written just as their moral precepts are contrary to the Bible as written—my addition.) Soon there won’t be enough conservatives who think rightly on fundamental social issues, and the ones who do will lack the courage to speak. Society would be much better served by heeding the words of John Adams who said, ‘Public business, my son, must always be done by somebody …. If wise men decline it, others will not; if honest men refuse it, others will not.’

It should be noted that a truce requires that both sides agree to a cessation of activity. (The libertines certainly won’t!—my addition) Surely, some have noticed that Democrats aren’t participating in the truce. In fact, carnivorous leftists are licking their chops while waiting to devour the carcass of social conservatism. And while they await its demise, they engage in ever more fevered efforts to advance their pernicious goals to preserve the right to annihilate the unborn and destroy the family.

No, Daniels and other likeminded conservatives are not calling for a truce; they’re effectively calling for a forfeit. (CAPITULATION!!!—my addition)

One of the social ‘moderates’ about whom I am particularly critical is Mark Kirk. My criticism of him, however, extends beyond his unconscionable anti-life, pro-homosexual positions. My criticism of Kirk includes his penchant for deceit, about which Karl Rove has inadvertently shed some light.

In an appearance on Hannity on September 14, Karl Rove rejected supporting candidates who demonstrate a lack of honesty and integrity:

‘It does conservatives little good to support candidates who at the end of the day, while they may be conservative in their public statements, do not evince the characteristics of rectitude and truthfulness and sincerity and character that the voters are looking for.’

Whatever you may think about Rove, his sentiments are valid and applicable to an evaluation of Mark Kirk as a candidate.

Despite all the bad press about Kirk’s prevaricating about his past military, teaching, and sailing experiences, and his weaselly responses when confronted by the media about his prevarications, many conservatives continue to argue that as bad as he is, it’s better to have a Republican elected than a Democrat.

In the past I shared that view. I have never voted for a third-party candidate—until now. I have always been firmly committed to voting for the Republican candidate even if I had to hold my nose while voting—until now. But is there not a limit to how bad a Republican candidate can be before conservatives are justified in rejecting him? I’m beginning to think that in the service of political expediency, many conservatives have a near limitless capacity for capitulation.

It’s unrealistic to expect 100% agreement with any candidate on all issues. But the accretion of troubling votes and troubling lies from Kirk reached critical mass for me. I arrived at a point at which I could no longer rationalize support for him. When I thought about the unlikelihood of unseating an incumbent Senator Kirk, I came to the conclusion that a longer view was in order. (AMEN!!! I was saying the same thing back before the primary when the Republican establishment was jumping on his bandwagon to the detriment of the Republican Party, the State of Illinois, and the nation. I said it before and will repeat it as often as necessary. I WILL NOT vote for Mark Kirk and there are other conservatives who agree with me. This Senate seat would have been a slam dunk if a conservative Republican had been nominated—my addition.)

If Kirk gets elected, there’s not a snow ball’s chance in hell that either the IL GOP or the national party will support a Republican challenge to him in six years, whereas they will obviously field a Republican challenge to an incumbent Alexi Giannoulias. If Kirk gets elected, we will likely have him for decades. With an inexperienced legislator like Giannoulias, a motivated conservative base, and a supportive GOP, we have a far better shot at getting a truly worthy man or woman into the U.S. Senate in six years. (True!—my addition)

It’s not social conservatives who are naïve and ignorant. It is the social ‘moderates’ who in their failure to see the portentous cultural implications of legalized child sacrifice and widespread approval of homosexuality demonstrate both ignorance and naïveté. If Kirk fails to win the Senate seat, his loss just may send a message to the Republican establishment that they must stop trying to force social conservatives to sacrifice their principles. (although I have my doubts about Illinois Republicans—my addition)

I’m amazed when I hear conservatives express more moral outrage about my refusal to nose-hold than they do about Kirk’s support for the slaughter of the unborn or for homosexuality-affirming legislation. Do these ‘moderate’ conservatives actually believe that an economically sound country that engages in the slaughter of the unborn and celebrates sexual deviancy can long last? (My point exactly! It‘s not the economy! It‘s the moral character of the nation that is MOST important!—my addition)

It strikes me that there is an important difference between justifiable political compromises and wholesale selling out. Voting for Kirk represents the latter. (It does indeed!—my addition)

All is not lost, however. There are a few bright lights on the horizon. In response to the debate on setting aside the ‘social issues,’ U.S. Representative Mike Pence recently said, ‘America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles.’ We in Illinois need to find our Mike Pence. (AMEN! And all Christians need to step up and be counted!—my addition)

If all disgruntled Illinois conservatives would band together, stiffen their spines, and say with their votes ‘no more’—even if that means we’re stuck with Giannoulias for six years—the powers-that-be might finally get the message. They might then busy themselves with the important task of finding a good (morally driven—my addition) candidate to unseat him.”

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Tea Party Express IV: Liberty at the Ballot Box


Because of time constraints, I am posting this today. I plan to return to my new series tomorrow. The Tea Party Express is on the move before the election. The schedule:

From http://www.teapartyexpress.org/

“FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 27, 2010
CONTACT: Levi Russell at (509) 979-6615 or via email at: Levi@FrontLineStrat.com

Tea Party Express Unveils TPX IV Tour: ‘Liberty At The Ballot Box’

The Tea Party Express (website: http://www.teapartyexpress.org/) is pleased to reveal the schedule for the upcoming ‘Tea Party Express IV: Liberty At The Ballot Box’ national bus tour which will take place October 18th-November 1st.

TEA PARTY EXPRESS IV: LIBERTY AT THE BALLOT BOX

Monday, October 18th

1) 10:00 AM – Rally in Reno, Nevada

2) 12:30 PM – TPX Tour departs from Reno, Nevada rally location

3) 5:30 PM – Elko, Nevada rally

4) Overnight in Elko, Nevada

Tuesday, October 19th

1) 9:00 AM – Depart from Elko, Nevada hotel

2) 12:00 Noon – Rally in Ely, Nevada

3) 1:30 PM – Depart Ely, Nevada

4) 6:00 PM – Rally in Las Vegas, Nevada

5) Overnight in Las Vegas, Nevada

Wednesday, October 20th

1) 9:00 AM – Depart from Las Vegas, Nevada

2) 1:30 PM – Rally in Barstow, California

3) 3:00 PM – Depart Barstow, California

4) 6:00 PM – Rally in Los Angeles, California

5) Overnight in Los Angeles, California

Thursday, October 21st

1) 8:00 AM – Depart Los Angeles, California

2) 12:00 Noon – San Diego, California Rally

3) 2:30 PM – Depart San Diego, California

4) 6:00 PM – Rally in Yuma, Arizona

5) Overnight in Yuma, Arizona

Friday, October 22nd

1) 8:00 AM – Depart Yuma, Arizona

2) 12:00 Noon – Rally in Phoenix, Arizona

3) 2:30 PM – Depart Phoenix, Arizona

4) Overnight in Las Cruces, New Mexico

Saturday, October 23rd

1) 12:00 Noon – Rally in Las Cruces, New Mexico

2) 3:00 PM – Depart Las Cruces, New Mexico

3) 4:30 PM – Rally in El Paso, Texas

4) 6:00 PM – Depart El Paso, Texas

5) 10:30 PM – Arrive in Odessa, Texas

6) Overnight in Odessa, Texas

Sunday, October 24th

1) 8:00 AM – Depart Odessa, Texas

2) 11:30 AM – Rally in Abilene, Texas

3) 1:00 PM – Depart Abilene, Texas

4) 5:00 PM – Waco, Texas Rally

5) Overnight in Waco, Texas

Monday, October 25th

1) 7:30 AM – Depart Waco, Texas

2) 10:00 AM – Rally in Dallas, Texas

3) 12:00 Noon – Depart Dallas, Texas

4) 6:00 PM – Rally in Little Rock, Arkansas

5) Overnight in Little Rock, Arkansas

Tuesday, October 26th

1) 7:30 AM – Depart Little Rock, Arkansas

2) 4:00 PM – Rally in Franklin, Tennessee

3) 6:30 PM – Depart Franklin, Tennessee

4) 10:00 PM – Arrive in Paducah, Kentucky

5) Overnight in Paducah, Kentucky

Wednesday, October 27th

1) 11:00 AM – Rally in Paducah, Kentucky

2) 1:30 PM – Depart Paducah, Kentucky

3) 5:00 PM – Rally in St. Louis, Missouri

4) 7:30 PM – Depart St. Louis, Missouri

5) 10:00 PM – Arrive in Springfield, Illinois

6) Overnight in Springfield, Illinois

Thursday, October 28th

1) 9:00 AM – Rally in Springfield, Illinois

2) 11:30 AM – Depart Springfield, Illinois

3) 4:00 PM – Rally in Joliet, Illinois

4) 6:30 PM – Depart Joliet, Illinois

5) 11:00 PM – Arrive in Jackson, Michigan

Friday, October 29th

1) 10:00 AM – Rally in Jackson, Michigan

2) 12:30 PM – Depart Jackson, Michigan

3) 4:00 PM – Rally in Troy, Michigan

4) 6:30 PM – Depart Troy, Michigan

5) 11:00 PM – Arrive in Columbus, Ohio

Saturday, October 30th

1) 11:00 AM – Rally in Columbus, Ohio

2) 1:30 PM – Depart Columbus, Ohio

3) 9:00 PM – Arrive in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Sunday, October 31st

1) 10:00 AM – Rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

2) 12:00 Noon – Depart Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

3) 3:00 PM – Rally in Wilmington, Delaware

4) 5:30 PM – Depart Wilmington, Delaware

5) 8:00 PM – Rally in Toms River, New Jersey

6) Overnight in Toms River, New Jersey

Monday, November 1st

1) 8:00 AM – Depart Toms River, New Jersey

2) 2:00 PM – Rally in Attleboro, Massachusetts

3) 4:00 PM – Depart Attleboro, Massachusetts

4) 6:00 PM – Rally in Concord, New Hampshire

5) Conclusion of Tour”

Monday, September 27, 2010

Moral issues don’t matter?


From http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=2856

“Some Republicans on track to repeat past mistakes: ‘Our social and cultural fabric is unraveling.’

Posted: September 24, 2010

By John Biver

Writer Robert Patterson has a section titled ‘The Social-Economic Nexus,’ in his article titled ‘Fiscal Conservatism is Not Enough.’

(http://www.familyinamerica.org/index.php?doc_id=2&cat_id=7) He notes the following.

‘In [their book] Grand New Party, [Ross] Douthat and [Reihan] Salam make a compelling case, as did George Gilder and Jennifer Roback Morse in their earlier books, that social and moral well-being are more intertwined with economic issues than most Republican and libertarian players are willing to admit. Improving upon Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s remarks about politics and culture, Douthat and Salam claim: ‘The central American truth is that there’s no way to cleanly separate politics from culture, or to separate either one from economics.’’

Thoughtful observers of America are increasingly describing the existence of ‘working-class insecurity.’ What are its roots? Evidently, instead of abortion and marriage law being merely opportunistic wedge issues, they are substantive political questions at the root of many American social maladies.

‘[These issues are] the root of working-class insecurity. Safe streets, successful marriages, cultural solidarity, and vibrant religious and civic institutions make working-class Americans more likely to be wealthy, healthy, and upwardly mobile. Public disorder, family disintegration, cultural fragmentation, on the other hand, breed downward mobility and financial strain-which in turn breeds further social dislocation, in a vicious cycle that threatens to transform a working class into an underclass.’

Douthat and Salam echo Peggy Noonan’s observation that ‘so many Americans right now fear they are losing their country, that the old America is slipping away and being replaced by something worse, something formless and hollowed out.’’

Patterson also writes that the basic argument of authors Douthat and Salam is, ‘It’s the culture, stupid.’

‘Even before the meltdown of 2008, the economy that Ronald Reagan inspired was never as great as its cheerleaders claim, especially when compared to the achievements of the 1950s and the 1960s.’

One more passage from Robert Patterson’s great article is worth noting. Citing the moral question of slavery that President Abraham Lincoln faced, Patterson speculates that if he were alive today, ‘Lincoln would not be intimidated by ‘divisive’ social issues’’:

‘Nor would he listen to those seeking to narrow the party’s agenda to ‘fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets’ or advance a ‘federalist’ solution to abortion rights or marriage law. He might even suggest that influential voices that think the party can be fiscally conservative but socially neutral are operating on the wrong principles. The sixteenth president would surely want to see the GOP offer moral leadership for a country that faces a crisis almost as serious as what it faced in 1860.’ (I would say MORE serious than in 1860!—my addition)

Last week Mike Pence referred to the ‘glamour and the appeal of the new American left’ that the Obama campaign created during the 2008 campaign. Well, the bloom is off that rose for sure, but it’s now descended upon a shallow libertarian movement that would have us believe we can succeed by ignoring social issues. Here’s Pence:

‘We must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged. Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life, marriage and religious liberty, have forgotten the lessons of history. As in the days of a House divided, America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles.’

Pence wasn’t the only speaker at the Value Voters Summit to recognize that ‘our social and cultural fabric is unraveling.’

Here’s Mike Huckabee:

‘There are a lot of people who say this is not a year when we should be talking about social issues, values issues. Many of our economic issues are the result of the breakdown of character and integrity.’

Here’s Sen. Jim DeMint:

‘You can’t be a real fiscal conservative if you do not understand the value of a culture that’s based on values.’

Pence, Huckabee, and DeMint are helping raise the standard—and thank God for them.”

John Biver has said in other articles he has written that he is not a Christian. However, he has also written that there is no better moral system than the morality established by Judean-Christian morality. And he is absolutely correct. Only GOD has the power and authority to establish morality. NOT MAN!!!

Here’s the bottom line. If we do NOT change our moral fabric, even if we become financially conservative, we will still be condemned by GOD! Fiscal irresponsibility is a symptom; NOT the SIN!!!

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Barney Franks—help to defeat him in November


Although I am concentrating on electing conservatives to the U.S. Senate, I do plan on covering some races for the House of Representatives. Here’s one of them:

From: http://www.westernpac.org/

“Dear Patriot

This is Dustin Stockton Co-Founder and Chairman of the Western Representation PAC. Today, I am traveling to Massachusetts to organize and launch our campaign against Barney Frank. When I helped create Western Representation PAC I was determined to defeat corrupt Republicans and dangerously liberal Democrats but there are two races that I take personally, Harry Reid and Barney Frank. We are running a huge campaign against Reid, which leaves us with Barney Frank.

Barney is the most despicable person in government, but the main reason we began targeting Frank more than a year ago was his disturbing association with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 2004, Frank used his leadership role in the Housing committee to undermine a report that accurately warned of the impending collapse of the two mortgage giants. Learn more by joining our facebook group: The Campaign Against Barney Frank

(http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Campaign-Against-Barney-Frank/190390985138?ref=ts)

Now, new polling shows that we have a chance to defeat Barney Frank! Hot Air has the full story and you can read it here: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/22/poll-surprise-of-the-day-barney-frank-in-trouble/

Our goal is to spend $150,000 opposing Barney and supporting his Republican opponent Sean Bielat. We can help defeat Barney Frank but we need your help. Please make a contribution by clicking -------HERE-------

(https://www.defeatreid2010.org/wpdonate.html)

Today our team is traveling to Frank’s district so that we can create the best possible strategy to help pull off this historic upset. This would be the gigantic upset and would send a message to every liberal that there are NO SAFE DISTRICTS when you betray the American people! You can be a big part of this stunning upset by making a generous contribution --------HERE--------

(https://www.defeatreid2010.org/wpdonate.html)

As always you can send your contribution to:

Western Representation PAC
PO BOX 50655
Sparks, Nevada, 89435

Thank you for your support,

Dustin Stockton

Chairman WRPAC
Western Representation PAC
http://www.westernpac.org/

Friday, September 24, 2010

Senate races in 2010


From: http://senateconservatives.com/site/races

All the 2010 Senate Races:

“SCF (Senate Conservatives Fund—my addition) only endorses the most rock-solid, conservative Senate candidates nationwide. SCF has endorsed several candidates for the 2010 election cycle:

01) Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania),

02) Marco Rubio (Florida),

03) Ken Buck (Colorado),

04) Rand Paul (Kentucky),

05) Mike Lee (Utah),

06) Sharron Angle (Nevada),

07) Ron Johnson (Wisconsin),

08) Dino Rossi (Washington),

09) Joe Miller (Alaska),

10) Christine O’Donnell (Delaware).”

The individual State races for Senate

“01) ALABAMA

Senator Richard Shelby (R) has only nominal opposition. Shelby scored a 77% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard.

02) ALASKA

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R) was challenged and defeated by conservative Joe Miller (R) in the August 24 Republican primary. Murkowski scored a 50% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. This race presents a potential pick-up opportunity for conservatives. SCF endorses Joe Miller. [Lisa Murkowski is currently running as a write-in candidate. Conservatives need Joe Miller to win in Alaska to increase the conservative voice of the Senate—my addition]

03) ARIZONA

Senator John McCain (R) defeated J.D. Hayworth (R) in the August 24 Republican primary. McCain scored a 77% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. [Senator McCain has not lost an election in Arizona. I don’t see him losing in November—my addition.]

04) ARKANSAS

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) scored a 9% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Lincoln will face Congressman John Boozman (R) in November. This race presents a potential pick-up opportunity for Republicans.

05) CALIFORNIA

Senator Barbara Boxer (D) scored a 2% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard [That high!—my addition]. Boxer will face former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina (R) in November. This race presents a pick-up opportunity for Republicans.

06) COLORADO

Senator Michael Bennet (D) was appointed to the Senate after Ken Salazar vacated the seat to become Secretary of the Interior. Bennet will face conservative Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck (R) in November. This race presents a major pick-up opportunity for conservatives. SCF endorses Ken Buck.

07) CONNECTICUT

Senator Chris Dodd (D) is not running for re-election. The race to fill this open seat will be a contest between Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) and Linda McMahon (R). This race presents a potential pick-up opportunity for Republicans.

08) DELAWARE

Senator Tom Kaufman (D) is not running for re-election. Kaufman was appointed to the seat as a caretaker after Joe Biden became Vice President. This open seat will likely be filled by the winner of the September 14th Republican primary between Congressman Mike Castle (R) and Christine O’Donnell (R). This race presents a potential pick-up opportunity for conservatives. [This was written before the primary on the 14th. Of course, Christine O’Donnell won the Republican Party nomination. Her website is http://christine2010.com/home/—my addition.]

09) FLORIDA

Senator George LeMieux (R) is not running for re-election. LeMieux was appointed to the seat as a caretaker after Mel Martinez (R) resigned. The race to fill this open seat will likely be a contest between Kendrick Meek (D), Florida Governor Charlie Crist (I) and conservative Marco Rubio (R), the Former Speaker of the Florida House. This race presents a pick-up opportunity for conservatives. SCF endorses Marco Rubio.

10) GEORGIA

Senator Johnny Isakson (R) currently has only nominal opposition. Isakson scored a 77% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard.

11) HAWAII

Senator Daniel Inouye (D) will face the winner of the September 14 Republican primary between businessman Cam Cavusso (R) and social worker John Roco (R). Inouye scored a 2% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. [Cam Cavusso won the Republican primary. http://camcavasso.com/ seems to be his campaign website—my addition.]

12) IDAHO

Senator Mike Crapo (R) is running unopposed. Crapo scored a 83% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard.

13) ILLINOIS

Senator Roland Burris (D) is not running for re-election. The race to fill this open seat will is now a contest between Alexi Giannoulias (D) and U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R). This race presents a pick-up opportunity for Republicans. [I don’t think so. I told the Republican establishment before the primary that I would not support Mark Kirk and I will not and other conservatives agree. He is the ultimate RINO. He even voted to keep partial-birth abortions which even some Democrats did not do. There are at least two third party candidate running—my addition.]

14) INDIANA

Senator Evan Bayh (D) is not running for re-election. Congressman Brad Ellsworth (D) will face former Senator Dan Coats (R) in November. This race presents a potential pick-up opportunity for Republicans.

15) IOWA

Senator Chuck Grassley (R) scored a 77% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. There are several Democrats running to challenge Grassley.

16) KANSAS

Senator Sam Brownback (R) is retiring. This open seat will likely be filled by U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran (R), the winner of the August 3 Republican primary.

17) KENTUCKY

Senator Jim Bunning (R) is retiring. Attorney General Jack Conway (D) will face conservative ophthalmologist Rand Paul (R) in November. SCF endorses Rand Paul.

18) LOUISIANA

Senator David Vitter (R) scored a 91% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Vitter is being challenged by U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon (D).

19) MARYLAND

Senator Barbara Mikulski (D) scored a 2% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Mikulski has two Republican challengers: Jim Rutledge (R) and Eric Wargotz (R). The GOP primary is September 14, 2010. [Eric Wargotz won the Republican nomination. His website is http://wargotzforussenate.org/—my addition.]

20) MASSACHUSETTS

Senator Paul Kirk (D) is retiring. Kirk was appointed as a caretaker for the seat following the death of former Senator Ted Kennedy (D). The special election was held on January 19, 2010 between Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) and State Senator Scott Brown (R). Scott Brown was the winner.

21) MISSOURI

Senator Kit Bond (R) is retiring. U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt (R) faces Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) in November.

22) NEVADA

Senator Harry Reid (D) scored a 4% rating in the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Reid will face Assemblywoman Sharron Angle (R) in November. This race presents a major pick-up opportunity for conservatives. SCF endorses Sharron Angle. [Senator Harry Reid, of course, is the present Senate Majority Leader and declared “The war is LOST” in reference to the war in Iraq. He was very WRONG! He needs to be replaced!—my addition]

23) NEW HAMPSHIRE

Senator Judd Gregg (R) is retiring. The race to fill this open seat will likely be between U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes (D) and the winner of the Republican primary between Kelly Ayotte (R), Bill Binnie (R), and Ovide Lamontagne (R). The Republican primary is September 14, 2010. [Kelly Ayotte won the Republican primary. http://www.ayotteforsenate.com/ is her campaign website—my addition.]

24) NEW YORK - A

Senator Chuck Schumer (D) has nominal opposition. Schumer scored a 2% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard.

25) NEW YORK - B

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) is running for election. Gillibrand was appointed to the seat after Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State and vacated the seat. Gillibrand has nominal opposition.

26) NORTH CAROLINA

Senator Richard Burr (R) scored an 89% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Senator Burr will face Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D) in November.

27) NORTH DAKOTA

Senator Byron Dorgan (D) is not running for re-election. This open seat will likely be filled by John Hoeven (R), the winner of the June 8 Republican primary. This race presents a potential pick-up opportunity for Republicans.

28) OHIO

Senator George Voinovich (R) is retiring. Former Congressman Rob Portman (R) will face Lt. Governor Lee Fisher (D) in November.

29) OKLAHOMA

Senator Tom Coburn (R) is running unopposed. Coburn scored a 96% on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard, and is one of the strongest conservatives in the U.S. Senate.

30) OREGON

Senator Ron Wyden (D) faces constitutional law professor Jim Huffman (R) in November. Wyden scored a 6% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. This race presents a potential pick-up opportunity for Republicans.

31) PENNSYLVANIA

Senator Arlen Specter (D) scored a 44% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Specter was defeated by U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak (D) in the Democratic primary. Sestak will now face former Congressman Pat Toomey (R) in November. This race presents a major pick-up opportunity for conservatives. SCF endorses Pat Toomey.

32) SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator Jim DeMint (R) scored a 100% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. DeMint has only nominal opposition.

33) SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator John Thune (R) is running unopposed. Thune scored an 85% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard.

34) UTAH

Senator Bob Bennett (R) scored a 60% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Bennett was eliminated from the Republican nominating process at the May 8 Utah GOP Nominating Convention. Conservative Mike Lee (R) defeated Tim Bridgewater (R) in the June 22 Republican primary and will now face Sam Granato (D) in November. SCF endorses Mike Lee.

35) VERMONT

Senator Pat Leahy (D) faces only nominal opposition. Leahy scored a 4% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard.

36) WASHINGTON

Senator Patty Murray (D) scored a 0% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Murray will face conservative Dino Rossi (R) in November. This race presents a potential pick-up opportunity for conservatives. SCF endorses Dino Rossi.

37) WISCONSIN

Senator Russ Feingold (D) scored a 21% rating on the 2008 SCF Senate scorecard. Feingold is being challenged by several Republicans, including conservative Ron Johnson (R) and Dave Westlake (R). The GOP primary is September 14. SCF endorses Ron Johnson.” [Ron Johnson won the Republican primary election. His website is http://ronjohnsonforsenate.com/—my addition.]

I plan to have more posts on selected Senate races between now and November 2.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Joe Miller, Lisa Murkowski, and the Republican Party


From Senate Conservatives Fund

“Dear Friends:

You’re not going to believe what happened yesterday. Just when I thought Republicans in Washington were beginning to get the message, they went back to business as usual.

As you know, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski lost the Republican primary to her conservative challenger, Joe Miller, in a fair fight. But instead of graciously conceding and endorsing the Republican nominee, Murkowski announced that she will continue her campaign as an independent write-in candidate.

Senate Republicans held a closed-door meeting yesterday afternoon to elect someone to replace Senator Murkowski as the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Or so we thought.

Rather than taking away Murkowski’s leadership position on the committee, Senate Republicans decided to let her keep it. One senator after another stood up to argue in favor of protecting her place on the committee—a position she will no doubt use in her campaign against Joe Miller, the conservative Republican nominee.

It was bad enough to watch my colleagues work to support her in the primary after she had built a record of betraying conservatives principles. But watching them back her after she left the party and launched a campaign against the Republican nominee was more than I could bear.

I spoke out against the motion and I voted against it. But the good ol’ boys Senate club, which always protects its own, prevailed. The motion was adopted by secret ballot and the final tally was not disclosed.

Support Joe Miller for U.S. Senate

https://senateconservatives.com/joemiller?c=EY4C9B3B05D0930

Keep in mind that I was attacked just last week by the Washington establishment for supporting Christine O'Donnell—a conservative—because they believe her nomination will hand the seat to a Democrat in Delaware. This week, however, that same establishment voted to help Lisa Murkowski—a moderate—defeat the Republican nominee, which could hand the seat to a Democrat in Alaska.

Marc Thiessen addressed this double standard in a column he wrote for the Washington Post on Tuesday, which you can read here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092003019.html) Here’s an excerpt:

‘In that sense of entitlement, Murkowski is not alone. All last week, we heard the GOP establishment complain how the Tea Party is threatening Republican unity by pursuing ‘ideological purity’ at the expense of a ‘big tent’ party. But Tea Party-endorsed candidates are the ones who have stayed within the GOP tent. Rather than launching destructive third-party bids, fiscally conservative insurgents have contested GOP primaries—and when they have lost, they have endorsed their establishment opponents virtually without fail.

Contrast that with the record of the establishment candidates. When it became clear Charlie Crist would lose to Marco Rubio in Florida’s Senate race, Crist bolted the GOP and decided to run as an independent. When Arlen Specter saw he would lose to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania’s Senate race, he became a Democrat. And, after losing the GOP nomination in Alaska, Murkowski is running as an independent write-in candidate. And yet, we are told that it is the Tea Party that is dividing the GOP and threatening party unity. For establishment candidates, unity seems to be a one-way street. The message to Tea Party activists across the country is: We want your votes but not your candidates.

The idea that DeMint and the Tea Party are threatening the GOP’s chances for reclaiming the majority is absurd. Republicans wouldn't have a shot at taking back either the House or Senate were it not for the Tea Party movement, which has both energized the conservative base and attracted independents to the GOP by promising to reform the party and restore fiscal sanity in Washington. The best way to dispirit the conservative base and lose those independents would be to take back the majority and go back to business as usual.’ (click here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/20/AR2010092003019.html) to read Thiessen’s column)

Support Joe Miller for U.S. Senate

https://senateconservatives.com/joemiller?c=EY4C9B3B05D0930

Yesterday’s decision by Senate Republicans to hurt the conservative nominee in Alaska is certainly dispiriting, but it’s also a healthy reminder that we must keep fighting to elect new Republicans who won't continue business as usual. If we’re going to change Washington, we have to change the people we send to Washington. It’s that simple.

Please join me today in supporting Joe Miller for U.S. Senate in Alaska. The Washington establishment is doing everything it can to help Lisa Murkowski hold on to power. The grassroots defeated her once in the primary election and we can do it again in November.

We’ve set a goal of raising $150,000 for Joe Miller’s campaign. Please help us reach it and please give a little extra to the Senate Conservatives Fund while you’re at it. Senator Murkowski said the ‘gloves are now off’ when she announced her write-in campaign against Joe Miller. By giving to SCF, we will be able to run ads in Alaska that stops her campaign dead in its tracks.

Thank you for standing up for freedom. Washington may not be listening now but it will be in November.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

Support Joe Miller for U.S. Senate

https://senateconservatives.com/joemiller?c=EY4C9B3B05D0930

My take on this issue: If the Republican Party will not wholeheartedly support candidates who have legitimately won the nomination in the Republican Party primary(s) then it is time to establish a new conservative party in this nation. The RINO Republican Party members have three basic choices—support the candidates of the Party, obstruct the candidates of the Party that they don’t choose to support, or get out of the way. If they obstruct the candidates of the Party, it’s time to kick them out of the Party or start a new Conservative Party that will support conservative candidates. It’s that simple!

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Phil Hare—searches for anything to save his job


This was not my planned post for today. Skimming today’s paper—Peoria Journal Star, 9/22/10, page B5—I saw the following headline “Hare asked opponent to give back donation.” The Hare referenced, of course, is Representative Phil Hare of Illinois who is the Congressman from District 17. After reading the story, I went to Representative Hare’s website. The following is a complete quote from the website dealing with this issue.

From http://friendsofphilhare.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=295:hare-calls-on-schilling-to-return-cintas-money&catid=51:press-releases&Itemid=107

“Hare Calls on Schilling to Return Cintas Money

September 20, 2010—Congressman Phil Hare (D-Rock Island) today called on Republican Congressional candidate Bobby Schilling to return the over $5,000 he has received from Cintas Corporation executives.

Cincinnati, Ohio based Cintas has one of the worst employee health and safety records in the nation. In 2007, Eleazar Torres-Gomez was killed after being dragged into an industrial dryer for at least twenty minutes. Hare led the call for a nationwide investigation into the company. In December 2008, Cintas settled with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for nearly $3 million. ‘Plant management at the Cintas Tulsa laundry facility ignored safety and health rules that could have prevented the death of this employee,’ said Edwin G. Foulke Jr., the assistant secretary of labor in charge of OSHA under President George W. Bush after levying the fine.

In April, ABC News investigative journalist Brian Ross highlighted the case during a piece entitled ‘Death on the Job in America.’ Click here to watch the report, which includes video of a particular practice Cintas management allegedly encouraged which eventually led to the death of Torres-Gomez.

‘I call on Bobby Schilling to return the $5800 he took from Cintas executives who are seeking to punish me because I have publicly challenged their reckless disregard for employee safety,’ Hare said. ‘He took their money, despite the fact that they received an almost $3 million fine from OSHA—one of the largest in history—because their willful negligence led to the death of a worker in an industrial dryer. How can he accept this Ohio company’s money? And how can he have any credibility on condemning special interest money from outside the district when he takes that very money from the worst of the worst?”

Is he joking! Is he trying to associate the Republican candidate—Bobby Schilling—with this company—guilt by contribution—just because the company executives decided to contribute to the Schilling campaign as have thousands of other people and company executives. Does any candidate have control over who donates to his campaign and who doesn’t?

Does Phil Hare actually want us to believe that ever person, company executive, and union official who contributes to his campaign is squeaky clean with no negative in their background? Really? Will he return any campaign donations that do not meet the standards he is requiring of Bobby Schilling? Who is Phil Hare that he is to decide what money the Schilling campaign should and should not accept?

Could the real reason be that Phil Hare is afraid that he might lose in the general election. This is the same Phil Hare who was video taped saying he doesn’t care about the Constitution when it comes to healthcare and his concept of what is “right” and “good” for America.

If he believes that Bobby Schilling should return the contributions, then I believe that he should immediately resign from his office of trust for violating his oath of office. This is what the Constitution says in Article VI, Section 1, ¶ 3 about his oath to uphold the Constitution. “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned … shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution .…” If Phil Hare does not care what the Constitution says when it comes to healthcare as he so stated, then obviously, he is NOT supporting the Constitution. Therefore, shouldn’t he immediately resign or be removed from office—if not be the House of Representatives, then by the voters in the 17th District?

And guess what. That just might happen. The following is the latest poll I could find on the election for this District. Bobby Schilling is ahead by 3% points in a District that the Republicans did not even run a candidate for in 2008. Could Phil Hare be concerned about losing his job? Is Phil Hare grasping for any straw to save him from losing in November?

From http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2010/house/il/illinois_17th_district_schilling_vs_hare-1458.html

“Polling Data

WeAskAmerica

Poll Date: 9/8 - 9/8

Sample: 1250 RV (RV stands for registered voters—my addition.)

Schilling [R]: 41%

Hare [D]: 38%

Spread: Schilling +3”

The following analysis was from the start of the race earlier this year. The exact date of the analysis was not given. Notice in this analysis Phil Hare had a 39%-32% lead. From the latest poll I could find—September 8th—Bobby Schilling now has a three point lead at 41%-38% with Phil Hare actually losing some support and Schilling picking up support from the undecided category.

Desperation from Hare calls for desperate actions? Is the above complaint the result of desperation from an incumbent candidate who has far more money than Bobby Schilling has. Remember Phil Hare did not have any opposition in 2008. Therefore, he has campaign money that probably dates back to 2006 after he won his first election. People like to contribute to the winning candidates of elections. Some people don’t like
Representatives who don’t care about the Constitution!

“Race Analysis

Illinois’ 17th District defies easy description. The district’s historical base is in Rock Island and West Central Illinois, but the latest iteration includes an ungainly appendage that traces down the Mississippi, runs east, and then sprouts pincers to take in Democratic terrain in Springfield and Decatur. The district leans a few points toward the Democrats, but not overwhelmingly so.

The 17th is represented by Phil Hare, first elected in 2006. In the landslide conditions of that year, he won with a convincing 57 percent of the vote, and was unopposed in 2008. Hare has compiled a reliably liberal voting record, earning him perfect scores from the ACLU, AFSCME, and Americans for Democratic Action.

Hare has received some unfavorable publicity from a videotaped response he gave where he purported not to care about whether the Constitution authorized the health care law, and a We Ask America poll showed him leading his Republican opponent, restaurateur Bobby Schilling, 39-32. Schilling has managed to raise about $300,000 through the second quarter, which goes a long way in this district. If things get bad enough for Democrats, Schilling could be the Fred Heineman of 2010.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Constitution Day—Answers to the author’s questions


Answers, as given by the writer of the original questions, to the Constitution quiz as well as my comments where I considered it appropriate:

From: http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/liberty/do-you-really-know-the-constitution/?eiid=&rmid=2010_09_17_PLA&rrid=387097743

“01) Has the Constitution always guided our country?

Answer: 01) No. Originally the nation functioned under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. Eleven years after the Declaration of Independence the Constitution was written, agreed to and sent to the states for ratification. When ratified by nine states (as the document itself prescribed), the Constitution was declared to be the new governmental system. That occurred on Sept. 13, 1788. The new government was ordered to be convened on March 4, 1789.

02) What are the three branches of government named in the Constitution?

Answer: 02) Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

03) Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make law?

Answer: 03) No. The very first sentence in the Constitution states: ‘All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….’ Any Supreme Court decision is the law of the case that binds only the plaintiff and the defendant. The meaning of the word ‘all’ has not been changed.”

MY Answer: 03) Actually, the above is the first sentence of Article I, Section 1. The Constitution does have a preamble that begins “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ….’

“04) Does the Constitution empower the President to make law?

Answer: 04) No. Executive Orders issued by the President that bind the entire nation are illicit because, as noted above, ‘All legislative powers’ are possessed by Congress. An Executive Order that binds only the employees of the Federal government (such as granting a holiday) is proper because the President should be considered to be the holder of power much like that possessed by the CEO of a company. But the entire nation is not in the employ of the President.

The President does have a role in lawmaking with his possession of a veto. He can veto a measure approved by Congress (which can be overturned by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress), or simply allow it to become law by doing nothing within 10 days, ‘Sundays excepted.’”

MY Answer: 04) Of course, the President may also sign the bill approving the new law.

“05) Does the Constitution give the Federal government any power in the field of education?

Answer: 05) No. The Constitution contains no mention of any power ‘herein granted’ in the field of education.

06) Where in the Constitution is there authorization to dispense foreign aid?

Answer: 06) No such authorization appears in the Constitution.

07) Did the Constitution give the Federal government power to create a bank?

Answer: 07) No. Congress was granted power to ‘coin money,’ meaning it was to have the right to create a mint where precious metal could be stamped into coinage of fixed size, weight and purity. There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to have created the Federal Reserve.”

MY Answer: 07) I believe the author is ignoring history and trying, perhaps, to redefine the concept of “coin money” as meant by the writers of the Constitution. The following is from http://www.ronscurrency.com/

“The History of U.S. Paper Money

In the early days of the nation, before and just after the revolution, Americans used English, Spanish, and French money.

1690 Colonial Notes

The Massachusetts Bay Colony issued the first paper money in the colonies which would later form the United States.

1775 Continental Currency

American colonists issued paper currency for the Continental Congress to finance the Revolutionary War. The notes were backed by the ‘anticipation’ of tax revenues. Without solid backing and easily counterfeited, the notes quickly became devalued, giving rise to the phrase ‘not worth a Continental.’

1781 Nation’s First Bank

Also to support the Revolutionary War, the continental Congress chartered the Bank of North America in Philadelphia as the nation’s first ‘real’ bank.

1785 The Dollar

The Continental Congress determined that the official monetary system would be based on the dollar, but the first coin representing the start of this system would not be struck for several years.

1791 First U.S. Bank

After adoption of the Constitution in 1789, Congress chartered the First Bank of the United States until 1811 and authorized it to issue paper bank notes to eliminate confusion and simplify trade. The bank served as the U.S. Treasury’s fiscal agent, thus performing the first central bank functions.

1792 Monetary System

The federal monetary system was established with the creation of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia. The first American coins were struck in 1793.

1816 Second U.S. Bank

The second Bank of the United States was chartered for 20 years until 1836.”

From this history, it is obvious that the writers of the Constitution and we the people during this time period had a different interpretation of this phrase than does the author.

“08) Can the provisions of a treaty supersede the Constitution?

Answer: 08) Absolutely not. Thomas Jefferson responded to those who consider treaty-making power to be ‘boundless’ by stating, ‘If it is, then we have no Constitution.’”

MY Answer: 08) The author is WRONG! Thomas Jefferson is not the authority on this issue. He was not a signer of the Constitution—only two citizens from Virginia signed the Constitution. These were John Blair and James Madison Jr. The same Jefferson was used by Supreme Court Justices to rationalize the separation of church and State which is NOT in the first Amendment.

This is what the Constitution says on this issue in Article VI, ¶ 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

This is known as the Supremacy Clause. Note that three items are considered the supreme law of the land—the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law and U.S. treaties. That is the writing of this paragraph. Note also, that nowhere is the Supreme Court or any other federal court given the authority and/or power to interpret the U.S. Constitution, U.S. law, and/or U.S. treaties. The federal courts are simply not given that power ANYWHERE!

So, why didn’t the writers identify the U.S. Constitution alone as the Supreme Law of the land? I can’t say for certain. My guess is that the writers believed the “checks and balance” system built into the Constitution would prevent contradictions. The President would veto laws passed by Congress that were unconstitutional. If the veto was overridden, the people or the States would remove the culprits who dared to violate the Constitution. Treaties had to be agreed to by the President and by 2/3rds of the Senate which should prevent treaties in violation of the Constitution. If not, again, the violators could be removed from office. What is NOT provided is: the federal courts as interpreter of the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, and/or U.S. treaties. The courts DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY!

“09) Does the Constitution allow a President to take the nation into war?

Answer: 09) It does not. The sole power to declare the nation at war is possessed by Congress. Congress last used this power at the beginning of World War II, when war was declared on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Germany declared war on the U.S. the next day.) A congressional vote to authorize the President to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions should never be considered a substitute for a formal declaration of war.”

MY Answer: 09) The question does not ask who has the power to declare war. The statement is true but incomplete.

In the Constitution, Article II, Section 2: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States ….”

The following is from “A Patriot’s History of the United States” by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, Sentinel, © 2004, page 168.

“America’s First Preemptive War
Throughout the 1790’s, Republicans had leveled a number of highly critical attacks at Federalist foreign policy makers. Now, at last, the party of Jefferson was free to mold its own foreign policy. Jefferson dealt with some of North Africa’s Barbary pirates, sea-going Muslim outlaws from Morocco, Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli who regularly plundered 1790s American Mediterranean shipping. Washington and Adams had paid some small bribes at first—the trade was not sufficient to warrant military expedition—and it could be rationalized as the way of doing business in that part of the world. But when the pasha of Tripoli chopped down the flagpole at the U.S. consulate there, it was a direct affront and an act of war. (An act of war because the U.S. consulate is U.S. territory—my addition.) In 1801, Jefferson slow downed his mothballing of the naval fleet and sent ships to blockade the port. Operating only under a set of joint resolutions, not a declaration of war, Jefferson nevertheless informed all the Barbary States that the United States was at war with them.”

Note: The same Jefferson who is quoted by the author used the military for the good of the nation WITHOUT a declaration of war. That, again, was in 1801 long before the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Conflict, and today’s conflicts.

“10) Can you name any of the four crimes mentioned in the Constitution?

Answer: 10) The four crimes mentioned are: Treason, bribery, piracy and counterfeiting.

11) Should the Bill of Rights be considered part of the original Constitution?

Answer: 11) Many do hold that view because if the promise to add a Bill of Rights had not been made during the ratification process, some states would not have ratified the Constitution.”

MY Answer: 11) The author didn’t answer the question. The answer is: NO, the Bill of Rights is not part of the original Constitution. That is why they are also referred to as the first ten Amendments which they are. Actually, twelve Amendments, if I remember correctly, were considered and only ten were enacted.

“12) According to the Constitution, how can a President and other national officers be removed from office?

Answer: 12) The President and other high officers of the Federal government can be impeached by a majority in the House and tried by the Senate. Impeachment does not constitute removal; it should be considered the equivalent of an indictment that must be followed by a trial. Two-thirds of the Senators ‘present’ must approve removal at the subsequent trial to effect removal.

13) How many amendments have been added to the Constitution?

Answer: 13) There are 27. The first 10 (the Bill of Rights) can be considered part of the original Constitution. Amendment 18 was repealed by Amendment 21. This means that, in 223 years, only 15 other amendments have been added.”

MY Answer: 13) The answer is, of course, 27. The remainder of his comment is unnecessary and somewhat misleading.

“14) How is an amendment added to the Constitution?

Answer: 14) The process was deliberately made difficult to keep anything dangerous or silly from being added to the Constitution in the heat of passion. Congress can propose an amendment when two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to do so. Any proposed amendment must then by ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the States. Amendments can also be proposed by a Federal Constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the States. Any amendment arising from a Constitutional convention must also be ratified by the legislature or a convention in three-quarters of the states.

15) Does the Constitution say anything about illegal immigration?

Answer: 15) Not directly. But Article IV, Section 4 assigns to the Federal government the duty ‘to protect each of them [the States] from invasion.’ It does not specify that the invasion must be military. When 12 million people enter our nation illegally, it is an invasion that should be repelled by the Federal government.”

MY Answer: 15) Illegal immigration is not in the Constitution. I would suggest that the use of the “Invasion Clause” may be a stretch. However, there are two portions of the Constitution that seem to provide that both the States and the federal government may have jurisdiction over illegal immigration.

The first from Article I, Section 8, ¶ 4 states the Congress has the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ….”

The second from Article I, Section 9, ¶ 1 says “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight ….”

Therefore, it seems that the States may establish rules for migration and importation of persons (the above provision of course is concerned with Blacks/slaves) within their States and the federal government may set rules to cover the entire nation which supercede those State rules. However, NOTHING prevents a State from regulating the people by law once any person, including illegal immigrants, is living within that State.
“16) Is the term of a President limited by the Constitution?

Answer: 16) Yes. In 1951, Amendment 22 was added to the Constitution to limit any President to two terms. The only President who served longer than two terms was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held office during a fourth four-year term. He died in April 1945 shortly after beginning his 13th year in office.

17) Which part of the Federal government holds ‘the power of the purse’?

Answer: 17) The House of Representatives. Article I, Section 7 states: ‘All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….’ If a majority in the House (218 of its 435 members) refuses to originate a bill to raise revenue for something, then no funds can be spent on that activity.”

MY Answer: 17) Part of the author’s explanation is incorrect. It is a majority of the members of the House voting NOT an absolute majority (218 of its 435 members) that is necessary.

“18) Does the Constitution provide a method for expelling a member of Congress?

Answer: 18) Two-thirds of each House has the authority to expel any of its members for cause even though the member has been elected by voters.

19) How many times is the word ‘democracy’ mentioned in the Constitution?

Answer: 19) The word ‘democracy’ does not appear in the Constitution. Our nation is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The Founders feared Democracy (unrestricted rule by majority) and favored a Republic (rule of law where the law limits the government). James Madison wrote: ‘…. Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.’”

MY Answer: 19) The author is incorrect in his assertion that the U.S. is not a democracy. There are two forms of a democracy. 1) a pure or direct democracy in which the eligible citizens gather together as a group to govern, such as the New England townhall meetings and 2) a republic or indirect democracy in which the eligible citizens select/elect representatives to represent them in governance. The U.S. is a republic. The U.S is also a democracy since a republic is a form of a democracy.

However, the author is correct that many of the Founding Fathers did have some fear of a democracy including a republic. That is why so many checks and balances are built into the Constitution, that is why there is a Constitution, and that is why, in part, that the Senate exists and is made up of only two representatives per State regardless of the population of the State and why originally the members of the Senate were selected by the State rather than the people of the State.

“20) Does the Bill of Rights grant the people free speech, freedom of the press, the right to possess a weapon, etc?

Answer: 20) No. The Declaration of Independence, which provides the philosophical base of our nation, states very clearly that our rights are granted to us by our Creator. The various rights noted in the Bill of Rights were not granted by government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to prevent the Federal government from suspending any of those God-given rights, including the right to possess a weapon. Those who claim ‘Second Amendment rights,’ for instance, make a big mistake with such a statement. If the right is granted by the Second Amendment, meaning by government, it can be taken away by government. If the right is granted by God, only He can take it away.”

MY Answer: 20) Yes, the author is both wrong and inconsistent in his logic. The Declaration of Independence does correctly say our rights come from God. However, the only rights specifically listed are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The only way to identify any other unalienable Rights other that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is to identify said rights, which is exactly what most of the first ten Amendments accomplishes. And yes, the right to keep and bear arms may be removed as can any other right listed in the Constitution by means of Constitutional Amendment. If this is not true, then there would have been no need to include the first ten Amendments which is exactly what he said in an earlier comment about the first ten Amendments.

“While every politician pays lip service to the Constitution (the President, Vice President, and every member of Congress take an oath to ‘preserve and protect’ it), the sad truth is that vast majority of actions taken by the Federal government are not authorized by the Constitution.

I have heard it said that, if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced today, the Federal government would be 20 percent of its present size and would cost 20 percent of its present budget. I think those numbers are an exaggeration; I suspect the truth would be closer to 10 percent.

Just imagine: No foreign aid, no Departments of Education, Housing, Health, Agriculture or Homeland Security. No commissions, bureaucratic monstrosities or other meddlesome agencies that ‘harass our people and eat out their substance.’ (That’s an actual indictment of King George from the Declaration of Independence.)

What would this country be like if the Constitution were fully and honestly enforced? I hope some day we’ll find out.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

—Chip Wood”

Monday, September 20, 2010

“No One Is Laughing”, “Come to the U.S.A.”, and “Throw the Bums Out”


I know! I was suppose to post the answers to the Constitution quiz today. I decided I wanted to add some comments to some of the answers for clarification. I just didn’t have the time.

We have been operating in crisis mode since a week ago Sunday. I thought there was improvement by Thursday afternoon. Sunday, all seemed well when I left for church. It wasn’t.

By about 5PM, it had returned with a flurry. It seems though that the problem is more mental than physical. Doctors gave a clean bill of health and things once again are getting back to normal today. Hopefully tomorrow, I’ll have time to finish and post the answers to the Constitution quiz.

Until then, check out the following video clips:

From: https://secure.freedomdonations.com/mcdc/no_amnesty/?a=2068

“No One is Laughing”

From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE&feature=channel

“Come to the U.S.A. by Ray Stevens”

From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q59ZcFguUOo&NR=1

“Throw the Bums Out by Ray Stevens”

Saturday, September 18, 2010

“AND THE PEOPLE ARE RIGHT!”


I know! I said in my post yesterday that I would post the answers to the Constitution quiz today. And I was planning on doing so. I even prepared the post yesterday. I now plan to post the answers on Monday.

However, later in the day, I received an e-mail and decided to post a link today to a CNBC interview that was originally aired in May of this year. If I don’t post it now it might slip through with all this election year business going on. I think it is worth viewing. What about you?

“Can you believe that CNBC actually aired this?

Someone in the controlled media made a mistake. Take a minute of your time and watch this.

What’s equally amazing is that CNBC actually aired this, and CNBC is one of the favorite propaganda machines of the Obama White House!

It was not even 2 hours after Steve Wynn’s interview that he received an invitation from the tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC wanting him to explain in person why he said what he said! Below is a short interview with Steve Wynn. Some of you know of him. He’s a multi-billionaire, hotelier and real estate investor in Las Vegas and Asia. He’s been a guest from time to time on all the network financial news programs.

If you listen to his recent CNBC interview, short & to the point, you will be better informed than your neighbor about the state of the union.”

I received the above comment from one of my sources along with the link for the video. I don’t know how accurate the above information is, but the comments on the video are important—especially since Barack Hussein Obama seems to believe that the federal government has the power to repeal basic supply and demand principles. It DOESN’T!

Watch the whole video! When he refers to 07 and 08, he is referring to the federal budget in 2007 and 2008 when the Democrats were in control of Congress and therefore in control of the federal budget. Congress controls the federal purse strings; NOT the President. “And the people are Right! It’s got to stop! It’s got to stop!”

The link to the video: http://www.infowars.com/steve-wynn-takes-on-washington/

From: CNBC
May 29, 2010

“And the people are Right! It’s got to stop! It’s got to stop!”

Friday, September 17, 2010

Constitution Day—a Constitution quiz: would President Obama pass the test?


From: http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/liberty/do-you-really-know-the-constitution/?eiid=&rmid=2010_09_17_PLA&rrid=387097743

“Do You Really Know The Constitution?

September 17, 2010 by Chip Wood

Today is Constitution Day—a day specifically designated by an Act of Congress when Americans are supposed to honor the remarkable document that created our system of government. The date was chosen because the Constitution was approved at the original Constitutional Convention on Sept. 17, 1787.

The act that created Constitution Day mandates that all publicly-funded educational institutions provide educational programming on the history of the American Constitution on that day. Let’s see how well the schools have done their job.

Ask a recent high school or college graduate to take the following brief quiz. I’ll be interested to hear how many of the 20 questions he or she answers correctly.

And be sure to take the quiz yourself. Even if you score 100 percent, it’s good to be reminded of some of the fundamental principles upon which our country was founded.

The quiz was compiled by an old friend, John McManus, who is president of the John Birch Society. Thanks, John, for permission to share this with my readers today.

01) Has the Constitution always guided our country?

02) What are the three branches of government named in the Constitution?

03) Does the Constitution allow the Supreme Court to make law?

04) Does the Constitution empower the President to make law?

05) Does the Constitution give the Federal government any power in the field of education?

06)Where in the Constitution is there authorization to dispense foreign aid?

07) Did the Constitution give the Federal government power to create a bank?

08) Can the provisions of a treaty supersede the Constitution?

09) Does the Constitution allow a President to take the nation into war?

10) Can you name any of the four crimes mentioned in the Constitution?

11) Should the Bill of Rights be considered part of the original Constitution?

12) According to the Constitution, how can a President and other national officers be removed from office?

13) How many amendments have been added to the Constitution?

14) How is an amendment added to the Constitution?

15) Does the Constitution say anything about illegal immigration?

16) Is the term of a President limited by the Constitution?

17) Which part of the Federal government holds “the power of the purse”?

18) Does the Constitution provide a method for expelling a member of Congress?

19) How many times is the word “democracy” mentioned in the Constitution?

20) Does the Bill of Rights grant the people free speech, freedom of the press, the right to possess a weapon, etc?

It wasn’t as easy as you thought it would be, was it? Here are the answers, also as provided by McManus.”

I will post the answers tomorrow. Time to pull out the Constitution?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

GOD save Arizona by Ray Stevens


I received the following link Tuesday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWpOcZVnBrc

The song is self-explanatory. So, why is OUR federal government ATTACKING one of OUR own States? A State that is trying to do what the federal government WON’T!

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Petition to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC)


I received the following early today and “signed” the petition as well as making a comment which I have included in the post. Later, I heard on the Rush Limbaugh show that Senator Cornyn, who is chairman of the NRSC, said that she (Christine O’Donnell) will be supported and receive as much money from the NRSC as the other Republican candidates.

I debated whether or not to post this and decided to do so. The Republican leadership has still not gotten the message that we are NOT going to support Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) anymore. I will NOT vote for RINO Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk in November. PERIOD! I’m NOT a Republican. I’m a conservative!

From http://www.teapartyexpress.org/

“We Need Your Help as NRSC Refuses To Back Their Own Nominee in U.S. Senate Race

On Tuesday night, Conservative Republican Christine O’Donnell won the nomination for U.S. Senate fair and square in the Republican Primary.

The problem? While in the middle of her victory speech, representatives of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) said they would refuse to support O’Donnell in the General Election because their favored candidate, Liberal RINO Mike Castle, did not win.

This is absurd and unacceptable. Please help us deliver a powerful message to the NRSC that we will not stand for this, and we expect them to abide by the wishes of Delaware Republicans who voted for Christine O’Donnell as their nominee for U.S. Senate.

Sign our petition demanding that the NRSC reverse course—HERE.

(http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/supportchristineodonnell/)

Please be sure to forward this to your friends as well—we need as many signatures as possible.”

From: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/supportchristineodonnell/

“The petition:

National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has announced they will not support their own nominee for U.S. Senate, Christine O’Donnell, because they wanted their preferred candidate, Liberal RINO Mike Castle.

This is a disgrace! The NRSC is defying the will of Republican voters in Delaware, and this cannot be tolerated. We demand the NRSC provide full support to Christine O’Donnell for this important Senate seat, just as they would any other Republican nominee.

Please sign the petition below to demand the NRSC get their act together!

Sign petition

Name:

E-mail address:

Comment:”

My comment:

“It’s simple! Support conservative candidates or die off as a political party. Republicans can NOT be Democrats-lite and survive. The nation is at stake. TAKE BACK the NATION or get out of the way!”

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Senate Conservatives Fund Candidates—an update


The following is based upon polls thus should be considered accordingly. I think it is significant to see, however, that at this point in time, it seems these candidates are doing well!
“Date: Sep 3, 2010 6:53 AM

Dear Friends:

I’m proud to report that we are making remarkable progress in our campaign to shake up the United States Senate.

Several months ago, the Washington establishment and the elites in the mainstream media scoffed at our endorsements of conservative candidates. They said these outsiders had no chance of defeating their better-known and better-funded Republican opponents.

They were wrong. Our candidates stood on principle, gave voters a true choice, and surged to victory.

Then, the establishment said our principled candidates were ‘extreme’ and would certainly lose the general election to more ‘mainstream’ Democrats. You see, these insiders are convinced that Americans are liberal at heart and would never vote for someone who believes in limited government.

They were wrong, again. In fact, in poll after poll, conservatives are surging.

Support the Senate Conservatives

(https://senateconservatives.com/support?c=624C80572CE1828)

The Senate Conservatives Fund is now supporting nine rock-solid conservative Senate candidates, and I’m proud to report that according to the most recent Rasmussen Reports surveys, EVERY ONE is now LEADING IN THE POLLS.

1) In Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey leads Joe Sestak by 6 points;

2) In Florida, Marco Rubio leads Charlie Crist and Kendrick Meek by 10 points.

3) In Colorado, Ken Buck leads Michael Bennet by 4 points.

4) In Kentucky, Rand Paul leads Jack Conway by 10 points.

5) In Utah, Mike Lee leads Sam Granato by 25 points.

6) In Nevada, Sharron Angle leads Harry Reid by 2 points.

7) In Wisconsin, Ron Johnson leads Russ Feingold by 1 point.

8) In Washington, Dino Rossi leads Patty Murray by 3 points; and

9) In Alaska, Joe Miller leads Scott McAdams by 6 points.

It doesn't matter what part of the country they are in, conservatives candidates are surging. America is waking up to the threat posed by a federal government that taxes too much, spends too much, and borrows too much.

Americans are coming to recognize that this election is the most important of our lifetime. If we don't turn things around soon, it may be too late. That is why I am so grateful to each of you who have sacrificed your time and money to promote these outstanding leaders.

Support the Senate Conservatives

First, the critics said our candidates couldn't win their primaries, and then they said they were too "extreme" to win the general election. Now, they're beginning to talk about what will happen WHEN -- not IF -- they are elected.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal published a story this week that says our candidates will destroy the comity of the Senate.

My response to this is: too bad!!

It's time that the world's most deliberative body have people serving in it who actually read the bills and who have the courage to say "No!" It's time to elect leaders who will take their oath of office to "support and defend" the Constitution, and mean it.

A lot of people are now discussing the possibility of Republicans taking back the majority in the Senate this year. That may be possible and it may not. What's important is that we elect as many principled conservatives as possible.

The last thing the Republican Party needs in 2010 is a repeat of 1994 where it elects leaders who fail to live up to their promises. That is why the Senate Conservatives Fund puts principle ahead of party and works to elect only those candidates who will fight for balanced budgets, constitutional limits, and individual liberty.

Support the Senate Conservatives

(https://senateconservatives.com/support?c=624C80572CE1828)

I cannot describe the magnitude of the impact we will have in the fight to save freedom if these nine leaders are elected in November. Each of them has demonstrated a deep commitment to the principles of freedom that have made America great and each of them has demonstrated a willingness to stand up to their own party when it's necessary.

But these victories could slip away so we MUST fight until the very end.

Many of you have contributed generously to our candidates, and it has made all the difference. Today, I'm writing to ask you to support the Senate Conservatives Fund so our PAC has the resources to reach millions of other patriots across the country. If we're going to overcome the special interests and the liberal media, we need to grow our team and put real muscle behind our candidates.

The Washington establishment wants them to fail and to be honest, it wants me to fail. I have upset a lot of people by supporting underdog, anti-establishment candidates. The Beltway insiders would like nothing more than to see our candidates lose so they can blame me for Republican electoral losses. They want to continue to promote the lie that conservatives can only win in certain states.

Please support the Senate Conservatives Fund today so that doesn't happen. Please make a contribution so we can run the ads necessary to keep the liberals from defeating our candidates.

Let's create an earthquake election that renews constitutional principles and restores America's greatness.

Thank you for your support. We'll keep fighting.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

Support the Senate Conservatives

(https://senateconservatives.com/support?c=624C80572CE1828)

Contributions to Senate Conservatives Fund are not deductible as charitable contributions. Not paid for at taxpayer expense. Contributions from corporations or foreign nationals lacking permanent resident status are not permitted. Federal law requires Senate Conservatives Fund to report the name, mailing address, occupation and employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in a calendar year.”