NAACP judges Black Senator by the Color of his Skin

Leave a comment

This is from Patriot Update.

Rush Limbaugh correctly identifies the  NAACP as the National Association For The Advancement Of Liberal Colored People.

As long as black men and women tow the DemocRat line and stay on the DemocRat Plantation the NAALCP will support them.

But as soon as you step off the DemocRat and start thinking for themselves and start achieving goals they want to destroy you.


When Jim DeMint left the U.S. Senate to take over as head of the Heritage Foundation, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley named Tim Scott as his replacement.  This should have been a proud moment for all South Carolinians, but particularly so for members of the NAACP.  After all, the second “A” in NAACP stands for advancement.  You see, Tim Scott is a black man.  For the state where the American Civil War began to send a black man to the U.S. Senate is certainly evidence of advancement.  One could argue that it took too long to happen, but it would be difficult to argue that Scott’s appointment was not a positive step in the right direction.  Further, if his appointment is not enough to warrant a sense of pride in the hearts of Americans of good faith, consider this: all signs indicate that the people of South Carolina plan to keep Tim Scott in the Senate when the required special election in November rolls around.

If the polls are accurate and Scott’s seat in Congress is confirmed by election in November, he will be the first black Senator elected from a southern state since the days of reconstruction.  In other words, Tim Scott is making history—American history.  Why then are so-called progressives so opposed to this trailblazer?  You guessed it. Tim Scott is guilty of what liberals consider a crime worse than murder: being conservative while black.  Unfortunately, the NAACP seems unwilling to take pride in the accomplishments of black people unless they toe the line of liberal orthodoxy.  Let a black man or woman dare to espouse such views as personal responsibility, self-reliance, hard work, and family values and the claws come out.  That black man or woman who holds these views is immediately subjected to vicious personal attacks on his or her character.

This is precisely what is happening to Tim Scott.  The NAACP from neighboring North Carolina not only rejected Scott’s appointment to the Senate, they rejected him as a person.  Scott’s groundbreaking status notwithstanding, the NAACP launched a series of vicious attacks on the junior Senator from South Carolina.  Here is what The Washington Times editors had to say about this ironic turn of events: “Rather than embrace this advancement in racial harmony, the head of the neighboring North Carolina Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People grew vicious.  The Rev. William Barber II called Mr. Scott a ventriloquist’s dummy, incapable of thinking or speaking for himself.  That’s the sort of invective more commonly found at a Ku Klux Klan rally.”  Indeed it is.  In addition, it is hardly the type of statement one expects to hear from a man of the cloth.

I find attacks on black conservatives especially disturbing.  Not only are they lacking in grace, they are infantile.  When did we become a country that cannot celebrate the accomplishments of individuals simply because their political views differ from our own?  The attitudes of so-called progressives toward conservative black Americans remind me of those long-ago days when I played high school football.  Some of the coaches in our conference tried to motivate their players by encouraging them to hate the players on other teams.  As a result, their players were not only poor sports, they were obnoxious winner and losers.

Fortunately, I played for a more broad-minded coach whose views on the subject showed both wisdom and class.  No coach I ever met wanted to win more than this one and no coach worked harder at preparing his teams to win.  But he never resorted to belittling the players on other teams or encouraging us to hate someone just because they wore a different uniform.  This coach made it clear that he considered the ability to admire the talent of someone in a different uniform a sign of maturity and intelligence; two things he expected of all  his players.  If a player on another team had a good game or was having a good year, our coach made a point of congratulating him and encouraging us to follow suit.  I have always thought this was an excellent lesson, and I am glad to have learned it.  Someone should teach a similar lesson to graceless, classless liberals who insist that the only legitimate black people in America are those who share their leftwing worldviews.

In today’s toxic political climate, black conservatives are shown no respect by liberals no matter how accomplished they may be in a given field.  Think of the treatment Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has received from liberals, both black and white. They consider him a pariah.  Noted academics such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams are regularly and vociferously denounced by liberals—again both black and white. In all of these cases, the much maligned individuals are guilty of just one thing: being conservative while black.

When I was a young man growing up in the Jim Crow South, nothing inspired me more than the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when he encouraged Americans of all stripes to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.  I have trouble imagining Dr. King turning his back on successful black men and women who have achieved the American dream—the dream he wanted all black people to have an opportunity to achieve—because their political views were different than his.  Dr. King won the battle for civil rights because he always took the high road—always appealed to the better angels of man rather than indulging in mean-spirited pettiness.  It is too bad that liberals who hold Dr. King up as an icon don’t follow his good example.

I will give the editors of The Washington Times the final word on this subject: “The real fools are those who keep black communities hooked on government handouts and benefits.  The culture of dependence embraced by foolish liberals such as Mr. Barber has impoverished black teenagers, imprisoning them in a 35.8 percent unemployment rate.  To his ilk, Sen. Scott, Justice Thomas and Mr. Sowell are uncomfortable reminders that the road to success begins with self-reliance.”

Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here:



Black senator to Harry Reid: Opposing Obama is not racist

Leave a comment

This is from Bizpac Review.

I agree with Sen.Tim Scott‘s(R-SC) insight to the BS being spread by Dingy Harry.

I want to point out one thing to Sen.Tim Scott(R-SC) Dingy Harry and

his fellow racists  DemocRats thing you are a sell out and Uncle Tom.

The rhetoric of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is steeped in hyperbole, whether it’s a claim that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid his taxes in years, or that tea party members are modern-day anarchists. His latest rant has resulted in him being called out by the only black member of the Senate — a Republican.

During a radio interview on Las Vegas station WNPR, Reid claimed that GOP opposition to the president’s policies and programs is rooted in racism. Sen.Tim Scott, R-S.C., appointed in December by Gov. Nikki Haley to fill the vacancy left by Jim DeMint, took exception and called for an apology, according to The Daily Caller.

“I am sincerely disappointed by continued attempts to divide the American people by playing to the lowest common denominator,” Scott said.

“Instead of engaging in serious debate about the failed policies of this administration – from the ever-increasing burdens created by the national health care reform plan to the tax and spend approach to economic recovery, along with countless others – Democrats are once again trying to hide behind a smokescreen,” he continued.

“Our country deserves more from those in Washington. I hope Senator Reid will realize the offensive nature of his remarks and apologize to those who disagree with the President’s policies because of one thing – they are hurting hardworking American families.”

The ball’s now in Reid’s court. Will he hammer it back to Scott, gently lob it over the net or simply keep it and walk home?


Immigration Reform Illegals Will Receive $592,000 More In Benefits Than They’ll Pay in Taxes

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This is the best argument I have heard for rounding

up and deporting  all  eleven million.

Please do not tell me that can not be done.

Look up Operation Wet Back or use the link I have provided.

The Left would really raise Hell but it can be done.


The Heritage Foundation, headed by former Sen. Jim DeMint, recently concluded an analysis of the Immigration Reform bill being pushed by the Gang of 8 and the results are economically devastating.  The legalization of 11 million illegal aliens will suck the very life out of many of our benefit and welfare programs.

They looked at four categories of benefits:

1)  Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and worker’s compensation, all of which are direct benefits they would receive.

2)  Welfare benefits where they found over 80 different programs that would cost nearly $900 billion dollars a year.

3)  Next they looked at the cost of public education which they calculated to run $12,300 per student per year.  This cost is generally free or subsidized for lower income families.

4) They looked at the costs of population based services.  These services include things like police and fire departments, highways and roads, parks and recreation, and other local and state provided services.

Believe it or not, the average cost per household in America for all of these different government benefits and services added up to $31,584 in 2010 for just the four categories listed above.

The study goes on to break down costs in many areas and then it also calculates the approximate taxes that the 11 million illegals will pay over their lifetimes once they become legal.  You can read the rest of the details here.  The bottom line is that the 11 million illegals to legals will receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services.  They will pay an estimated $3.1 trillion in taxes.  That leaves a net cost of $6.3 trillion.

Are we willing to add $6.3 million to the national debt just to give legal amnesty to 11 million people who violated federal law by entering the United States illegally?  If you answered yes, then please explain where the government is going to get the $6.3 trillion to cover to this debt?

Honestly, I believe the situation is worse than what the Heritage Foundation reported.  The legalization of 11 million illegal PLUS an approval to allow another 1 million immigrants to come to the US to take jobs from American citizens will further weaken our economy and make the job market worse than it is now.  More Americans will lose their jobs to these illegals.  Then they’ll lost their homes and families.  The repercussions will be utterly devastating to the overall US economy making the net cost of the immigration reform bill to be significantly more than the $6.3 trillion predicted by the Heritage Foundation.

Read more:


DeMint rejects immigration bill authored by Gang of Eight

1 Comment

This is from The Washington Examiner.

Has the Bloods and Crips taken over Washington,D.C?

It sure sounds like it with all of these gangs of 6,8 or 14.

Why not trying to listening to the will of the people?

Look At the traitors in the gang of eight.



Gang of Eight 2013 CA MARCH


Former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, now head of the conservative Heritage Foundation, is rejecting the “Gang of Eight” immigration legislation released on Wednesday, saying it would be too costly and would reward those who came to the United States illegally with amnesty.

Before leaving Congress earlier this year, DeMint was among the most conservative lawmakers in the Senate and he helped establish its growing Tea Party coalition. Among the Tea Party proteges he left behind is Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who is a key member of the Gang of Eight and the top spokesman for the immigration compromise.

DeMint, however, called the plan championed by Rubio, “incomprehensible.”

He makes his case on the Heritage Foundation website.

“The Gang of Eight bill introduced in the U.S. Senate violates the very rule of law principle that creates opportunity for immigrants and makes America a beacon of hope for the world,” DeMint writes. “Giving legal residency to the 11 million people who came here illegally has one definition: amnesty. Amnesty rewards unlawful behavior and diminishes opportunity and prosperity for lawful immigrants and all Americans.”

DeMint also points to the “significant cost to taxpayers,” the compromise would impose, at a time when the nation is grappling with a $17 trillion debt, by opening up entitlement programs to millions of people.

The Gang of Eight bill, is more than 800 pages and proponents want to vote on it in the coming weeks.

DeMint recommends shelving the bill and instead passing reform “in a transparent, step-by-step process” rather than in one massive piece of legislation.

“This will build trust with the American people and unite the country rather than divide it,” DeMint writes.


Mama Grizzly aka Sarah Palin.

1 Comment

This is from Breitbart’s Big Government.

I hope Mama Grizzly can take big bites out of the DemocRats 

and the RINO’s.

I would love to see Mama Grizzly and Senator Ted Cruz team up to

run for President and Vice President.

In a sign of how active Sarah Palin intends to be in influencing the 2014 elections, SarahPAC, Sarah Palin’s Political Action Committee, released a video on Wednesday meant to ignite independents, conservatives, and Tea Partiers for the 2014 midterm elections.

These voters propelled Republican candidates in the historic 2010 midterm elections that saw Republicans take back the House of Representatives on the backs of Tea Party voters.

Titled “Loaded for Bear,” the video shows footage and headlines from mainstream media outlets like Politico referring to Palin as a “kingmaker” and conservative outlets like Fox News acknowledging how successfully Palin has used her star-power to help elect conservative candidates to office.

The video also features Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) praising Palin for her fearlessness and being instrumental in electing senators such as Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Jeff Flake, Deb Fischer, Cruz and governors like Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

In 2012, former South Carolina Senator and current president of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint said Palin’s endorsement “has more influence in primaries than any other endorsement right now.”

“Sarah Palin picks winners,” Cruz says in the video.

And by all measures, that dynamic will not change in the next two years for Palin is often a one-woman clearinghouse for conservative and Tea Party candidates.

The video, which the group PassCodeCreative made, features Palin at Tea Party rallies in places like Nevada and at the Iowa State Fair in 2011, where she impressed Iowans, liberals and the mainstream media by answering nearly every question asked of her and engaging comfortably with nearly everyone who approached her for nearly six hours.

In the video, footage of Palin’s 2013 CPAC speech is shown where Palin says, “Don’t let the the big consultants, the big money men and the big bad media scare you off” from running for office.

She urges Republicans to focus more on “rebuilding the middle class” than rebranding the party and says “it is time to furlough the consultants.”

Palin also speaks about her signature issue of dismantling the permanent political class and fighting crony capitalism. She urges Republicans look for candidates from Main Street communities, PTA meetings, small businesses and Tea Party rallies.

“SarahPAC supporters – the 2014 elections are just twenty months away. We appreciate your support, together we have elected many great commonsense conservatives over the past four years,” SarahPAC Treasurer Tim Crawford says in a statement posted with the video. “Together, we will keep fighting to support these bold candidates.”

Reporters in the video note only “Sarah Palin will hold Congress to account,” that Palin “plays by her own rules,” and Palin “doesn’t care about old dogs” in the GOP. These are the qualities that make Tea Partiers, conservatives, and independents trust Palin.

“The next election is twenty months away, the last thing we need is Washington D.C. vetting our candidates,” Palin says in the video.

The video notes that there are 35 Senate and 36 Governors races in 2014 and ends with a clip of Ted Cruz saying at CPAC, “I would not be in the U.S. Senate today if it were not for Gov. Sarah Palin.”

The words “We Haven’t Yet Begun to Fight” splash across the screen as SarahPAC’s signature bear roars at the end of the video.

‘Flawed’ Mark Sanford Plots Run at Redemption

Leave a comment

This is from News Talk 77 WABC.

Mark Sanford does not belong in the South Carolina General Assembly.

If Sanford gets elected the people of South Carolina are stupid.


‘Flawed’ Mark Sanford Plots Run at Redemption (Photo Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


(CHARLESTON, S.C.) — Mark Sanford is running for Congress and, as he makes his debut as a comeback candidate, the disgraced former governor of South Carolina told ABC News Radio affiliate WTMA in Charleston, S.C., that he’s a “flawed man,” owning up to his affair that roiled the political world two and a half years ago.

“I’m a sinner and I’m a flawed man but I think God can use flawed men or women and I hope that the voters in this case will choose to use a flawed man,” he told the station in an interview.

That baroque tale of his Argentine mistress, divulged at a July 2009 news conference after Sanford’s claims that he had been hiking on the Appalachian Trail, led to his resignation of the governorship and withdrawl from public life. Now, he’s running for South Carolina’s First Congressional District, and for political redemption.

Sanford, 52, is after the same seat he represented from 1995 to 2001, this time to replace former Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), who was tapped by Gov. Nikki Haley to replace the retiring Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Sanford formally announced his bid Wednesday.

Sanford’s indiscretion became the talk of the political world in 2009, as veteran political observers mused that they had never witnessed a sex scandal quite so elaborate. A judge granted Jenny Sanford a divorce from her now-ex-husband in 2010, and Mark Sanford told WTMA that he didn’t want to talk much about his personal life. He is now engaged to the journalist he flew to Argentina to see in 2009.

“I don’t want to go down the soap opera,” Sanford said. “I lived the soap opera three years ago. All I want to say is I love the woman I’m engaged to and I’m going to marry her.”

Until his announcement, the possibility of Sanford’s comeback had been complicated by rumors that his ex-wife would run for the same seat. Insiders listed her as a potential candidate, and the former governor told WTMA that he sought her approval before entering the race himself.

“I went to the house and I talked to her and I said, ‘Look. if you want to do this, then I’m out,’” Sanford said. “I don’t think that there could be anything more ridiculous than a husband and wife running against each other for political office and she said she was out.”

NAACP Shows True Colors Against Only Black US Senator Because He’s Conservative

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

The soon to be United States Senator Tim Scott left the DemocRat Plantation.

The NAALCP is afraid soon to be Senator Scott will help others off the plantation.



South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley has made the decision to appoint a replacement for retiring U.S. Senator Jim DeMintShe has chosen Congressman Tim Scott (R-SC), a very conservative Republican. He’s also happens to have dark skin, which would make him the only United States Senator who is black. So why would the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People oppose such a man? Precisely because he doesn’t go along with “their agenda.”

The Daily Caller reports,

Hilary Shelton, senior vice president for advocacy and policy at the NAACP, told The Daily Caller Monday afternoon that the group welcomed diversity in the Senate, but expects the new senator to work against the NAACP’s agenda.

“It is important that we have more integration in the U.S. Senate,” said Shelton in a phone interview. “It’s good to see that diversity.”

Mr. Scott certainly comes from a modest background, experience, and so forth, and should be sensitive to those issues,” he said, referring to Scott’s impoverished single-parent upbringing in Charleston, SC.

Unfortunately, his voting record in the U.S. House of Representatives raises major concerns,” Shelton said.

Shelton explained that the NAACP platform is crafted through an annual voting process which engages grassroots-level delegates who vote on the group’s national agenda. That agenda calls for an expansive role for federal government spending in black communities.

It seems that Shelton has a problem because Scott is a thoroughly conservative Republican. While claiming that his voting record “raises major concerns,” he failed to cite exactly what those concerns were. I have a feeling they have something to do with things like a perfect voting record when it comes to pro-life issues. Perhaps it’s his stand on the Second Amendment or maybe it has to do with the fact that he actually believes in the God of the Bible and marriage in the way that is defined in the Scriptures.

He did however, point to what she thought Scott would work towards and that was a vision of “small government.” Oh boy! That is exactly what the opposition to liberals and the NAACP want!

Shelton said, “Small government usually means, as it’s being described these days, the elimination of the role of government and support for initiatives and programs that are crucial for the African-American community.”

“When the discussions about small government were utilized by Ronald Reagan, he appointed Bill Bennett as the Secretary of Education. Bill Bennett had actually voted during his time in the House of Representatives to eliminate the Department of Education,” Shelton continued. “That’s not within the African-American community’s best interest.”

Not only that, but Shelton claims that Scott, by holding to the view of smaller government, would decrease the amount of federal assistance for housing, which he also claims would be a signal of abandoning civil rights regulations. Shelton added that Scott, “has demonstrated a record of opposition to civil rights protection and advancing those real issues of concern of the NAACP’s noted African-American community.”

Seriously? Why would a man with dark skin oppose civil rights? Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest? Of course it would. He opposes no such thing. The opposition is against government dependency. Federal assistance for housing and other government goodies are not part of civil rights. The civil rights movement was over the issue of being treated equally, not special.

By the way, Rep. Scott is a Tea Party guy. That’s right, he’s one of those men that the left, along with the NAACP, claim are not welcome in the Tea Party!

In an interview with Christian Broadcasting Network in 2010, Rep. Scott said,

“Certainly I feel like I’m the tip of the arrow at times because certainly the national media wants to talk about the fact that I’m a black Republican and some people think of that as zany that a black person would be a conservative but to me what is zany is any person black, white, red, brown or yellow not being a conservative.”

“Sometimes you think to yourself man what is this for because there have been attacks simply because I’m a black conservative. If you think of everything Martin Luther King Jr. stood for which is content not color and then to be trashed in different places because you’re a conservative who happens to be black it just goes against the very concept that we are doing our very best to get to the day that the person is judged by the content of the character not the color of their skin.”

“I’ve been to dozens of Tea Party rallies. I’ve given at least a half a dozen or more speeches. I have not yet to find the first racist comment or the first person who approaches me from a racist perspective. I will speak very clearly here. Racism is a part of a lot of things in our country. Good people are the predominant fact of our country. I simply don’t get it. There are good people and bad people in all organizations fundamentally however, when you look at the basis of the Tea Party it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with an economic recovery. It has to do with limiting the role of our government in our lives. It has to do with free markets. How do you fight that? The only way you fight that is to create an emotional distraction called racism. It doesn’t have to be real. It can be rhetoric but it gets the media focusing on something other than the truth of why the Tea Party is resonating so well with the average person.”

And lest you think Scott was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he clears that up too. “It’s painful at times when people shoot at you because they can or because they look for things that aren’t real because you have a good story,” said Scott. “The truth is the story is good today. Absolutely good story. It wasn’t good living it. Let’s just be real. The fact of the matter is when you’re flunking out of High School its funny today because we made it right? I say “we” because me and the Lord. We made it. The fact is it wasn’t fun in the 9th grade. I mean my parents were divorced and I felt a sense of abandonment. It wasn’t fun growing up like that but God has been so faithful and merciful that Romans 8:28 actually works that when I discovered the truth of his word that it started bringing these pieces and jagged edges together and making smooth edges out of it and that all the things that I’ve gone through have now served me in a way that allows me to serve other people. That’s a miracle!”

But the NAACP doesn’t want to hear that. In fact, Shelton held out hope that Scott would “recognize that awesome responsibility (of working in the Senate) and that they would see “a change in how he votes and what he advocates for in a way more consistent with the NAACP.”

The truth is the NAACP’s agenda is anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-life, anti-marriage, anti-family anti-repsponibility, big government dependency and Rep. Scott will not adhere to their agenda. I think it’s a good thing that one’s character stands out the way Rep. Scott’s does, that even those who normally use the issue of skin color are completely beside themselves over the only black man being in the U.S. Senate is a conservative Republican. After all, Democrats claim to be the party of minorities. So much for that hot air!
Read more:


“It’s the Senate, stupid.”

1 Comment


This is an email from Senate Conservatives Fund.

Not only is the presidential race very important so is the Congressional races.

We must hold on to the House of Representatives.

We also need to take the Senate with a large majority.

We can not afford Harry Reid as Senate majority leader anymore.

Harry Reid has not proposed a budget.

Harry Read has killed every House Republican budget.


Fellow Conservatives:

This is U.S. Senator Jim DeMint.

You may remember the slogan It’s the economy, stupid used by Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign to make the point that George H. W. Bush had not adequately addressed the economy.

Clinton’s political strategist, James Carville, posted the phrase inside campaign headquarters as a way to keep the team focused and on message. The phrase later became the de facto slogan for the Clinton election campaign.

The slogan is relevant again in 2012 as Americans consider Barack Obama’s dismal economic record, but if you consider yourself a freedom-loving American, I have a different slogan for you.

“It’s the Senate, stupid.”

Most Americans are focused on the presidential race right now, but winning the White House — as critical as it is — won’t be enough to save the country we love without a strong, conservative majority in the United States Senate.

It's The Senate Stupid
  • Without a conservative Senate, we won’t repeal Obamacare.
  • Without a conservative Senate, we won’t balance the budget.
  • Without a conservative Senate, we won’t secure our borders.
  • Without a conservative Senate, we won’t stop the bailouts.
  • And without a conservative Senate, we won’t enact the pro-growth policies needed to get America back to work.

Be Smart. Change the Senate.

If you’re reading this letter, chances are, you follow current events more closely than most and you probably understand the point I’m making — winning the Senate is key to restoring America’s greatness.

The simple fact of the matter is this: a Republican president without a conservative Senate is a waste of a Republican president.

A president can campaign on good policies, but he doesn’t write the bills. As long as liberals are in charge of writing legislation, it will be difficult for a Republican president to sign the right bills into law.

Does anyone think Harry Reid will ever send a bill to the President’s desk to repeal ObamaCare? The answer is “no” and that’s why I am focused on sending strong conservatives to the Senate who will make that a reality.

Act Now. Support Senate Conservatives.

As we head down the home stretch of the most important election in our lifetime, my challenge to you is this: keep your focus on electing true conservatives to the U.S. Senate. These Senate races aren’t getting the same media attention as the presidential race, but they’re no less important.

This is why I founded the Senate Conservatives Fund, an independent, grassroots organization that helps elect principled leaders to the U.S. Senate, and it’s why I so strongly support its efforts today.

SCF has endorsed eight standout leaders in 2012:

  • Josh Mandel (Ohio)
  • Ted Cruz (Texas)
  • Jeff Flake (Arizona)
  • Richard Mourdock (Indiana)
  • Deb Fischer (Nebraska)
  • George Allen (Virginia)
  • Tom Smith (Pennsylvania)
  • Dan Bongino (Maryland)


These candidates share a strong belief in the principles that make America great and they understand the critical role the U.S. Constitution plays in preserving our freedoms.

These candidates support all of SCF’s policy goals, including:

These leaders also have records that prove they not only talk the talk, but also walk the walk. And they’ve all shown the courage to stand up to their own party’s leaders when it was necessary to support and defend our principles and values.

So if you agree that winning a conservative majority in the U.S. Senate is vital to our nation’s future and if you’re willing to engage in these races even at a time when the media ignores them, then please do three things today.

  • Sign up for SCF email updates so you can stay informed.
  • Make a contribution to help SCF’s endorsed candidates. Without financial support, these candidates won’t be able to get their message out.
  • Forward this email and encourage your family and friends to support these outstanding Senate candidates.

Thank you for your commitment to principles of freedom. We live the greatest country in the world and if we work together in smart and effective ways, I’m confident we can preserve it for generations to come.


Jim DeMint

Jim DeMint
United States Senator


DeMint joins national effort to keep feds from bailing out state pension systems

Leave a comment


This is from Fox News Politics.

There is no way in Hell any more money should go to bail out unions pensions.

The state governments made the deal with the devil now pay the price.

Please contact your Senators and encourage then to fight this bailout plan.



Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is getting hit with a nationwide backlash over his suggestion that the federal government bail out the state employees’ pension program.

Critics have in the past several days pounced on the suggestion, made last year when Quinn, in announcing the state’s fiscal 2012, said part of Illinois’ long-term effort to reduce the estimate $167 billion in under-funded liabilities would be to seek “a federal guarantee of the debt.”

Among those leading the charge is Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. The South Carolina senator has joined the Illinois Policy Institute’s national “No Pension Bailout” campaign — an effort to stop Congress from attempting to rescue failing state and municipal pension plans.

“Our greatest concern is states will assume they can run their pension systems into bankruptcy and then turn to the federal government for bailout,” DeMint said Thursday.

He also suggested the problem is the result of state legislators trying for decades to win over voters through pension promises based “on accounting methods that would put any business in jail.”

The conservative policy group estimates the total amount of under-funded pension liabilities in states is at least $2.5 trillion, with Illinois leading the nation.

The basic plan floated by Quinn would be for the federal government to rescue the pension program through buying the state’s bonds, which critics say are too financially risky to attract investors.

Quinn said after announcing the budget that seeking the federal guarantee was only a precaution, then later called the related wording a “drafting error,” according the non-partisan Citizens Against Government Waste, which nevertheless gave the governor its September 2012 “Porker of the Month” award.

The governor’s office could not be reached for comment this weekend.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial writers recently said: “Sooner or later, we knew it would come down to this since the Democrats who are running Illinois into the ground can’t bring themselves to oppose union demands.”

In addition, an editorial Tuesday in the Chicago Tribune argued that saving Illinois will “start a stampede of demands for equal treatment from other financially troubled states” with public pension debts ranging from $1 trillion to $25 trillion.


Law of the Sea Treaty now dead, DeMint says

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Times.

Lets hope this Senator‘s opposing the treaty holds were it is.

You can contact your Senator at this link.

Tell him of her to oppose this rotten treaty.

The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty now has 34 senators opposed to it and thus lacks the Senate votes needed for U.S. ratification, a key opponent of the treaty announced Monday.

But the treaty’s main Senate proponent denies the treaty is sunk, saying plenty of time still exists to win support before a planned late-year vote.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, which entered into force in 1994 and has been signed and ratified by 162 countries, establishes international laws governing the maritime rights of countries. The treaty has been signed but not ratified by the U.S., which would require two-thirds approval of the Senate.

Critics of the treaty argue that it would subject U.S. sovereignty to an international body, require American businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation and subject the U.S. to unwieldy environmental regulations as defined.

The list of treaty opponents has been growing, and on Monday, Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican and a leader of efforts to block it, announced that four more Republicans have said that they would vote against ratification: Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraka, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.

“With 34 senators against the misguided treaty, LOST will not be ratified by the Senate this year,” Mr. DeMint said in a statement on his website.

This head count of treaty opponents — if the number stands — would make it impossible to reach the 67 votes needed to ratify the pact, which Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, plans to bring to a vote.

But Mr. Kerry’s office dismissed Mr. DeMint’s tally, saying that vote counts taken months before a proposed vote are “just a snapshot of where our politics are in this instant.”

“No letter or whip count changes the fact that rock-ribbed Republican businesses and the military and every living Republican secretary of state say that this needs to happen, and that’s why it’s a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ for the Law of the Sea,” Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth said.


Ms. Seth said the senator decided long ago to delay requesting a vote on the treaty until after the November elections because “right now we’re in the middle of a white-hot political campaign season where ideology is running in overdrive.”

“That’s why Sen. Kerry made it clear from Day One that there wouldn’t be a vote before the election and until everyone’s had the chance to evaluate the treaty on the facts and the merits away from the politics of the moment,” she said.

Proponents of ratification argue that member nations are establishing rules of the sea that the U.S. would have to adhere to without a vote. They also argue that by ratifying the treaty, the U.S. would protect its claims and rights to mine America’s continental sea shelves and offshore waters for natural resources without interference from other countries or other entities.

Without ratification, U.S. energy companies won’t have the security they need to invest in exploring those areas for resources, supporters say.

The influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the treaty, saying it would be a boon to the U.S. economy by providing domestic companies “the legal certainty and stability they need to hire and invest.”

“At any given time, hundreds of U.S. flag ships and ships owned by U.S. companies rely on the freedom of navigation rights codified in the treaty while crossing the world’s oceans,” said chamber President and Chief Executive Thomas J. Donohue, testifying last month before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “While we can always rely on the U.S. Navy to ensure lawful passage of U.S.-flagged and owned ships, it only makes sense to join with the international community in establishing and protecting lawful passage on the high seas.”

Treaty opponents say the Navy and merchant fleet do fine now and for decades previously without the pact’s freedom-of-the-seas guarantees. They also say the treaty seeks to transfer wealth from U.S. companies exploiting energy resources to poorer, landlocked countries — setting a dangerous precedence for wealth distribution.

Mr. Portman and Mrs. Ayotte, in a joint letter Monday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said that “after careful consideration” they concluded the treaty isn’t in the U.S. national interest.

“Proponents of the Law of the Sea Treaty aspire to admirable goals, including codifying the U.S. Navy’s navigational rights and defining American economic interests in valuable offshore resources,” the senators wrote. “But the treaty’s terms reach well beyond those good intentions.”

Mr. Kerry held three hearings this year on the treaty.

The first hearing brought together a rare joint appearance by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, as well as Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who testified in favor of ratifying the treaty. The second hearing brought together six four-star military officers, who also testified in favor of ratifying the treaty.

At the third, former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld testified against the treaty.


%d bloggers like this: