Heritage Action for America and the Club for Growth are outstanding organizations.  If you look at scorecards, theirs represent the purest of some very impure cards.  HAFA and CFG should be commended for their efforts to hold politicians feet to the fire, but we need an added element.  We need to score unanimous consent requests.

The House, today, passed a massive spending bill.  The Senate will pass it tomorrow.  HAFA and CFG have announced they will be scoring in opposition.  They should.

Now, as you suspect, the true conservatives in the House lined up and voted against it.  The same will happen in the Senate tomorrow.  They are voting the way they should.  What’s the problem then?  Our conservative heroes are doing the right thing, right? Wrong!

Before both bodies vote, there are procedural moves which can be made by members to slow down a massive package like this and perhaps expose the bad deeds that are about to take place.  The American people have had little if any time to read the legislation and as Senator McCain pointed out today, no member of Congress has had an opportunity to read it.  (See, McCain Slams Omnibus Spending Bill).  Don’t expect for any of those procedural moves to be made.

In the Senate, they will need unanimous consent to move the package through the process.  Where are the conservative heroes going to be then?  The same place they’ve been in the past — hiding behind two very good score cards.  Instead of objecting and displaying courage and the willingness to fight the establishment when it matters, they will be smelling jet fumes and trying to get out of Washington to come home and tell us how hard they are fighting.  The truth is, they’re fighting, but not when it matters.

HAFA and CFG need to add another element to scorecards.  When they’re scoring a vote like the ominibus, which continues us down the path to bankruptcy, spending at a minimum $20 billion more than we spent last year, no member should get credit for fighting and voting “right,” unless they’ve used every procedural process possible to save America.  It is time for our conservative leaders to show us some courage, not just a scorecard.

It didn’t take long for former Senator Judd Gregg to use his influence to try to push the bidding of Wall Street at the expense of middle America.

Yesterday, Gregg wrote an Op Ed for The Hill where he thrashed the Balanced Budget Amendment “to dodge debt-ceiling action.”  Gregg tries to redefine conservatism.

One of the best ways to guarantee that there will not be a balanced budget or a fiscally responsible initiative is to condition action on a debt ceiling increase on passage of a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. This approach is favored by some conservatives who take the position that they will not vote to increase the debt ceiling unless such a constitutional amendment is passed. This is a road best not traveled if we want to come to some sort of real action on our nation’s impending fiscal crisis. “Lord save us from the well intentioned and those who are trying to score political points or raise money,” should be the response to this bit of “conservative” misdirection.

Gregg is wrong. 

One of the best ways to pass a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is to demand passage before a debt limit increase is allowed to pass.  Conservatives should jump aboard the effort to Cut, Cap, and Balance the budget as part of the debate over increasing the debt ceiling.  There is even a Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge to lock in conservatives to the effort to cut spending, cap the spending allowed by Congress and balance the budget.  This is an idea that a young Judd Gregg may have supported before he became a jaded Washington and Wall Street insider who is more concerned with conserving the benefits of the elites than protecting the pocketbooks of middle to low income voters. 

Gregg falsely implies that the demand of conservatives is to get the constitutional amendment ratified by 37 states.

This is a hurdle that is rarely jumped. In fact, it has not happened in this century and only occurred a few times in the last century.  It takes years, if not decades, to accomplish such a feat.

Conservatives merely want the BBA passed by both the House and Senate to start the process of getting the constitutional amendment out to the states for ratification.  Cut, Cap, and Balance a strong proposal that demands support or forces conservative members to push for an some other measure that will effectuate massive cuts to spending.

There are a few reasons to dismiss Gregg.

First, one has to remember the record of Judd Gregg to judge his motivation to trash a Balanced Budget Amendment that is supported by every single sitting U.S. Senator and an idea that he supported in the past.  He is being paid by Wall Street to trash the BBA.

Former Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., is joining the Goldman Sachs Group as an international adviser, the investment banking firm announced on Friday afternoon.  Gregg, also formerly New Hampshire’s governor, “will provide strategic advice to the firm and its clients and assist in business-development initiatives across our global-development franchise,” Goldman said in a news release.

Second, Gregg had a history of doing the bidding for Wall Street while a member of the Senate.  Judd Gregg was a sponsor of the bailout of Wall Street and the bailout of the International Monetary Fund.  He is was an appropriator and was no friend of the taxpayer when doling out money as Subcommittee Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee for Commerce, Justice, and State.  Don’t forget that Gregg wanted to be President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce before he decided to cash out on Wall Street.

Furthermore, a young idealistic Senator Judd Gregg was for the BBA before he was became the jaded paid hit man for Goldman Sachs.  Back in 1995, Gregg stated took to the Senate floor for an impassioned speech in favor of a balanced budget amendment.

I rise today to speak on behalf of future generations. Our national deficit for fiscal year 1994 stood at $203 billion. Gross interest on the national debt is now the second largest expenditure in the entire budget –higher than Defense spending. The Federal Government, this year alone, will spend an estimated $295 billion in interest on the national debt, which is a 400-percent increase since 1980 and an amount equal to 57 percent of all personal income taxes collected. Our total accumulated Federal debt stands at $4.65 trillion–$18,000 for every man, woman, and child in America. Like every family and business in America, when the Government borrows money it must pay interest on its debts. Given these grim statistics, I believe that we in Congress must amend the Constitution of the United States and pass the balanced budget amendment .

Finally, Gregg’s argument in The Hill yesterday was full of holes.

Conservatives should not tolerate those who would condition their willingness to make the tough, important votes that will address our fiscal chaos on unrealistic and impractical ideas that will have no impact on the problem.

Gregg provides to alternative solutions to the problem and he avoids any mention of other ideas on the table.  He does not address efforts to cap spending at 18% of gross domestic product and he does not propose any specific cuts to programs.  He accuses conservatives of “hiding in the corner,” yet this is a man who is hiding behind a mountain of cash on Wall Street who refuses to suggest one reform or cut to be added to the debt limit increase as the price to allow the debt limit to be raised over the current $14.3 trillion.  

Gregg argues that “the debt ceiling is an opportunity for real action. It can be used to force immediate action to adjust the nation’s present course, which is headed towards fiscal disaster.”  I bet that if other solutions are suggested, then Gregg will move the goal posts and find a reason to oppose any reforms that may slow passage of the debt limit increase.

Gregg smugly calls for ”statesmanship, leadership and fortitude.”  Considering how little he showed during his tenure in the Senate, one should disreagard Judd Gregg’s critique of the balanced budget amendment as the rantings of a scorned Obama Administration Secretary of Commerce wanna-be and a Wall Street pimp.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …

In voting for cloture (see roll call vote here) on the nomination of Jack McConnell on Wednesday, 11 Republican Senators violated the oath they took to defend the constitution.  It’s that simple.

Senators Alexander, Brown of Massachusetts, Chambliss, Collins, Graham, Isakson, Kirk, McCain, Murkowski, Snowe and Thune provided Democrats with the necessary votes to overcome a filibuster of McConnell to be a district court judge in Rhode Island.

How bad is Jack McConnell?  One only needs to look to the scathing Dear Colleague letter circulated by Senator Cornyn prior to the Senate conducting a cloture vote.  After pointing out that McConnell had been dishonest in his testimony to the Judiciary Committee, Senator Cornyn stated in part:

[Mr. McConnell's] 25-year legal career is surrounded by ethical cloud. As a crusading plaintiff’s lawyer, “Mr. McConnell and his firm helped pioneer the practice of soliciting public officials to bring lawsuits in which the private lawyers are paid a percentage of any judgment or settlement.” Specifically, Mr. McConnell has helped initiate and direct the litigation of mass tort suits brought by state attorneys general against tobacco and lead -based paint manufacturers. I have long argued that these types of outsourced contingent-fee arrangements are inherently unethical and inevitably lead to the appearance of public corruption. In Texas, for instance, my predecessor as Attorney General served over three years in federal prison for his role in manipulating documents related to a contingent-fee contract and attempting to channel settlement funds to a close friend. While in the private sector contingency fee agreements, though not without controversy, can provide a poor person a key to the courthouse they could not otherwise afford, they have special problems in the public sector. In the public sectors it would be analogous to outsourcing traffic tickets to a private security firm paid by a percentage of the income – no checks, no balances, no exercise of prosecutorial discretion, just a pure profit motive.

He’s that bad.

The 11 Republican Senators tried to be too cute for a half.  They voted in favor of cloture, but then voted “against” confirming Mr. McConnell.  The problem here is that anyone, who can count to 60, knows that cloture is the only vote that matters.  A nominee can be confirmed by a simple majority vote and the Democrats have more than a simple majority.

Now some will say, as Senator Alexander did on the Senate floor, you cannot start filibustering district court nominees.  I could not disagree more.  The oath Senators take require them to filibuster district court nominees, when those nominees will not adhere to the rule of law and submit themselves to the constitution.

The oath Senators take is to defend the constitution, not to allow the constitution to be assaulted.  How many members, understanding that a criminal is coming into their homes, would leave their doors unlocked?  Not one.  That’s what you do when you vote for cloture, understanding that a nominee is going to be confirmed.  You invite the scoundrel in, understanding that he is about to assault the constitution, you’ve taken an oath to defend.  The only way to defend the constitution is to lock to door.  Voting no on cloture locks the door.

There is absolutely no way to defend voting for cloture but against the nominee.  When you vote against the nominee, you’re saying he’s not qualified.  If he is not qualified, why give him a chance to be confirmed?  The American people did not elect you to defend the constitutional partially, allowing the criminal in the house, hoping to shoot him when you catch him in the middle of the act.  You were elected to defend the constitution fully.  Voting yes for cloture, but then voting against the nominee is not only too cute for a half, it is a violation of the oath.  It’s that simple.

Christine O’Donnell might not be the model candidate.  She has made more than her share or errors, but as the Senator from Delaware, she will not disappoint.  She will vote with Jim DeMint, will be the first pro-life female Senator who is not afraid to own it and will not spend our money like it’s her own.  I know she has fumbled a few times, but she did not fumble by denying the concept of separation of church and state.  It is not and cannot be found in the Constitution.

After Tuesday’s debate, leftist pundits, including Larry King, trounced on her because she questioned Coon’s statement about whether the First Amendment requires the separation of church and state.  The First Amendment requires a number of things that are ignored, separation of church and state is not one of them.  History simply does not support it.

One of the initial acts of the first congress was to print bibles.  The God that Larry King and I’m sure the other commentators on MSNBC think should not be talked about, but one that O’Donnell believes in, is represented in the bibles ordered to be printed by the Congress.  If the Congress printed bibles as an initial act, with government money, how were the two separated?

Separation of church and state evolved from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists – a group of constituents.   Jefferson did not participate in drafting the constitution and was not a signatory.   Jefferson was basically a modern day blogger.  Given that the concept developed way after the convention, it has about as much constitutional merit as Roe v. Wade.

If these liberal “historians” were honest, they would be attacking Coons and the activist courts, not O’Donnell.  The truth is, even Jefferson did not believe in the separation of church and state.  In writing the letter to the Danbury Baptists, President Jefferson was actually explaining that he had no intention on establishing a national religion and that he would not interfere with the ability of the Danbury Baptists to worship the deity of their choice.  Jefferson’s view of the First Amendment was that it was designed to prevent the federal government from interfering with the affairs of the church as King George III had.  His Second Inaugural Address makes this concept very clear:

In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.

Instead of promoting the separation of church and state, history shows that the church was very much part of the state.  Congress opened its initial meeting with prayer and subsequently hired a priest.  Jefferson himself attended church in the Capitol Rotunda and even advocated for the following as the seal of the United States: “Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . .”

Over the last twenty years, the courts have stopped all prayer in public schools, prohibited the display of the Ten Commandments and stopped children from reading the bible in public schools.  This is what the First Amendment was designed to prohibit.  It was never intended to create a wall of separation between church and state.  Read the Mayflower Compact: the Pilgrims made the journey “for the Glory of God,” not to separate the church from the state, but for the right to live in the state and practice their religion.

The Investment Business Daily got it right: Decrees of Separation.  Instead of laughing at O’Donnell and questioning her intellect, some of these leftist elitists need to read the Constitution again or for the first time.

Larry King and the others are hostile to any public profession of faith and they seem to be more likely to worship secularism than God.  They are clearly hostile to the true meaning of the Constitution.   O’Donnell as imperfect as she is, wants so come to Washington and shake things up.  She will not shake up the Constitution though; she will actually adhere to it.

Late last year I reported on South Carolina’s Missing Senator.  We would be fortunate if he had never reappeared.   As Hogan reported recently, Graham made a cameo in the Senate Judiciary Committee to tell Republican Senators how stupid they were to be casting votes against Elena Kagan, President Obama’s nominees to the Supreme Court.  (Lindsey Graham Thinks You’re Stupid)

No one felt the impact of Senator Graham’s statement like Senator Grassley, who for the first time is not in a runaway re-election effort.  The Des Moines Register cited Graham’s support for Kagan in a partisan attack piece against Grassley, unsupported by any journalistic integrity.  (Grassley’s Pitiful Excuse for Voting No) The Register even refused to print editorials defending Senator Grassley’s position.

How stupid are the other six Republicans on the Committee?  Senator Jeff Sessions, the Ranking Member, cited a number of reasons for voting against Kagan, including the following:

1.    Throughout [her] testimony … Kagan repeatedly chose to provide the Committee with political spin rather than clearly and honestly admitting or describing events that were objectively capable of description.

2.    Ms. Kagan denied the reality that she had banned the military recruiters from Harvard … in order to punish them because of the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy. .. Her testimony regarding this issue was at best inaccurate and, at worse, intellectually dishonest.

3.    Ms. Kagan’s testimony regarding her actions in the Witt case, in which the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law was challenged, was perhaps even more disturbing to me. Despite the clear record, she denied the reality that she abdicated her duty as Solicitor General by refusing to appeal the Witt decision.

Basically, Kagan lied to the Committee.

Senator Kyl noted that he was voting against Kagan for a number of reasons, including the following:

1.    Ignoring her own advice in a now famous University of Chicago Law Review article, she did not testify meaningfully before the Judiciary Committee.

2.    In explaining why I could not support now Justice Sotomayor, I said I thought she was disingenuous [to the] Committee.  Obviously, reaching such a conclusion precludes support, notwithstanding other qualifications for the position.  Reluctantly, I have reached the same conclusion regarding Elena Kagan.

3.    Exhibit A is her insistence on redefining her position on military recruiting on the Harvard campus. Her ‘separate but equal’ defense and attempt to downplay the steps she took to undermine the legal policy of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ were, ultimately, unbelievable. It is almost unfathomable, for example, that someone with Ms. Kagan’s considerable legal acumen could have, as she asserted, ‘always thought that we were acting in compliance’ with the Solomon Amendment.

4.    “Exhibit F is the explanation of several of her bench memos to Justice Marshall insisting that they were not her views, but only a ‘channeling’ of his. Ms. Kagan offered this explanation for a memo categorizing litigants as ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys,’ a memo stating that the government was ‘for once on the side of the angels,’ and a memo expressing fear that the Court might ‘create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners’ rights.’ In memo after memo, one gets the sense that Ms. Kagan was not simply ‘channeling’ her boss, but was instead expressing her own personal policy views on matters before the Court, and, that they had as much to do with who the litigants were as what the issues were.

Basically, Kagan lied to the Committee.

The other stupid Senators went on to provide concrete reasons for opposing a nominee who elevated herself above the law.  The brilliant Graham – he’s supporting Kagan, because President Obama won the election.  Like Kagan’s testimony, nothing could be further from the truth.  Graham is supporting Kagan because he loves courting democrats (ask Maria Cantwell) and stealing the spotlight.  He did the same thing with Sotomayor.  If he votes no, he doesn’t make the Sunday morning shows.

Every other Republican member of the Judiciary Committee shows up most Thursday mornings to process legislation and vote on controversial nominees, not Graham.  He is always missing and votes by proxy.  On Sotomayor and Kagan, he has been present and voting yes.  How stupid does Graham think we are?  Are we really to believe that the Constitution requires a yes vote for someone who abhors the constitution?  Even Senator Voinovich, who is no conservative, does not think so.  Here is what he said about Ms. Kagan:

The President deserves deference in his nominations, and of course Presidential elections have a direct impact on the makeup of our Judiciary; that is to say, elections have consequences.  But, Senate confirmations should not be a simple mechanical affirmation of the President’s selection, especially when the nominee will enjoy a lifetime appointment.  A Senator is duty bound to conscientiously review the qualifications of the President’s nominee and make an independent assessment of the nominee’s qualifications.

…

Because there is such a limited written record with General Kagan and because she has gone out of her way to not answer questions, I have no idea what she will do on the bench and whether she will be able to suppress her own values to apply the law.  The fact is we really do not know that much about her views.

…

Some of my colleagues would like to have had a less liberal person nominated by the President.  My position is that this President will surely nominate a liberal.  The most important question is “is that liberal nominee qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court?”  I would argue that General Kagan has been nominated based on her friendships and personal attachments with President Obama and others at the White House, not based on objective qualities that would indicate she is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

We can only assume that Graham would say Voinovich is stupid as well.  Does Graham really think we’re buying this?  If it was really a matter or deference to the President, why did Graham vote to give Kagan a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court but oppose James Cole for a limited appointment as Assistant Attorney General in the same meeting?  Graham probably does not know he voted against Cole.  After voting for Kagan, he went missing again, and his staff voted against Cole by proxy.  The cameras at that point, were basically off, and he had no opportunity to steal the spotlight.

ReplaceLindseyGraham.com is still available.  Let’s hope it is not in 2014.  Trust me, when Graham goes missing, no one on the Republican side is going to lead the search mission.  He would be one missing person that no one would ever hope to find.

In November 1980, Reagan was on his way to the White House and Kagan was Chairman of the editorial page of The Daily Princetonian, Princeton’s student newspaper.  The day before the election, Kagan and her editorial page editors made clear what their position was in the race for President between Reagan and Carter.  They had one goal: “Keeping Reagan Out of the White House.”

This was necessary because of the following:

• “Consider the control of nuclear weapons.  While Carter has laboriously negotiated an arms control treaty that he still intends to lobby through Congress, Reagan opposes SALT II.  Under a Reagan presidency, an undesirable arms race, intended to cow the Russians, could well result.”

• “But Reagan’s economic policies are as fanciful as Carter’s are austere.  He insists that he can reduce taxes sharply, increase military spending, maintain existing domestic programs and balance the budget within three years.  Most economists agree that an across-the-board 10 per cent income tax reduction for three successive years would result in both unprecedented inflation and a redistribution of income to the wealthy.  Such “voodoo economics” is superficially attractive, but would ultimately prove disastrous.  Basic and necessary social programs would undoubtedly be discarded in the resulting budget crunch.”

• “Reagan has argued that state and local governments should play a greater role in providing social services, without explaining where fiscally strapped cities will find the funds.  His clarion call for a smaller federal government amounts to a policy of benign neglect for America’s cities.”

• “Reagan’s approach to energy problems. The United States is actually “energy-rich”, he claims.  He would abolish the Department of Energy and the windfall profits tax, both of which he asserts limit private industry’s energy production.  He advocates nuclear power and the continued exploitation of non-renewable energy sources.  Although Carter has not sufficiently stressed conservation and the development of renewable energy sources, he has successfully deregulated oil prices and established a synthetic fuels program.  More importantly, he is far more aware of nuclear power’s potential dangers than is Reagan.”

• “Nor can Carter’s excellent record of judicial appointments go ignored.  While in office, Carter has appointed more women blacks and Hispanics to the federal judiciary than all previous presidents combined.  Notwithstanding his campaign promise to select a woman for the Supreme Court, Reagan has paid little attention to these groups in the past.  With several Supreme Court justices likely to be replaced in the next four years, the thought of a conservative Nixon-Reagan bench is about as comforting as the Republican platform plank demanding that all Supreme Court nominees be anti-abortion.”

• “Finally, Reagan both opposes the equal rights amendment and supports a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion unless the mother’s life was at stake.  The President rightly takes the opposite positions.  Women in particular should realize that Reagan does not justly recognize their rights and concerns.”

Although Kagan was not enthusiastic about Carter, she wanted to make sure that Ivy League students did not waste their votes on a third party candidate, because, with Reagan lurking, supporting the third party candidate of choice, who would certainly lose and thereby help Reagan was “a luxury [the] nation [could not] afford.”

It was immediately after the Reagan victory that Kagan penned the now infamous editorial “Fear and Loathing in Brooklyn” where she decried the outcome of other elections won by conservatives and noted of her politics, “I absorbed such liberal principles early, more to the point; I have retained them fairly intact to this day.”

The editorial looked somewhat like a concession speech, because Kagan addressed the comeback of the liberal movement, but it was far from it.  Kagan was not about conceding.  She was premeditating and on Monday, January 19, 1981, she did the unthinkable; she killed Ronald Reagan.  How did she do it?

The day before Reagan was to be inaugurated, The Daily Princetonian, under Kagan’s leadership, ran an Onion style article, but never told the readers it was untrue.  The headline read “Reagan Dead of Heart Attack: Bush to Take Office Tomorrow; Supports Latest Hostage Move.”  The article reads like a legitimate news story.  The first two paragraphs state the following:

• “President-elect Ronald Reagan died in his sleep of an apparent heart attack early this morning, one day before he was to take the oath of office.  He was 69.

• “Vice-president elect George Bush will be sworn in tomorrow as the nation’s 40th President.”

Indeed, unless you get beyond the front page, and basically to the editorial page, you would never know the article was false and one would assume, intended to be humorous.  Kagan and her editorial team went on to write the following:

• “Ronald Reagan was young, but he offered Americans a sophomoric vision of the future.”

• “At this time, we extend our sympathies to the bereaved family of the late President-elect.  Imagine Nancy Reagan’s disappointment when she realized the White House was no longer hers to redecorate.  We hope that the unfortunate widow can still afford to shop at Adolfo’s, that Patti manages to land enough guest spots on mediocre TV-sitcoms to pay the rent, and that Ron Reagan, Jr., becomes a star with the Joffrey Ballet.  But we doubt they will.”

If you had any questions about how calculating Ms. Kagan is and whether she would kill and laugh about it, this clearly answers the question.  She hated the policies of Ronald Reagan and I’m sure she still does.  That’s why she killed him and that’s why President Obama has nominated her.  If she is fortunate enough to be confirmed, unfortunate for America, the conservative Justices better sleep with one eye open.  Otherwise, they might not wake-up.

There are normally two problems with statements like these: their content and the characters associated with them.

The Mount Vernon Statement has the content right.  The statement, instead of being watered down so that Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins would feel comfortable associating with it, reaffirms our nation’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, national security and socially conservative values.  Unfortunately, there were some unsavory characters present at the signing ceremony, including David Keene and Grover Norquist.  Malkin keyed in on their presence to denounce the statement.   (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/02/18/an-inconvenient-question-about-the-mount-vernon-statement/)  I am sure she drove a lot of traffic to her site in doing so.  For that I congratulate her.  For attacking the statement, I condemn her.

Malkin is right to highlight the point that if Keene and Norquist had a conscience, they would not have been present at the signing ceremony, because the content of the statement stands against everything they both believe.  Sure, at one point, Keene and Norquist were conservative leaders, but now they are unfortunately a part of the old Washington guard that has one interest in mind – lining their pocketbooks.  The self interest of Keene and Norquist does not reflect the interest those actually involved in drafting the statement, people like former Attorney General Ed Meese and Heritage’s Ed Feulner.  Are Meese and Feulner, who are far from corrupt, guilty because Keene and Norquist signed the same document as them?  I think not.

Malkin in denouncing statement, because Keene and Norquist never met a conservative spotlight they would not try to steal or share if possible, creates a new form of guilt by association.  The statement is guilty because corrupt individuals decided to associate themselves with it.  I reject this standard and Malkin should know better.  If she is smart enough to write about how Keene and Norquist are for sale to the highest bidder, she should be smart enough not to create this new standard and tarnish the Mount Vernon Statement.

Unsatisfied with simply taking down the Statement along with Keene and Norquist, Malkin criticized Senator DeMint for endorsing the statement and encouraging his colleagues and others to sign it.  That was over the top and out of line.  Senator DeMint is famous for putting points on the board.  Michelle Malkin is famous for driving traffic to her blogs.  Given the two choices, I will join Senator DeMint in signing the document.

For instance, the Democrats stalled a number of President Bush’s nominees, including the following:

Miguel Estrada: They told him conservative Hispanics need not apply.

Priscilla Owen: Anyone who does not support a 14 year old having an abortion without parental notification should not apply.

Bill Pryor: Any Catholic who agrees with the Pope that abortion is wrong, should not apply.

Janice Rogers Brown: African American females are not allowed to be conservative.  They are certainly not allowed to believe that the social security system is bankrupt.

So far, the Republicans have delayed or voted in substantial numbers against the following nominees of President Obama:

David Hamilton: You are forbidden from praying to Jesus Christ, but encouraged to pray to Allah.

Andre Davis: Is so soft on crime that he threw out the confession of a man who shot himself and then called the police for help.

Louis Butler: The people of Wisconsin have rejected him twice as a judge, because they do not like his judicial philosophy.

Edward Chen: “Judges have to make determinations that draw not so much upon legal acumen, but on an understanding of people and of human experiences.”  To hell with the law is the only way to paraphrase this statement.

The American people do not need to hear that after 100 days Louis Butler or Edward Chen were confirmed.  They need to hear that Butler and Chen will never be confirmed.  They need to know the judicial philosophy of these people, not how many days they have been pending.  Let Patrick Leahy play the numbers game if he chooses, but make him defend supporting someone who believes that praying to Allah is fine, but not Jesus Christ.  No Democrat was willing to say they opposed Priscilla Owen because she believes if a minor could not get an aspirin in school without consent, she should not an abortion without notification.

Pretty soon, the numbers will catch up on Republicans, as they always do on both parties, and then they will have to lose their fear of talking about the issues.  Let’s hope it is not too late to beat the radical nominees Obama is planning to send forward.  It’s not about the numbers.  It’s about the issues.

The Tim Tebow/Focus on the Family commercial has run its course.  For all the build-up, the commercial was a letdown, but the pro-choice crowd is not willing to let it die, like they promote letting 115,000 children die every day through abortions.  Their latest attack is to say that it was inappropriate for Tebow to “playfully” tackle his mom in the ad.

NOW President Terry O’Neill claimed the ad promoted violence against women. “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,” she told the Los Angeles Times. “That’s what comes across to me even more strongly than the anti-abortion message. I myself am a survivor of domestic violence, and I don’t find it charming.  I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”

I have not been a victim of domestic violence, but I know a victim when I see one and Terry O’Neill does not represent that crowd.  After the tackle, Tebow’s mom is all smiles.  I’ve never seen a victim of domestic violence smile immediately after being abused.  Indeed, the only time they normally smile, after the abuse, is when the judge hands down a harsh sentence and sends the abuser to prison.  Instead of helping the case against violence, O’Neill degrades it with her comments.  I think we have reached a point where no one should take the NOW organization seriously.

Before the ad ran, O’Neill, without seeing it, called it “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” Regardless of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, nothing about the ad is offensive or demeaning.  What is extraordinarily offensive is O’Neill’s ploy to promote baby killings at all cost.  And what is extraordinarily demeaning is her ability to degrade those who have truly been victims of domestic violence and inability to understand there is nothing playful about it.

Any one affiliated with NOW, at this point, should truly understand that NOW only believes in one choice – killing the innocent.  O’Neill has proven that with her attempt to change the focus of the Tebow ad.  Again, I’m a supporter of the non-violent movement, but at this point, I’m not opposed to beating some common sense, if at all possible, into any one affiliated with NOW.

The democrats have shown us their hand.  Their legislative agenda includes, cap & trade, health care, increasing the debt limit, legalizing gay marriage, comprehensive immigration, card check and welcoming terrorists.  That’s a middle ground that even Scott Brown, who is no Tea Party conservative, refused to go to.  Instead, he said one thing to the Obama agenda: NO.  In response, even the people of Massachusetts rejected hope and change.

It is time for new leadership in the Republican Party.  It is time for someone who will at least take a victory lap before snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.  We can meet Scott Brown on the Senate floor and shake his hand when he votes against health care.  For the Minority Leader, how many people are willing to join me and tell him you can meet the middle finger?