River Rising Review

Senior Travel

2012-02-16T07:28:00.003-06:00

I did not know this...

When you drink vodka over ice, it can give you kidney failure.

When you drink rum over ice, it can give you liver failure.

When you drink whiskey over ice, it can give you heart problems.

When you drink gin over ice, it can give you brain problems.

Apparently, ice is really bad for you.

Warn all your friends.

Strategic Abdication February 15, 2012 | by Earl H. Tilford | Topic: The American Story, The Global Challenge, The Path to FreedomPrint

2012-02-16T06:55:00.001-06:00

Earl Tilford, Ph.D.

From Damascus to Tehran, a test for world leadership is underway. Daily, the Syrian military—well-armed, highly trained thugs whose current mission is to keep dictator Bashar Assad in power—kills up to 200 or more of its own citizens.

Protests from Washington, the withdrawal of the U.S. ambassador, and an effort to condemn Syria in the U.N. Security Council (torpedoed by the Russians and Chinese) amount to little more than impotent handwringing from the “leader of the free world.”

It’s now been over 65 years since the U.S. militarily defeated an enemy in a great crusade. Sure, there have been military victories: Operation Just Cause in Panama in 1989, Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003; all demonstrated U.S. military operational excellence. Strategically, operations like that in Panama in 1989 or on the Island of Grenada in 1983 amounted to minor victories. More spectacular operational and tactical success in Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom will be meaningless given the likely outcome of precipitous U.S. withdrawals, in effect abandoning those countries.

The collapse of the Soviet Union notwithstanding—which was not primarily a military victory—the United States has not led a strategically decisive crusade since it assumed its role as world leader at the end of World War II.

More than military strength accompanied the moniker, “Leader of the Free World.” American values of freedom and liberty were held up as standards to which all humanity should aspire. U.S. economic leadership surged to the fore between 1946 and the advent of the Vietnam War in the 1960s. The world looked to the United States for moral leadership.

From 1953 to the present, for a variety of reasons, U.S. military forces never “closed the deal” in major conflicts, whether the effort in Korea, where a tense truce is still in effect two generations later; or the bug-out from Indochina culminating in the fall of Saigon in April 1975; or the ongoing retreats from Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which constitute nothing so much as “declaring victory and going home.”

Today, a test for world leadership is playing out. The Assad regime, connected politically and culturally to Tehran, relies on support from Moscow and Beijing. More than the fate of Israel is at stake. Leaders throughout the Arab world anxiously await the outcome. The strategic stakes involve global economic and political implications. Who leads? Short answer: no one. That means chaos until a leader emerges.

War remains an act of force to compel the enemy to do your will where the political outcome is paramount. The latter is strategically vital, encompassing as it does the reason for using military force. With the United States’ precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, standing aside while Mediterranean “powers” like Italy and France led in deposing Qaddafi, and now the political dithering by the White House over whether Israel should thwart Iran’s pledge to wipe it off the face of the earth—coupled with standing aside as Syrian forces slaughter their own—make it obvious that America views itself as one of many actors on a world stage rather than the director, producer, and leading player.

Strategic abdication is dangerous. American political culture, founded as it was on concepts of human liberty and freedom, is unique. It has also produced an economic powerhouse and a level of living unmatched in human history. The reality is that only the United States has the power and moral authority to maintain its position as a world leader. If this administration blows it, there are powers ready to step forward: China, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela among them. Imagine a world in which these leaders articulate their visions for the world of the 21st century. In such a world, “American exceptionalism” will be as strategically irrelevant as Swiss or Finnish exceptionalism and, as Shakespeare put it, “full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”

The world is at the precipice of strategic catastrophe. Israel may soon strike Iran. Leaders in Jerusalem know that if Assad reasserts control of Syria, his army will present a major threat on Israel’s northern border, especially since it is linked militarily with Hezbollah in Lebanon. To the south, where Egypt roils in social and political upheaval, a radical Islamist regime hostile to Israel is likely to emerge. If nothing is done, these regimes, linked to a nuclear-armed Tehran vowed to destroy Israel, will be the deciding strategic factor in the Middle East. This is the price of strategic abdication.

Now is the time for the United States to lead. If America fails, the world may descend into a dark and ominous future made more sinister by the moral imperatives of a radical religious ideology.

Dr. Earl Tilford is a military historian and fellow for the Middle East & terrorism with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He currently lives in Tuscaloosa, Alabama where he is writing a history of the University of Alabama in the 1960s. A retired Air Force intelligence officer, Dr. Tilford earned his PhD in American and European military history at George Washington University. From 1993 to 2001, he served as Director of Research at the U.S. Army’s Strategic Studies Institute. In 2001, he left Government service for a professorship at Grove City College, where he taught courses in military history, national security, and international and domestic terrorism and counter-terrorism.

Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution

2012-02-15T13:59:00.001-06:00

Constitution 101:
The Meaning and History of theConstitution

Available to you, your family, yourfriends,
and all Americans.

Begins February 20, 2012 – Sign Up TODAY!

Dear Rabbi,

Thanks to generous supporters like you, for the first time ever, Hillsdale College is offering a no-cost 10 weekonline Constitution course based on the course our students must complete, in order to graduate. I am proud to beteaching part of our NEW Constitution 101 Course and hope YOU will be one of my students!
Many in our country, particularly those in elected leadership, have strayed from the principles of individual liberty and limited government thatthe Constitution upholds.
That’s why Hillsdale College has launched one of its most ambitious undertakings yet . ..

["Constitution 101: The Meaning and Historyof the Constitution"]

This course on the U.S. Constitution will be offered online and at nocharge to everyone who wants to understand and defend the timeless principles of liberty upon which our nation was founded!
"Constitution 101" begins on February 20, 2012, and concludes the week of April 30. It will cover such topics as theDeclaration of Independence and its connection to the Constitution, how the Constitution is structured to protectindividual liberty and ensure good government, the crisis of constitutional government faced by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and its modernchallenges during the "Progressive" era.
It is my honor to teach the first class, "Introduction: TheAmerican Mind," and the final class, "The Recovery of the Constitution." All of the classes will be taught by Hillsdale Collegeprofessors — the top teachers in their field and the same ones who instruct our students here on Hillsdale’s campus.

Constitution 101Schedule
Introduction: The American Mind Larry P. Arnn Monday, February 20 The Declaration of Independence Thomas G. West Monday, February 27 The Problem of Majority Tyranny David Bobb Monday, March 5 Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny Kevin Portteus Monday, March 12	Separation of Powers: Ensuring GoodGovernment Will Morrisey Monday, March 19 Religion, Morality, and Property David Bobb Monday, March 26 Crisis of Constitutional Government WillMorrisey Monday, April 2	Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution Kevin Portteus Monday, April 9 The Progressive Rejection of the Founding Ronald J. Pestritto Monday, April 16 The Recovery of the Constitution Larry P. Arnn Monday, April 23

[Go here to register for "Constitution101" now]

As Hillsdale’s president, I have devoted my life to education, helping studentsunderstand the meaning and history of the American founding. Here at Hillsdale, we know that can only come about through a close reading and study ofour nation’s founding documents, particularly the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
In recent years,Hillsdale has worked hard to expand its educational outreach, teaching citizens and policy makers (especially members of Congress and their staffs)about the timeless truths contained in our nation’s founding documents. This is a direct response to the way the Constitution is being ignoredand violated by our government.
After all, the Constitution is the supreme law of our nation, the framework by which ourcountry should be governed. Its principles and structures are responsible for the greatest government in human history.
Like you, I see the coming months as pivotal in the history of our country. And I am deeply concerned about the future.

Will we as a nation succumb to bureaucratic despotism, or will we take a stand for liberty?

The century-old attack on the Constitution, that continues today, has threatened to undermine our hard-won liberties and is reducing Americancitizens to subservience to an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy.

[Please go here to enroll in "Constitution101"]

Our choice of whether to recover the principles of liberty and limited government under theConstitution will determine if we will remain self-governing citizens or become dependent subjects ruled by unelected bureaucrats.
That's why Hillsdale College is committed to restoring and reviving the public's understanding of the Constitution, once again making it thecentral focus of American government.
As you probably know—especially ifyou listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin on the radio—Hillsdale College is one of the few colleges or universities in thecountry that requires all of its students, regardless of their major, to complete a one-semester course on the U.S. Constitution.
Over the years, many Hillsdale friends, even those who never attended college here, have commented tome: "Dr. Arnn, I wish I could take Hillsdale’s Constitution course."
In response to these requests, thispast year, for the first time ever, Hillsdale College offered a condensed "Introduction to the Constitution" online course at no charge.Frankly, I wasn’t sure what sort of a response a course like this would have.
However, more than 180,000 people fromall over the United States registered for this program.
I was thrilled, not onlyby the reaction, but at what it indicates: Americans are willing and eager to study and defend the founding principles that made our countryso prosperous!
This re-awakening of national interest in theConstitution comes not a minute too soon.

My Request to You

ACTION STEP #1: Be one of the first to sign up for "Constitution 101" bycompleting the course REGISTRATION form.
ACTION STEP #2: Please include the best donation you can make to helpHillsdale College fund this vital project.
The course, available at no charge to the public, is not without cost toHillsdale. The College has already invested much to make this landmark course a reality. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been committed tocreate and prepare the course for one of the most far-reaching webcasts in our history . . . and to mount a massive email, radio, and mail marketingcampaign to enroll an initial ONE MILLION course registrants.
To make "Constitution 101" available nationwidewill cost nearly $1,000,000. While a monumental expenditure for Hillsdale College, it must be made if we are to reach as many citizens and electedofficials as possible during 2012.
ACTION STEP #3: Please forward this email to friends and familyand encourage them to enroll in "Constitution 101."

OUR CHALLENGE

With your help, Hillsdale College is dedicated to returning the U.S. Constitution to its rightful place at the center of American politicallife.
If our republic does not reverse course, we may not be able to reclaim the liberty that has been lost, and we willlose the liberty we still have.
Hillsdale College has accepted this challenge, and our commitment to making"Constitution 101" available to citizens nationwide is proof. But we need your help to make this possible. . .
You know, before coming to Hillsdale, I often wondered how a small liberal arts college in rural southern Michigan could, as Ronald Reagan oncedescribed it, "cast such a long shadow."
The answer is simple. It can be found in adherence to our motto:Pursuing Truth and Defending Liberty since 1844. This phrase defines the purpose of the College, and gives life to the education we provide ourstudents – and potentially all Americans!
That commitment has made it possible for Hillsdale to accomplish what manyconsidered unachievable for a school of our size, including:

Proudly publishingImprimis, a no-cost monthly speech digest that promotes liberty, for 40 consecutive years—now with a circulation ofover 2.1 million subscribers;
Educating our students independent of any and allgovernment taxpayer subsidy—even in the form of grants and loans; and
Establishing our Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in the heart of Washington, D.C. One ofits chief purposes is educational outreach to our elected officials and their staffs on the principles of American constitutionalism.

With your support—and that of other patriots such as you—Hillsdale College has worked tirelessly tosafeguard the principles of liberty by educating citizens about the Constitution.

[Go here to register and donate]

And Hillsdale has done it all without a dime of taxpayer subsidy. In order to protect the integrity of its mission and preventintrusive government regulation, Hillsdale College accepts no taxpayer funding whatsoever. We are proud to remain steadfast in this policy at a timewhen almost every other institution of "higher learning" is increasingly dependent on government support.
Thankyou for supporting the mission of Hillsdale College. Before I close, I would like to ask you please to consider honoring Hillsdale with a special giftto support the vital work of Hillsdale College at such an important time in our nation's history.
Your generosity at thiscritical time will not just help underwrite the cost of making "Constitution 101" available nationwide. It will also support all the otherways that Hillsdale College educates Americans to be defenders of liberty and self-government.
MY GIFT FORYOU
Inappreciation of your donation of $100 or more, Iwill send you a complimentary copy of my new hardbound book. Its title is:

THE FOUNDERS' KEY: THEDIVINE AND NATURAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE DECLARATION AND THE CONSTITUTION AND WHAT WE RISK BY LOSING IT

In this book I explain the unique connection between America's two most important documents, how that connection has been severedtoday, and why we must repair it for the sake of freedom.
If your gift is $500 or more, you becomeeligible to have your name (or the name of a loved one you would like recognize) engraved on a brick on the Liberty Walk located onthe Hillsdale campus.
But even a gift of $25 will help ensure that Hillsdale can continue to reach millions with themessage of liberty via Imprimis . . . educate our elected officials and their staffs at our Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center forConstitutional Studies and Citizenship . . . run Hillsdale-sponsored events and lectures in cities all across America . . . and continue to educatethe next generation of leaders without federal or state government subsidies, even indirectly in the form of student grants and loans.
Your gift will help make it all possible. And for that I am grateful.

[Please go here to donate]

For liberty to prevail, Americans must come to understand and defend the Constitution.
And they must doso urgently.
Please help Hillsdale College educate citizens on how to revive the Constitution and preserve America'stradition of individual liberty and limited government.
Thank you for supporting Hillsdale College.
Yours for liberty,
Dr.Larry P. Arnn
President
Hillsdale College
P.S. PLEASEREMEMBER to do these three important things:

Make the most generous tax-deductible contributionyou can afford. And remember, as thanks for your gift of $100 or more, you will receive a copy of my new book, The Founders' Key.
Enroll NOW in our new"Constitution 101: the Meaning and History of the Constitution" online course, which begins on February 20, 2012.
Forward this email to any of your friends or family who you think would enjoy Constitution101.

Thank you so much for standing with Hillsdale and the Constitution . . . and for doingeverything in your power to defend liberty in America in 2012.

American Minute with Bill Federer Feb. 15 - Slavery in Cuba & the U.S.S. Maine blown up

2012-02-15T13:53:00.002-06:00

Slavery in the Americas existed in the pre-Columbian Inca Empire's system of mandatory public service, known as mita, and the Aztec system, known as tlacotin,

Spain conquered the New World in the early 1500's and set up a system called encomienda or repartimiento, which was similar to feudal France's Corvée "unfree labour," traceable back through Roman and Egyptian history to state-imposed forced labor of peasants who were in debt to the government.

Slavery in Cuba began earlier and lasted longer than anywhere else in the Americas.

When indigenous Indians died from harsh treatment and lack of immunity, Spain replaced them with Africans bought from Muslim slave markets.

Priests like Bartolomé de las Casas, Franciscan Friars, Papal Bulls, and Christian missionaries, such as the Moravians, were a voice of conscience against slavery, but Colonial governments largely ignored them.

A notorious trade triangle developed with Havana, Cuba, at its center: SLAVES from Africa to SUGAR from the Caribbean to RUM in England.

Importation of slaves to the United States ended in 1807, but in 1839, an international incident occurred.

A Portuguese ship from Sierra Leone sold 53 slaves to Spanish Planters on the Cuban ship Amistad. On July 1, 1839, the Africans seized the ship and demanded to be sailed back to Africa.

Instead, the captain misdirected the ship to Long Island, NY, where the slaves were arrested.

The Amistad Case went to the Supreme Court, with 74-year-old former President, John Quincy Adams, defending the Africans.

Adams agreed, saying: "By the blessing of God, I will argue the case before the Supreme Court," and writing in his journal, October 1840:

"I implore the mercy of God to control my temper, to enlighten my soul, and to give me utterance, that I may prove myself in every respect equal to the task."

Francis Scott Key offered Adams advice. Adams shook hands with Africans Cinque and Grabeau, saying: "God willing, we will make you free."

Wining the case, JQA, known as "Old Man Eloquent," had argued:

"The moment you come to the Declaration of Independence, that every man has a right to life and liberty, an inalienable right, this case is decided. I ask nothing more in behalf of these unfortunate men than this Declaration."

In Cuba, a Creole farmer began a revolt in 1868 for racial equality, freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Spain killed thousands putting it down in the Ten Years War.

A Royal decree finally ended slavery in Cuba in 1886.

In 1895, another rebellion began and Spain sent 200,000 soldiers to Cuba. Tens of thousands were put into concentration camps where they suffered from starvation, disease and exposure.

Yellow Press journalism excited the American public, who demanded President William McKinley intervene.

The U.S.S. Mai ne was sent to Havana, and on FEBRUARY 15, 1898, it blew up in the harbor under suspicious conditions, beginning the Spanish-American War.

President McKinley approved the Resolution of Congress:

"Whereas the abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than three years in the island of Cuba, so near our own borders, have shocked the moral sense of the people of the United States, have been a disgrace to Christian civilization,

culminating, as they have, in the destruction of a United States battle ship, with 266 of its officers and crew, while on a friendly visit in the harbor of Havana, and cannot longer be endured...

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives...that the people of the island of Cuba are and of right ought to be free."

Know someone who would be interested in receiving the American Minute?

Daily Reading: http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/readingplans/index.php/2012/02/15

Please consider a donation at http://www.americanminute.com/donate.php

American Minute is a registered trademark.

Legislative Updates from Missouri Farmers Care

2012-02-15T13:17:00.001-06:00

Dear Rabbi,

Missouri Farmers Care is keeping a close eye on the state Capitol during this legislative session. Many of our representatives and senators have stepped up with pro-ag legislation and this week we wanted to highlight some bills in the state House of Representatives that we are following.

Please click the link on the bill name to visit the House website and learn more.

HCS HJR 61 -- RIGHT TO RAISE LIVESTOCK

Rep. Loehner is the Chairman of the House Agricultural Policy committee and is sponsoring several pro-ag bills that would insulate Missouri agriculture from outside attack.

SPONSOR: Tom Loehner

Summary:

Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment

affirms the right of persons to raise cattle, calves, sheep,

swine, poultry, goats, horses, other equine, or rabbits in a

manner adhering to state and local laws and ordinances as enacted

on August 28, 2012, or at the commencement of operations,

whichever is later. No law effecting the manner in which animals

are being raised can be enacted by an initiative petition.

HJR 63 -- Agriculture-Related Initiative Proposals

Sponsor: Tom Loehner

Summary:

Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment requires a four-sevenths voter majority approval of an initiative petition relating to crop production, raising livestock, or other agriculturally related topic in order for it to take effect.

HB 1444 -- Confiscated Animals

This bill would ensure that animal owners whose animals have been seized will not end up paying for the boarding or euthanizing of their animals if they are acquitted or proven innocent.

Sponsor: Jason Smith

Summary:

This bill prohibits any public or private animal pound, shelter, humane organization or other organization or individual which seizes, confiscates or accepts seized or confiscated animals from sterilizing, adopting, euthanizing or otherwise disposing of the animal unless there is a final disposition of any charges against the animal owner. All animals seized or confiscated must receive proper care as determined by state law and regulations. Any facility or organization will be liable to the owner for damages from any negligent acts or abuse of an animal while in its custody. Upon the owner's conviction, the animals seized or confiscated will be adjudged by the court as forfeited and may then be sterilized, adopted, euthanized, or otherwise disposed of in accordance with state law and regulations. Upon conviction, the animal owner is liable for all costs incurred relating to the placement and care of the animals while the charges were pending and the sterilization, adoption, or euthanasia of the animal after the conviction. If the owner is acquitted or there is a final discharge without a conviction, the owner may demand return of the seized or confiscated animals, and any organization or individual with custody of the animals must immediately return them to the owner.

HB 1513 -- ANIMAL RIGHTS

Some have said that this bill is unnecessary. But with PETA suing Sea World on the grounds that killer whales are "enslaved," we see HB 1513 as an important step in protecting Missouri from animal-rights radicals.

SPONSOR: Ward Franz

Summary:

This bill prohibits any state law from providing an animal a right, privilege, or legal status that is equivalent to or exceeds those of a human being.

These are just a few of the bills that impact agriculture this session. In coming weeks, we will highlight more legislation that is important to Missouri farmers, sportsmen, and anyone who stands with us against animal-rights radicals.

_______________________________________________________________

A reminder - over 99% of Your Vote Count's funding came from HSUS, other animal-rights extremists, and out-of-state donors in the 4th quarter of 2011 . This chart shows how much the animal-rights groups are willing to spend to amend Missouri's Constitution so they can continue pushing their misleading ballot initiatives.

Please follow us on Twitter and Facebook for up-to-the-minute details.

Members of Missouri Farmers Care include: Missouri Pork Association, Missouri Cattlemen's Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, MFA Incorporated, Missouri Beef Industry Council, Inc., Missouri Dairy Association, Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, Missouri Egg Council, Inc., MFA Oil, Missouri Agribusiness Association, FCS Financial, Missouri Dairy Growth Council, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, Cargill, Missouri Rural Electric Cooperatives and Missouri Pet Breeders Association, Monsanto, United Producers, Inc., Missouri Sheep Producers, Missouri Livestock Marketing Association, Missouri Farmer Today, Professional Pet Association, Missouri Association of Meat Processors, Missouri Whitetail Breeders and Hunting Ranch Association, and Lathrop & Gage

Susan's (Lapin) Musings: Santorum's Spotlight

2012-02-15T07:53:00.001-06:00

And my nominee is….the first candidate who reads, absorbs and acts upon the excellent advice to candidates given over the past few months by conservative writers.

While I am in the doldrums over the actual candidates, I have been inspired by so many writers. Whether it is Wall Street Journal editorials, bloggers or columnists I find myself shouting “yes” reading article after article while I groan listening to the candidates themselves.

Like so many others, I have spent much of this election primary cycle trying desperately to give the benefit of the doubt to Republican candidates.

Perhaps candidate A has matured and developed his thinking; maybe candidate B has learned from his mistakes; is it possible that candidate C who was virtually unknown eight months ago can articulate what I believe?

Unfortunately, disappointment follows on the heel of disappointment.

It is obviously easier to be a writer than a candidate. Seeing what is wrong is easier than rectifying it. Writing, which allows you to cogitate, revise, cogitate and revise is ten-fold easier than giving even a prepared speech, a thousand-fold easier than answering hostile questions and a million-fold easier than having every word you have ever uttered presented as front page news.

But even so, how can the candidates themselves, along with their managers and advisors, continually ignore a cascade of sage advice, displaying tin ears more frequently than wisdom?

A few weeks ago, I wrote at my dismay about Rick Santorum’s policy proposals. When I read about his ideas in the paper, I was tremendously upset. He was doling out teaspoons of water (and, in my opinion, murky water) to a parched nation; thinking on a small, outdated scale while huge problems needing bold solutions beset us. I was distressed because there is so much about Rick Santorum which I admire. I believe him to be a good man; what we need right now is greatness. Frequently, a position of responsibility seasons and matures an individual. We say that someone is “growing in office.” Right now, winning the nomination and getting into office demands that growth take place during the campaign.

What would that specifically mean for Rick Santorum?

It means holding tight to his core principles but also expanding them to encompass areas which aren’t his natural comfort zone. It means building a team which is not composed of ‘yes’ men and women, but which constantly challenges him to increase his areas of knowledge and improve his communication skills so that even those who disagree with him respect his arguments. It means completely rejecting the Democratic strategy of pandering to specific interest groups, be they geographic, economic, racial, or otherwise and instead presenting a vision of an America which has potential to benefit all. It means retaining good character in a sordid nominating process.

I have read dozens of articles pleading with each of the Republican candidates to respond to the conservative base’s desire for principled, eloquent leadership in the economic, domestic and foreign arenas. Ignored at first, Rick Santorum has exhibited admirable persistence and temerity. There is no time to slowly ramp up to greatness. Citizens of a number of states have granted him the opportunity to be heard. Can he inspire confidence and be worthy of the approval of millions more?

The window for him to achieve that is narrow; if he has it in him, the time is now.

God and Man at CPAC: Facing the 2012 Election

2012-02-14T07:22:00.003-06:00

Amidst the hoopla, cheers, and ear-piercing whistles of enthusiastic approval for Republican presidential nominees at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, several themes emerged. The most important of these centered on the conflict between what may be titled American foundationalism versus contemporary progressivism. Foundationalism embodies a family of concepts ordered hierarchically from God, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. It is essentially theological in nature and emphasizes the role of immutable truths about the sources of law, rights, and duties, along with the relationships between citizens and their governments. Immutable is the key word here; foundationalists stress that rights, for instance, are “unalienable” and inextricably bound with nature and “Nature’s God,” and that the sole function of government is to protect what cannot be created nor abridged without egregious moral violence to the individual. Attached to this idea is a narrative, which extols the spread of what Thomas Jefferson touted as “An Empire of Liberty,” and in history books that once were graced with titles such as “The Story of Freedom.”

Not so fast, say the progressives. Rights are neither immutable nor unalienable, and the documents supporting such views are time-bound and almost laughably out of date. Indeed, the founding era should be understood as nothing more than a late 18th-century conception of government that perhaps suited the needs of the young republic, but is now inadequate to address contemporary social and political demands. The idea of a social contract is ridiculous, assert progressives, and limiting government to the skeleton “laundry list” of powers found in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution stymies efforts to deal with pressing problems that have beset the country since post-Civil War industrialization, which is about the time that progressivism was born.

How can a two-centuries-old document be relevant in an age assaulted by cries for social and environmental justice, not to mention the rights to health care and free contraception? Activist governments cannot possibly deal with modern problems in a system of checks and balances; furthermore, as needs change, so does our emerging consciousness of new, additional rights, which are created by Congress, the courts, and administrative agencies. Throughout all this, God may be lurking somewhere but in all events is irrelevant; the Almighty’s sovereignty over the affairs of mankind has been replaced by History with a capital H. And it is History, not God, which marches through time with the inexorability of some metaphysical beast on a quest to realize the satisfaction of all humanity’s yearnings and the termination of everyone’s travails.

What is one to make of all this? Certainly each view has its attractions, its defenders, and its critics. Foundationalism without question served the country superbly during America’s formative decades, but progressives also had a point when they condemned strict constructionist views of the Constitution for inadequately coping with problems generated by the country’s growth into the world’s foremost industrial power. On the other hand, foundationalists argue that dismissing constitutional safeguards with criticisms based on the moral relativism of the founding era has resulted in a monstrous administrative state that even its creators in Congress cannot hold accountable.

Which side is correct? Although CPAC speakers emphasized the role of ideas in the coming election, unfortunately, the position of those who argue against them is largely determined by the benefits they receive from America’s administrative state, following their economic interests with the sort of predictability that even Karl Marx would admire. Does anyone think that teachers’ and public-sector unions will abjure their plethora of taxpayer-funded benefits for the sake of some “silly” ideas about the role of constitutionalism and limited government?

However, beneath such purely economic considerations lies a central philosophical incoherence that threatens to derail the entire progressive project. If History consigned the founding era to a status of historical irrelevance, who can say that progressivism, which is also a product of historical evolution of ideas, will not suffer the same fate? In short, why should we not believe that progressivism was simply the product of a bevy of severely misguided statists who, at the beginning of the 20th century, believed that a sort of benevolent totalitarianism was the wave of the future? Furthermore, why should we believe that History decrees a sort of welfare state future? Indeed, during the 1930s, the wave of the future seemed to be fascist dictatorships; only a muddle-headed optimist would have predicted otherwise.

There is one point, however, on which both foundationalists and progressives can agree: the 2012 election is one of enormous importance. Without question, its outcome will determine the future direction of the country, a reinvigoration of America’s foundationalism or a continuation of progressives’ administrative statism. Further, we might predict, the election will change the country in ways that neither side anticipated.

Marvin J. Folkertsma

Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and fellow for American studies with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."

Hi-Tech Missouri Sheriff - Sheriff Brad Delay, Lawrence County

2012-02-09T11:39:00.002-06:00

02/09/2012 - Text Alerts Added to Website

The Lawrence County Sheriff's Office has now added another feature to its website. Effective 02-09-2012 you can now sign up to receive text alerts to your phone when a change is made to the Sheriff's Office Website.

Email alerts have been a part of the website for some time. Now instead of having to check your email for new information, that information can be sent directly to your cell phone. Information such as press releases, inmate roster, sex offenders, etc. can now be received through texts.

This feature was added to increase the awareness of the citizens of Lawrence County as to the daily operations of the Sheriff's Office as well as to provide necessary information that could prove valuable to citizens and victims alike.

To sign up for this new feature, go to www.lawrencecosheriff.com and click on the "Sign Up for Alert" tab near the top left of the page. It will request your cell phone number as well as your cell phone carrier. Click on submit and you should be signed up. You may also sign up for email alerts or both if you choose.

The Limits of "Term Limits" for Entitled Senators, like Missouri's McCaskill

2012-02-05T07:14:00.000-06:00

Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge Foundation and Citizens in Charge. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web and via e-mail.

In election result after election result, poll after poll — whether Republican, Democrat or independent; male or female; black, white, yellow, red or green — Americans by large margins want term limits for their representatives, a short leash on their servants holding an office of public trust.

But for Congress, that most unpopular institution of popular government, there are no such term limits. The people’s humble servants have told them to go fly a kite. In no uncertain terms.

Again, just this past week, three-fourths of the U.S. Senate said, “Hell no, we won’t go.” By a whopping 75 to 24 vote, Senators defeated an amendment introduced by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) that would have expressed a “sense of the Senate” for a constitutional amendment imposing a limit on congressional tenure.

Didn’t hear anything about this vote? Much of the news media ignored it, just as they eschew the issue, figuring that the officials of official Washington have consistently and unequivocally declined to return to the mass of folks about whom they care so selflessly. What are you going do about it? Case closed.

Still, for a repeatedly deceased issue, term limitation keeps popping up at the worst times for career politicians. Former House Speaker Tom Foley’s famous prediction that über-interested career politicians would successfully dodge term limits has thus far held up, but the issue did cost Foley his own seat in 1994 — making him the only Speaker defeated for re-election since before the Civil War.

(Former Speaker Newt Gingrich was nearly defeated for his House seat in 1990, winning by a mere 974 votes out of more than 150,000 cast. Oddly, Mr. Gingrich was saved by the open protection of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. But that was four years prior to the 1994 Republican Revolution that made him Speaker.)

Certainly politicians have been able to “beat the issue” — most notably when George Nethercutt, having defeated Foley on a pledge to abide by the term limits initiative passed by Washington State voters, ran for a third re-election in 2000 . . . and won. Still, today Nethercutt is gone from Congress, having run for the Senate four years later in a campaign that “never gained much traction.”

Voters don’t like liars. And they do like term limits. All the more, because the issue cuts across political lines. It’s about whether a person seeking power understands that an office is a public trust and not a grant of power, and whether he or she appreciates the need for a limit to power.

That’s why, given a choice, voters favor a candidate who favors term limits.

A quick examination of the roll call vote on Mr. DeMint’s amendment shows several senators whose vote against congressional term limits could perhaps lead to term limits for them personally this election. Sadly, most incumbents have enough advantages to break their word on term limits, or for that matter a cornucopia of other issues, and still gain re-election.

Yet, in a competitive contest, the issue of term limits could make the difference. It’s straight-forward, voters are solidly on-board and well convinced of the reasons, which daily pour forth from Washington were reinforcement ever needed.

Back at a town hall meeting in 2010, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) didn’t like the answer to her question: “You don’t you trust me?” She may not like the answer to: “Can I have your vote?”

The first-term Democratic senator is locked in a tie with all of her GOP opponents, prompting Dean Debnam, president of Public Policy Polling to declare her “definitely one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the country.”

McCaskill is reeling from the revealing scandal of her Senate office billing taxpayers $76,000 for 89 flights on a chartered plane. Expensive jet-setting at taxpayer expense. And there’s the fact that the charter company making the money is co-owned by — did you guess? — Claire McCaskill!

Oh, and for the record, she owes $287,000 in back property taxes on that charter plane.

Last week, Claire McCaskill voted against term limits for Congress.

This November, as Missourians are considering whether to re-elect McCaskill, they may also be voting on a legislatively referred ballot measure to term-limit statewide officials. Missourians passed both state legislative and congressional term limits back in 1992 by a 75 percent yes vote. A poll last year, nearly twenty years later, showed 77 percent of Missourians opposed to weakening those limits.

What might happen if one of those super PACs reminded folks who probably don’t know, that the same term limits they voted for were voted down by Claire McCaskill?

Another close Senate race will be in Montana, where Democrat Jon Tester is often billed as a populist, not a liberal. But last week Tester voted against the same term limits passed by his state’s voters back in 1992 and reaffirmed by an even bigger margin in 2004.

How will he explain that vote? Will he have to explain it?

A recent poll showed Sen. Tester trailing his Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, by two percentage points, 47-45.

Richard Lugar is the third most senior member of the Senate, having held his perch for the last 34 years. Last week, Lugar voted against term limits.

In May, Indiana Republicans will hold a primary to choose their nominee for U.S. Senate. One would guess that long-term incumbent Sen. Lugar would be a shoo-in. Not so. A recent poll commissioned by the Club for Growth put State Treasurer Richard Mourdock up two points on Lugar.

Conservatives like Steve Forbes and groups like the Club for Growth are backing Mourdock. They’re reminding fellow conservatives that MSNBC called Lugar, “Obama’s favorite Republican.”

They might decide to remind voters about Lugar’s vote against term limits. They might posit that the nation can survive just fine without Mr. Lugar having 40 years in power.

And voters do like term limits.

"Mittens'" Poor - A Net to Keep Them Safely Poor?

2012-02-03T10:45:00.000-06:00

"Mittens'" Poor Safety Net

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

--Benjamin Franklin

2012-02-02T09:11:00.003-06:00

02/02/2012 - Deputies Locate More Meth Chemicals

MORE METH-LAB CHEMICALS AND TRASH DISCARDED IN LAWRENCE COUNTY
3 METH-LAB TRASH SITES IN 4 DAYS
    1-29-2012 Sunday afternoon, a Lawrence County Sheriff's Deputy on patrol discovers chemicals and other items that had been used in a meth-lab. The discarded chemicals and lab trash were found discarded in a dry creek bed that crosses under Lawrence 2040 approximately ½ mile east of State Highway UU.
    1-31-2012, Monday afternoon, Deputies respond to a citizen’s discovery of chemicals and other items used in a meth-lab. The discarded chemicals and meth-lab trash were discovered on private property along Law 1165 appx.1 mile south of Law 2035.
    2-1-2012 Tuesday afternoon, Deputies respond to a citizen’s discovery of a chemical generator that is used in the meth crystallization process. The chemicals that were found in the discarded containers are toxic.
    The left-over litter of a meth-lab can be extremely toxic and poses a threat to the public. If handled improperly, the discarded chemicals can cause burns to the skin and cause inhalation problems. The toxic meth-lab remnants are defined as hazardous material. Specialized cleanup crews are called in to safely remove and dispose of the toxic garbage. Lawrence County Sheriff personnel were called to these sites to oversee the clean-up and disposal of the discovered Haz-Mat material.
    The public is asked to contact the Sheriff’s Office if you suspect discarded trash could be a meth-lab or the remnants of one.

The Lawrence County Sheriff's Office has a toll free number of
1-888-635-8477 (TIPS) through the Barry-Lawrence Crime-stoppers or
through email at www.lawrencecosheriff.com. All callers can remain
anonymous

U.S. Constitution: A Reader from Hillsdale College Press

2012-02-02T06:01:00.001-06:00

Dear Friend,

Thank you for expressing interest in The U.S. Constitution: A Reader, now available fromHillsdale College Press. To purchase the Reader, please visit HillsdaleUSConstitution.com or Amazon.com.

Featuring 113 primary sourcedocuments, The U.S. Constitution: A Reader was developed for teaching the core course on the U.S. Constitution at Hillsdale College.Divided into eleven sections with introductions by members of Hillsdale's Politics Department faculty, readings cover the principles of theAmerican founding, the framing and structure of the Constitution, the secession crisis and the Civil War, the Progressive rejection of theConstitution, and the building of the administrative state based on Progressive principles.

We should also note that you are invited tojoin Hillsdale College for a free 10-week course, "Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of theConstitution." Scheduled to begin on February 20, 2012, the course features Hillsdale College faculty lectures, quizzes, and readings basedon The U.S. Constitution: A Reader.

Thank you for your interest in HillsdaleCollege.

"Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution."

This 10-week course, which features lectures from six Hillsdale College faculty members, including College President Dr. Larry P. Arnn, will include readings, a study guide, quizzes, and question-and-answer sessions, among other features.

The course begins on February 20, 2012.

To access weekly lectures and other material once the program begins, please go to http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/, click the "Sign In" button at the top, and enter your email address under the "Already Registered?" section.

Lectures and other study materials are released each Monday by noon according to the schedule below. Each lecture is approximately 40 minutes in length. All material, once released, is available to view at your convenience.

All material, once released, is available to view at your convenience.

The schedule of lectures is as follows:

Introduction: The American Mind
Larry P. Arnn
Monday, February 20
The Declaration of Independence
Thomas G. West
Monday, February 27
The Problem of Majority Tyranny
David Bobb
Monday, March 5
Separation of Powers: Preventing Tyranny
Kevin Portteus
Monday, March 12
Separation of Powers: Ensuring Good Government
Will Morrisey
Monday, March 19
Religion, Morality, and Property
David Bobb
Monday, March 26
Crisis of Constitutional Government
Will Morrisey
Monday, April 2
Abraham Lincoln and the Constitution
Kevin Portteus
Monday, April 9
The Progressive Rejection of the Founding
Ronald J. Pestritto
Monday, April 16
The Recovery of the Constitution
Larry P. Arnn
Monday, April 23

More information will be made available as we near the start of the program. We encourage you to share information about "Constitution 101" with your friends, family, and co-workers, plus anyone else, including Tea Party members, who is interested in this vital topic. We hope hundreds of thousands of citizens from around the country will join us for this unique opportunity.

While you wait for "Constitution 101" to begin, we encourage you to view the "Introduction to the Constitution" series, the five-part presentation featuring Hillsdale College President Dr. Larry P. Arnn.

Please email constitution@hillsdale.edu with any questions you may have.

Want your own copy of Hillsdale's Constitution Reader?

The readings required for "Constitution 10" are drawn from Hillsdale's new publication, The U.S. Constitution: A Reader. Featuring 113 primary sources documents, this is the same reader used by Hillsdale College students for their required one-semester course on the U.S. Constitution as part of Hillsdale College's rigorous core curriculum. Purchase your copy today at www.hillsdaleusconstitution.com!

Finally, please consider supporting this program with a tax-deductible gift to Hillsdale College. There is no fee to participate in "Constitution 101," but we have made a significant investment to prepare this course. A suggested $50 gift will help cover the costs of your participation, and an even more generous gift of $100 will cover your costs and those of one other person who cannot give at this time.

"Obamneycare" Linked

2012-02-02T05:55:00.000-06:00

Catholic Education Alternative in Kansas City MO as told by an eighth grader from the Sudan

2012-02-01T09:39:00.000-06:00

[Originally posted at The Missouri Record]

February 1, 2012 09:00 AM

[The following is testimony offered on January 31, 2012 on SB 706.]

Hello, my name is Yak Nak I’m very thankful and full of joy that I can be here today. It is a privilege I will never forget to be asked to address this committee and I will always cherish this responsibility.

I traveled here today from Holy Cross Catholic School located in Northeast Kansas City. To ask you to support the “Turner Fix” which is Senate Bill 706.

Holy Cross is in the most diverse part of our town filled with a wide variety of national origins and ethnic traditions. I feel we reflect the changing world. The United States of America is home for me and I am proud to celebrate freedom with my family; who have survived persecution on the most brutal level.

Today, my main goal is to speak about the major effect of Catholic schools in my family’s life, and also about the benefits of having a Catholic school in my community. My greatest hope is that more of our friends and neighbors can take advantage of my community’s Catholic school.

Originally my family lived in Wau, Sudan where my mother grew up. My mother started her education in a boarding school in Sudan but was forced to drop out because of the civil war in my country. My mother’s parents had perished in the war and she lived with her grandparents. My grandparents continued to be persecuted by Muslims because of their Christian beliefs. So, my mother moved to a less dangerous area to be raised by her aunt and uncle. She never was allowed to continue her education and lived in fear until she met my father and they married to start their family. The war expanded in the country and eventually they were forced to leave once and for all in order to save their children and themselves.

After years of brutal struggle we escaped to Cairo, Egypt. After three years in Egypt, my family moved to America where my two youngest brothers were born. We are a family of six children living in this country. The goal of our family is to achieve the highest possible education to help our country in the Sudan.

Even though it was a struggle for my family, my older brother and sisters were enrolled in Holy Cross School, because the reputation of the public schools in my area was not as good as my parents would have hoped. They knew there was no time to waste when dealing with young minds and education was more valuable than any money they could save.

My mother has always said and will say to this day, “Why did we make the sacrifice to send all of our children to the Catholic School?” Her reply is the same every time. “You will have the education I was unable to have. Education is what matters to us.”

There is only one way that you can reach the top and lead people and that is through an education. I believe only through a Catholic education can you reach these goals if you live in Northeast Kansas City, Missouri.

At Catholic schools they try to give students an edge, so one can survive at the next step of education whether it is high school or college. I am going to continue my Catholic education into high school, because of the success of my sister. My sister Madeline Nak attended Catholic schools for her entire life. She first started her roots in Holy Cross then moved on to Cristo Rey High School. The virtues, the character and education she learned in these schools were very life changing. For these very reasons she wanted to continue her Catholic education into college.

Now she is attending one of the best Catholic colleges in the United States. Madeline is a sophomore now, with a full academic scholarship to Creighton University. Everything that led her to this day was started off by the little things she learned for success and confidence in her Catholic schools.

Many do not have the opportunity to attend a Catholic school. Many parents feel the sacrifice is beyond their capacity to endure. There are so many reasons.

We live in a high crime area and there is no free transportation for the students. School buses pass our homes as parents have to provide personal transportation for their students.

Catholic school is more difficult and students must be responsible for their studies. Many parents are not able to help them and feel public school is easier and it is free. My question to them is, but is it worth it to spend your child’s valuable life if they are not learning.

The main excuse that holds parents back from sending their kids to a Catholic school is that it is expensive and they cannot afford it. Some of my close friends do not attend a Catholic school and I can tell they do not have the foundation I have for their studies. It makes me sad for them, because I feel they may have no future.

I know the impact of a Catholic school in my life is very special - one of a kind. For this reason I wake up every morning to go to school, for this reason I work hard.

There are students in our Sudanese community who are enrolled in the local public schools and most do not want to go to school. Daily fights and frustrated teachers who are powerless to control the fighting and student conduct make school a dangerous and boring place; so they roam the streets with nothing to do.

Hope of a job is lost and further education impossible.

The foundations of education are not being fostered in many of these students. They do not speak English well and their skills are too low to allow them to qualify for the training necessary for high paying jobs. I wish they would have had the opportunity to go to my school. Holy Cross School is in the neighborhood and fighting does not happen there. The teachers and students love to learn and the atmosphere is never threatening. Safety is the rule for all and dignity is safeguarded no matter what country your parents are from.

The teachers know all of us. My mother is respected even though she does not speak English well yet. We are not required to be Roman Catholic; my family is Episcopal. We are all offered a free lunch and served breakfast each morning.

Our tradition for strong academics is in place and all of the teachers will work with anyone to make sure you are successful. There is no bullying, there is no fighting, everyone has what they need to succeed and I must say you have to work the hardest to be unsuccessful.

Success is the business of Holy Cross School.

Thank you for allowing me to tell you about myself and my school. Please support Senate Bill #706 so more people will send their children to our accredited Catholic schools.

Yak Nan is in the eighth grade at Holy Cross School in Kansas City, Missouri.

Missouri Forum between AKIN and STEELMAN

2012-01-30T11:24:00.001-06:00

2 of 3 GOP Senate Candidates Meet Monday Night for Debate #2

Congressman Todd Akin

Sarah Steelman, former Missouri Treasurer

The second debate by part of the GOP Missouri US Senate field takes place in Branson Monday night.

Rep. Todd Akin and former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman will take part in in a 7pm “debate” and “home town” discussion. The third candidate, St. Louis businessman John Brunner decided not to participate.

The appearance will be broadcast on 100.1 FM KOMC, and will stream live on the website www.HometownDailyNews.com.

All three are scheduled to take part in a “Town Hall” joint appearance during the Missouri Republican Party’s Lincoln Days gathering in Kansas City in mid-February.

Romney's "Ruse" on a blind trust in his own words

2012-01-30T07:49:00.001-06:00

http://youtu.be/IPBl370Zpe8

Senator Rick Santorum in Missouri Monday Jan 30, 2012

2012-01-30T07:06:00.003-06:00

Rick Santorum former U.S. Senator, candidate for GOP presidential nomination, to be in Missouri Mon Jan 30

According to early morning reports in an edition of the Wall Street Journal Online, former United States Senator Rick Santorum will come to Missouri today, Monday January 30, 2012 and then to Minnesota tomorrow.

Santorum's campaign is moving on from Florida and trying to "get a leg-up" on the other Republican candidates in the next states. Florida is a winner-take-all, 50 delegate rich state. The best the Santorum team can expect is a very distant 3rd place.

The host of Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! the Venue for Vision & Values In Our Communities, sent an early email to the Rick Santorum for President campaign's press secretary, requesting Senator Santorum as a Great Guest for today's (Monday Jan 30) broadcast.

Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! broadcasts three times a week, Mon-Wed-Fri at 3:33pm central on Blog Talk Radio. Ranked in the top one-percent of the "Culture" category out of 13,000+ other shows, Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! is now in the 4th year, exceeding 100,000 in listens and reads coupled to the blog River Rising Review.

Conservatives Win - Remember Ronald Reagan?

2012-01-27T14:50:00.002-06:00

National Review this week made the point that Romney and Santorum have a strength that Gingrich does not, namely, that only Gingrich has never had to reach beyond the Republican base vote to win an election.

President Ronald W Reagan, remained strict, straight & strong to his conservative principles - and WON!

Conventional wisdom tells us that candidates should express one set of positions in primary elections, then shift those positions to the center for the general election. Implicit in this wisdom is the message that conservative principles cannot draw Independents or Democratic votes.

Ronald Reagan, the Great Communicator and conservative standard bearer, ran a campaign of optimism and simply expressed conservative principles. Do you remember these comments?

He closed his debate with Jimmy Carter with these words:

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we're as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions yes, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don't agree, if you don't think that this course that we've been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have."

Ronald Reagan with running mate George H.W. Bush beat Carter by almost 10 percentage points in the popular vote. Republicans also gained control of the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years on Reagan's coattails. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 votes for Carter (representing 6 states and the District of Columbia). NBC News projected Reagan as the winner at 8:15 pm EST (5:15 PST), before voting was finished in the West, based on exit polls.

Demonstrating chameleon-like ability to become a moderate in the general election belies the universality of conservative principles to all voters. Staying true to the conservative message won the election for Reagan. It will work this time too.

Legalize Marijuana, NOT Lawrence County Sheriff Brad DeLay

2012-01-27T14:22:00.001-06:00


01/27/2012 - Legalize Marijuana, NOT!
Sheriff's Offices across the state have been informed that a petition will soon be before the state legislatures requesting that marijuana be legalized in the state of Missouri. I will attach a copy of the petition wording in this message. As Sheriff, as a citizen, as a father, I can't begin to express my concerns with this petition. I will put it frankly, we can not allow this to happen. There will be a few that argue that it should, people will argue that marijuana doesn't hurt anyone, marijuana is a victimless drug, a victimless crime, it's just recreational, its just for personal use, the list goes on and on. My guess is, those people have not worked in law enforcement, not worked in EMS, or any other emergency services where we deal on a daily basis of this victimless drug. Those people do not see the families that are torn apart, those children that are abused and neglected. They don't see the homes that we enter that in most cases, would make you throw up. Many of those homes are covered in animal and sometimes human feces that those very family members, including children walk and crawl through. The entire home becomes neglected because all they can do is think about their next high. Money is spent on producing this victimles drug, money that should have gone to provide for the family, money that should have gone to pay bills, buy groceries, etc. We have spent years fighting this problem and now some are asking us just to give up? Driving while under the influence of marijuana is just as deadly as driving while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, so let's make it legal too? Unfortunately our society has gotten lax. People sit back and watch it deteriorate. We lose our religious freedoms, we lose our right to speak because we offend someone, we lose more and more of those freedoms because we do less and less as citizens. We feel that someone else will stand up for us. It is our duty to take action for ourselves not for someone else to do it. I believe this is one of those very desperate situations. If we allow them to pass this initiative, what's next, the "Let's legalize meth petition?" I encourage to call your Representatives and Senators in the State and voice your opinion. Let them know that you are taking a stand. Don't let the minority rule the majority. In law enforcement, we are asking for your help. As always, stay safe. Sheriff Brad A. DeLay 2012 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri Constitutional Amendment to Article IV, Relating to Cannabis, version 3, 2012-082 This measure amends the Missouri Constitution by adding Section 54 to Article 4. This amendment implicitly repeals, in part or in whole, and amends various statutes and subsections including but not necessarily limited to RSMo 105.1105, 105.1108, 105.1112, 195.010.(10)(b)c, 195.010.(10)(d), 195.010.(17)(m)(b), 195.010.(17)(g), 195.010.(17)(l), 195.010(24), 195.015.4, 195.017.2(4)(r), 195.017.2(4)(z), 195.017.2(4)(ii), 195.140.2(2), 195.202.2, 195.202.3, 195.211.2, 195.211.3, 195.211.4, 195.222.7, 195.223.7, 195.223.8, 263.250.1. Be it resolved by the people of the state ofMissourithat the Constitution be amended: 1. Cannabis shall immediately be removed from the Missouri Revised Statutes list of controlled substances and shall no longer be listed among Missouri's drug schedules. 2. Definition of terms, as used in this Act: (a) "cannabis" and “cannabis hemp” refer to the natural, non genetically modified plant hemp, cannabis, marihuana, marijuana, cannabis sativa L, cannabis americana, cannabis chinensis, cannabis indica, cannabis ruderalis, cannabis sativa, or any variety of cannabis, including any derivative, concentrate, extract, flower, leaf, particle, preparation, resin, root, salt, seed, stalk, stem, or any product thereof. (b) “agricultural hemp” and "agricultural cannabis" means all products made from cannabis hemp with a THC content of less than one percent. (c) "medical cannabis" means all products made from cannabis that are designed, intended, or used for the treatment of any human disease or condition. (d) “adult use” and “personal adult use” refer to the non-medical consumption of cannabis with greater than 1% THC by persons twenty-one years of age or older. (e) “cannabis accessories” means any equipment, products, or materials of any kind which are used, intended for use, or designed for use in planting, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, vaporizing, or containing cannabis, or for ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing cannabis into the human body. (f) “Department” means the Department of Health and Senior Services or its successor agency. (g) “cannabis establishment” means a c annabis cultivation facility, a cannabis testing facility, a cannabis product manufacturing facility, or a retail cannabis store or other entity licensed to cultivate, prepare, manufacture, package, transport or sell cannabis, cannabis products and cannabis accessories. (h) "impairment" means the inability of a person to safely perform functional tasks associated with his or her job or with driving due to the influence of alcohol or other drugs. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the following acts are not unlawful and shall not be an offense under Missouri law or be a basis for seizure or forfeiture of assets under Missouri law for persons twenty-one years of age or older: (a) Possession of cannabis for personal adult use by persons twenty-one years of age or older. (b) Cultivating cannabis that is not intended for resale within an area measuring ten feet by ten feet for personal adult use, or in an area sufficient to produce the quantity necessary to address a patient’s medical needs under the recommendation of a physician. (c) Cultivating, harvesting, processing, manufacturing, packaging, distributing, transferring, displaying or possessing cannabis, cannabis accessories, an d cannabis products for commercial purposes providing the person has a current, valid license to operate a cannabis establishment or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed cannabis establishment. (d) Providing cannabis, cannabis accessories, and cannabis products for sale to consumers twenty-one years of age or older for personal adult use if the person conducting the activities described in this paragraph has obtained a current, valid license to operate a retail cannabis store or is acting in his or her capacity as an owner, employee or agent of a licensed retail cannabis store. (e) Leasing or otherwise allowing the use of property owned, occupied or controlled by any person, corporation or other entity for any of the activities conducted lawfully in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection . 4. Medical cannabis shall be available to patients who have a physician's recommendation. (a) All patients engaged in cannabis therapy shall be afforded the same rights and privileges afforded to any patient treated through other pharmaceutical means. (b) Cannabis acquisition, possession, and consumption shall be permitted to patients under the age of twenty-one with the consent of a parent or legal guardian and through the supervision of a parent or legal custodian and a licensed physician. (c) Licensed physicians shall not be penalized for nor restricted from recommending cannabis for medical purposes to any person. (d) Opinions pertaining to, and willingness to recommend medical cannabis thera py shall not be a criteria for the licensure of physicians; no physician shall be subject to any professional licensing review or hearing as a result of recommending or approving medical cannabis therapy. (e) Any individual who is a legal cannabis patient in another state shall be granted the same rights and privileges as a legal Missouri cannabis patient. (f) Medical care, including organ transplants, shall not be restricted in any way based on a person’s use of cannabis. 5. Not later than February 1, 2013, the Department shall adopt regulations necessary for implementation of this section. (a) All regulations and rules imposed by the Department or any other agency of government shall meet a standard of strict scrutiny as to whether they further the goals of this Act and must be narrowly tailored to meet those goals. Such regulations shall include: (i) Procedures for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of a license to operate a cannabis establishment; (ii) A schedule of application, licensing and renewal fees; (iii) Qualifications for licensure that are directly and demonstrably related to the operation of a cannabis establishment; (iv) Security requirements for cannabis establishments; (v) Civil penalties for the failure to comply with regulations made pursuant to this section; (vi) The Department shall not require a consumer to provide a retail cannabis store with personal information other than identification to determine the consumer’s age, and a retail cannabis store shall not be requi red to acquire and record personal information about consumers other than information typically acquired in a financial transaction conducted at a retail liquor store. (b) Each application for an annual license to operate a cannabis establishment shall be submitted to the department. The department shall: (i) Begin accepting and processing applications on July 1, 2013; (ii) Immediately forward a copy of each application and half of the license application fee to the county, municipality or city and county in which the applicant desires to operate the cannabis establishment; (iii) Issue an annual license to the applicant between forty-five and ninety days after receipt of an application unless the department finds the applicant is not in compliance with regulations enacted pursuant to paragraph (a); (iv) Upon denial of an application, notify the applicant of the specific reason for its denial. (c) Retail cannabis products for medical or adult use shall contain appropriate labeling, which outlines the weight and estimated potency of the product, lists all pesticides used in production, and summarizes the safe and effective use of cannabis. Labels shall not be promotional, false or misleading, and should be based on data derived from scientific study and prevailing human experience. 6. Nothing in this section shall: (a) Require an employer to retain an employee who is impaired on the job by his use of cannabis. (b) Permit operation of a motor vehicle by anyone who is impaired by cannabis. (c) Permit the transfer or sale of cannabis intended for adult use to a person younger than twenty-one years of age. (d) Forbid any individual or corporate property owner from prohibiting the distribution, sale or cultivation of cannabis within their dwelling. 7. Upon the passage of this Act, all persons incarcerated or under supervision of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole for non-violent, cannabis-only offenses which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this Act shall be immediately released. (a) The Court shall order the immediate expungement of civil and criminal records pertaining to non-violent cannabis only offenses which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this Act. (b) Within 120 days of the passage of this Act, the Attorney General shall develop and make available to the public an application providing for the destruction of all cannabis-related civil and criminal records in Missouri and for any offense covered by this statute. These applications shall be distributed to all Circuit Court clerks within the State. 8. The Missouri General Assembly may enact a tax of up to $100 per pound of dried cannabis to be levied upon cannabis which is sold solely for personal adult use at the retail level. 9. No Missouri law enforcement personnel or state funds shall be used to assist or aid and abet in the enforcement of federal cannabis laws involving acts which are no longer illegal in the State of Missouri under this statute. 10. Any person who willfully impedes the lawful exercise of these provisions is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. 11. Commercial and agricultural cannabis farmers, manufacturers, processors, and distributors shall not be subject to any special zoning requirement, licensing fee, or tax that is excessive, discriminatory, or prohibitive, or in any way significantly different from any other commercial or agricultural farmer, manufacturer, processor or distributor. 12. No person twenty-one years of age or older shall be arrested or prosecuted, nor be subject to any criminal penalties for the possession, cultivation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis. 13. Pursuant to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the people of Missouri hereby repudiate and challenge federal cannabis prohibitions that conflict with this Act. 14. Severability: If any provision of this Act or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, shall be held invalid by any court, the remainder of this Act, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of such provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. 15. Construction: If any rival or conflicting initiative regulating any matter addressed by this act receives the higher affirmative vote, then all non-conflicting parts shall become operative. 16. All provisions of this section are self-executing and severable, and, except where otherwise indicated in the text, shall supersede conflicting state or federal statutory, local charter, ordinance, or resolution, and other federal, state and local provisions.

Jewish World Review Jan 26 , 2012 / 2 Shevat, 5772 Newt the closet anti-Semite? By Jonathan Tobin

2012-01-26T15:49:00.001-06:00

Sure, the GOP frontrunner caught hell for questioning the claims of a Palestinian people. Still, . . .

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Jewish liberals have a difficult task this year in defending Barack Obama's record. But, luckily for them, it is far easier to stir up suspicion about conservative Republicans than it is to convince liberals to connect the dots about Barack Obama's troubling record on Israel.

Convincing wavering Jewish liberals and moderates to stick with the Democrats is generally just a matter of reminding these voters that conservative Republicans are generally allied with the Christian right, a group many Jews fear more than Hamas, Hezbollah or al-Qaeda. That is often enough to overcome the fact that even liberals are aware that with the exception of Ron Paul libertarians (most of whom are not even Republicans), the GOP is uniformly and ardently pro-Israel as well as overtly friendly to American Jews.

Yet that has no deterred some from attempting to try to convince Jews that despite their support for Jewish causes, these same Republican politicians are actively sending out subliminal messages to reassure conservatives they should fear and hate Jews.

That's the conceit of a poorly conceived article by Gal Beckerman in the Forward who sets out to convince us the real intent of Newt Gingrich's brandishing of the name of Saul Alinsky when describing Obama's radicalism is to send out anti-Semitic "dog whistles" to the right.

This is absurd for three reasons.

The first is that the idea that Alinsky's 1971 book Rules for Radicals was a seminal work in instructing the American Left about how to gain power is hardly original with Gingrich. While Alinsky has gotten some new attention as a result of Gingrich's attempt to link former community organizer Obama with the patron saint of community organizers, it is the left that has long held Alinsky up as a hero. Though some on the right have paid Alinsky the compliment of reading him and trying to copy some of his tactics, the truth is he has probably done more to influence radicals and their tactics than many other writers who were better known in their day. Though Democrats have fiercely resisted any attempt to get at the roots of Obama's ideology via his associations, singling Alinsky out as such an influence has nothing to do with his Jewish origins, which are as unknown to most GOP voters as his writings.

Second, the notion that the frequent mention of Alinsky's name is an attempt to remind Republicans his mentor was a Jew and somehow foreign is an unsubstantiated leap into conjecture that really ought to be beneath Beckerman, a writer whose history of the Soviet Jewry movement is the finest book yet written on the subject. It is a mere assertion with no argument behind it other than a claim that — like the mention of poverty and food stamps which he also takes to be a sign of Gingrich's racism — is an attempt to get at the "subconscious" of Republicans.

Third, the whole argument is based on a fallacious assumption that most conservatives are closet anti-Semites who will vote for a candidate if they believe they are, in their hearts, against the Jews. This is, of course, an article of faith for many Jewish liberals whose heads are stuck in the politics of the 1930s when conservatism was associated with anti-Semites like Father Coughlin. While the vestiges of that old conservatism carry on in the person of paleo-con outliers such as Pat Buchanan and radical right-wingers who now support Ron Paul because of his negative attitude toward Israel, the rest of the GOP is nothing like that. Indeed, its evangelical and social conservative grass roots are largely comprised of ardent philo-Semites.

The notion that Gingrich, whose campaign has been revived by large contributions from Sheldon Adelson because of the candidate's down-the-line backing for Israel, is somehow such a covert Jew-hater is simply a smear. Though his faults are many, he is, if anything, a more ardent Zionist than many Jewish liberals and has never done anything that could possibly link him to hatred for Jews. But even if he was such a hater, the fact is, his core audience on the right is the last demographic group in America (other than the Jews themselves), who would give a sympathetic hearing to such ideas.

Rather than seriously examine the contradiction at the heart of these assumptions, Beckerman merely nods to liberal myths and expects his readers to lap it up. Republicans back Israel not just because Sheldon Adelson and others give them money but also because sympathy for Zionism is ingrained in the political DNA of this country and is inherently popular. But it is easier to merely pander to liberal prejudices about the right than to seriously examine this conundrum.

That such arguments come now when the left is drifting closer to anti-Zionism, as we see with the Occupy Wall Street movement which will morph into an Occupy AIPAC gathering this spring, speaks to the blindness of liberals to what is happening on the left as well as the right.

People like Beckerman think Gingrich is employing anti-Semitism when he says Alinsky simply because he assumes conservatives must be anti-Semites. Beckerman's dark fears about the Christian right are ridiculous. He clearly knows little about them. But his fears speak volumes about the unfounded and politically prejudicial assumptions so common on the left.

JWR contributor Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of Commentary magazine, in whose blog "Contentions" this first appeared.

MY MAN MITT Re-elect Obama: Vote Newt! Ann Coulter: Voters want a real conservative, not Gingrich's 'hotheaded arrogance'

2012-01-25T20:23:00.004-06:00

Ann[ie Coulter] get your gun!

To talk with Gingrich supporters is to enter a world where words have no meaning. They denounce Mitt Romney as a candidate being pushed on them by “the Establishment” – with “the Establishment” defined as anyone who supports Romney or doesn’t support Newt.

Gingrich may have spent his entire life in Washington and be so much of an insider that, as Jon Stewart says, “when Washington gets its prostate checked, it tickles [Newt],” but he is deemed the rebellious outsider challenging “the Establishment” – because, again, “the Establishment” is anyone who opposes Newt.

This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as “drug seekers” and Ron Paul supporters.

Newtons claim Romney is a “moderate,” and Gingrich the true conservative – a feat that can be accomplished only by refusing to believe anything Romney says … and also refusing to believe anything Gingrich says.

Romney’s one great “flip-flop” is on abortion. (I thought the reason we argued with people about abortion was to try to get them to “flip-flop” on this issue. Sometimes it works!)Nearly two decades ago, when Romney was trying to defeat champion desecrator of life Sen. Teddy Kennedy, he sought to remove abortion as a campaign issue by declaring that he, too, supported Roe v. Wade.(Nonetheless, Kennedy ran a campaign commercial against him featuring a Mormon woman complaining that Romney, as a Mormon elder, had pressured her not to have an abortion, but to give the child up for adoption. Are you getting the idea that Massachusetts is different from the rest of America, readers?)
Romney changed his mind on abortion – not when it was politically advantageous, but when it mattered. As governor of liberal, pro-choice Massachusetts, he vetoed an embryonic stem cell bill and “worked closely” with Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The president of MCL recently issued a statement saying that, “since being elected governor, Mitt Romney has had a consistent commitment to the culture of life.”
He didn’t defend his changed position by saying he was a “historian,” or denounce people who raised the switch as “fundamentally” dishonest asking “absurd” questions, or go back and forth and back and forth. He just said he changed his mind.

Meanwhile, Gingrich, who has run for office only in a small, majority Republican, undoubtedly pro-life congressional district, lobbied President Bush to support embryonic stem cell research.

Romney is now the only remaining candidate for president who opposes amnesty for illegals. (Ever since President Bush’s amnesty plan cratered on the shoals of public opposition, no Republican will ever use the word “amnesty,” despite wanting to keep illegals here – just as Democrats refuse to say “abortion,” while supporting every manner of destroying human life.)Romney supports E-Verify and a fence on the border. As governor he promoted English immersion programs for immigrants, signed an agreement with the federal government allowing state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws, and opposed efforts to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition or driver’s licenses.At the same time, Romney says he’d like to staple a green card to the diploma of every immigrant here on a student visa who gets a higher degree in math or science.

Gingrich supports importing a slave-labor force from Mexico under a “guest worker” program and wants to create government “citizen review boards” to grant amnesty on a case-by-case basis (i.e. all at once) to illegal aliens.

Romney supports entitlement reform along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, as he has said plainly, but without histrionics, in the debates. Just last year, Gingrich went on “Meet the Press” and called Ryan’s plan – supported by nearly every House Republican – “right-wing social engineering.”He apologized for those remarks, then took back his apology, still later doubled down, calling the Ryan plan “suicide,” and now – currently, but it could change any minute – Gingrich supports Ryan’s entitlement reform efforts.

For the latest updates on Newt’s position on the Ryan plan, go to http//twitter.com/#whatcheapshotgrandstandymovewillworknow?

As for crony capitalism, Romney made all his money in the private sector by his own diligence and talent – even giving away all the money he inherited from his parents. He’s never lived in Washington or traded on access to government officials.
Meanwhile, without the federal government, Gingrich would be penniless. He has been in Washington since the ’70s, first as a congressman, then becoming a rich man on the basis of having been a congressman. Most egregiously, he took $1.6 million to shill for Freddie Mac, one of the two institutions directly responsible for the housing crash that caused the financial collapse. (Or one of three, if you consider Barney Frank an institution.)
If the tea party stands for anything, it stands in absolute opposition to government insiders shoring up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the very time those institutions were blowing up the economy.

Romney could not be more forceful in saying he will issue a 50-state waiver to Obamacare his first day in office and then seek its formal repeal. Whether you like a state-wide insurance mandate or not, it’s a world of difference when the federal government does it. Conservatives, having read the Constitution, ought to understand this. It was on account of the difference between state and federal powers that the Supreme Court overturned the federal Violence Against Women Act. The court was not endorsing rape, but reminding us that states make laws about rape, not Congress.
To act as if Obamacare is the same thing as “Romneycare” is just a word game, on the order of acting like a “gun” has the same properties as a “gunny sack,” or “fire” is the same thing as a “firefly.”

Romney supported the idea of other states doing something along the lines of his health-care bill, but always opposed insurance mandates from the federal government (just as I oppose the federal government issuing general laws about rape, but support state laws against rape.)

For those of you who still think Romneycare is the worst possible sin a Republican candidate could commit – even worse than taking money from Freddie Mac as it destroyed the economy – that doesn’t help Gingrich: He supported Romneycare.

(While we’re on the subject, the nation’s leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage’s senior fellow on health-care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.)

But Gingrich did more than support Romneycare. As former Sen. Rick Santorum has pointed out, Gingrich supported a FEDERAL individual mandate to purchase health insurance from 1993 until five minutes ago – i.e., at least until a “Meet the Press” appearance just last May.

Asked by Maria Bartiromo in the CNBC debate last November to explain what he would do to fix health care, Newt attacked the question as “absurd” and said he would need a “several-hour period” to answer it.

In a world where words have meaning, Mitt Romney is not the “moderate” in this race. He is the most conservative candidate still standing, with the possible exception of Rick Santorum, who is bad on illegal immigration. (Santorum voted in the Senate against even the voluntary use of E-Verify by employers, which means he doesn’t want to do anything about illegal immigration at all.)

Romney is “moderate” only in demeanor – which is just another word game. His positions are more conservative than Gingrich’s, but he doesn’t scare people like Gingrich does. Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms were moderate in demeanor, too. No one would call them political moderates.

Romney is the most electable candidate not only because it will be nearly impossible for the media to demonize this self-made Mormon square, devoted to his wife and church, but precisely because he is the most conservative candidate.

Conservatism is an electable quality. Hotheaded arrogance is neither conservative nor attractive to voters.

The radio rabbi: Why I am 'With Newt'!

2012-01-25T20:09:00.003-06:00

the radio rabbi, Rabbi Eukel, host of Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi!

I am with Newt.

Four careful, compelling, concise and compassionate reasons:

(1) Newt, following the revolutionary success in 1994 of Contract with America, carefully articulates a 21st Century Contract with America that will be the nine stakes for the administration of President Gingrich.

(2) Newt is the only presidential candidate of either party with the hard-won national experience of balancing the federal budget. The historical fact that under his leadership as Speaker he balanced the federal budget four times with a Democrat president is compelling.

(3) Newt, concisely gets national security. Keep America safe. Distinguish our allies, like Israel, from enemies like Iran.

(4) Newt's personal repentance puts him on the road to redemption. However flawed in fidelity as a husband he has been, I can not withhold compassion. GOD's Grace is greater than our greatest sins. Newt gets the primacy of the sacredness of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, divinely constructed in that order.

Rabbi DF Eukel

25 January 2012

Newt: "What Do You Think the Founders Meant When They Used the Word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence?"

2012-01-25T19:44:00.001-06:00

Newt Gingrich

http://youtu.be/A91ckW1UhFo

John Locke Foundation, June 29, 2006

Charlotte, NC

"What is the proper role for religion on the public square?" 3:24 minute video

Newt's Daughters: Kathy Gingrich Lubbers & Jackie Gingrich Cushman

2012-01-25T19:21:00.000-06:00

Newt's Daughters: Kathy Gingrich Lubbers & Jackie Gingrich Cushman

http://youtu.be/xRKOnW52n0M

Newt Gingrich Responds to SOTU

2012-01-25T19:03:00.000-06:00

Coral Gables, FL – Newt Gingrich released the following statement responding to President Obama’s State of the Union address:

We have a crisis of work in this country and tonight President Obama proposed nothing in the way of policy changes that will get us to robust job creation and dramatic economic growth.

Instead, the president described his conviction that his big government is built to last and should be paid for with higher taxes.

But bigger government and higher taxes will not lead to jobs and growth. Bigger government and higher taxes will instead lead to more people on food stamps, a situation which the President and his party defend as a fair outcome.

Here we have to confront the truth about President Obama. Economic growth and prosperity is not really at the top of his agenda. He will always prefer a food stamp economy to a paycheck economy and call it fair.

For the president and a large part of the political class, it’s about their power, their right to rule. They just want to take money from Joe the Plumber – the small business people who make over 90 percent of the new jobs -- and redistribute it to the government bureaucracy and their political friends and allies. That’s why so much of that nearly trillion-dollar stimulus didn’t create jobs but just went into the pockets of special interests who support President Obama and the leadership of the Democratic Party.

No better example of this exists than in the crisis of American energy. President Obama and his political allies – not of few of whom love living in energy inefficient houses or driving gas-guzzling luxury vehicles – openly admit they want gas prices to remain high so that the rest of America will learn to live more modestly. They think it’s good for the rest of us. Only recently, the president canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline that would have created countless new jobs and helped America on the way to energy independence because he wanted to appease the far left of his party. And yet not a single word on the Keystone XL pipeline tonight.

To create jobs and growth in this country, we must start with dramatic tax reform that lowers taxes and maximizes capital investment and job creation. We must return to a dollar as good as gold whose purchasing power is the same in thirty years as it is today. We must dramatically expand American energy production. We must have smarter regulation at the same time we abolish destructive and costly regulatory systems beginning with Obamacare,Dodd-Franks, and Sarbanes-Oxley. And finally, unlike the current administration, we must have faith in job creators.

With these policies the state of the union will be much better. They will create an explosion in job creation and lead to robust economic growth and a return to prosperity. Furthermore, a paycheck economy will put us on a path to balanced budgets and paying down our national debt.

Weekly Standard's "Cold Open" Romney at DEFCON 1 - Nuke Newt Now!

2012-01-25T18:19:00.003-06:00

How bad is the blood between Team Romney and Team Gingrich? This bad: On Saturday, as Gingrich was stomping his way through the Low Country en route to winning South Carolina, Romney's campaign rolled out a press release with the following headline:

"Happy 15th Anniversary, Mr. Speaker: Fifteen years ago today, Newt Gingrich became the first House speaker in American history to be reprimanded by his colleagues".

That was just one of four increasingly nasty and personal attacks Romney rolled out over the weekend. Other lines included "Gingrich and Freddie Mac: What is he hiding?" and "Newt Gingrich: Granddaddy of Earmarks."

Newt Gingrich at a Catholic Church with Callista

On Monday, the Romney camp ginned up another dozen highly negative releases and blanketed the cable news networks with surrogates attacking Gingrich. By then it was clear the campaign has settled on three lines:

(1) Gingrich was a corrupt speaker deposed by his own party;

(2) Gingrich was a nefarious lobbyist for Freddie Mac; and

(3) Gingrich is an erratic, unreliable leader.

Mitt Romney has always been willing to go negative—excuse me, draw sharp contrasts—at the drop of a hat.

His pattern is this: Romney stays in his lane when he's in front and then draws iron the moment a rival pops up in his rearview mirror. In 2008, he serially attacked Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and John McCain as they rose in the polls to challenge him. In nearly every particular, his reaction to Gingrich post-South Carolina is simply par for the course.

In fact, you can get a pretty good sense of the fundamentals of the race by simply observing what mode Romney is in. When it's DEFCON 5 and Romney is in the lead, he focuses on Obama. When it's DEFCON 3 and there's a challenge, Romney blankets the airwaves in a state with intensely negative ads, but stays above the fray himself on the stump and in debates. And once he hits DEFCON 1—where loss of the nomination seems imminent—he pulls out all the stops and goes on the attack himself.

What Monday night's debate showed us was Romney clearly at DEFCON 1. He picked up the cudgels himself for the first 30 minutes and was about as tough as you can be—describing Gingrich multiple times as a "disgrace" and an "influence peddler" and "lobbyist."

As I sit writing this on Tuesday morning, my email box gets a press release from the Romney camp with a fresh attack on Gingrich about every 40 minutes.

Seriously.

I suspect this pace will increase over the course of this week.

And here's why: I believe Romney is correct in viewing Gingrich as an existential threat. For all the talk about Romney's organizational muscle and indomitability over the long-haul, Gingrich is in the process of maneuvering into a position of great strength.

Look back to his victory speech in South Carolina. The first thing Newt did was praise Rick Santorum and Ron Paul—not just personally, but on specific issues. He lauded Santorum for his social conservative passion and his wisdom on Iran. He gave Paul credit for being hawkish on the Fed and sound money and even made noises about the gold standard. In Monday night's debate, he made these overtures again.

Gingrich is attempting to consolidate the marginal supporters of Santorum and Paul, showing them that they can jump to his team and still care about their issues. If he succeeds, even peeling away three or four points of support from each, then he will have a coalition which will be very, very hard for Romney to defeat.

The sharp guys in Boston understand this. Romney is still stuck with the establishment, moderate base he began the race with three years ago and he's been unable to build a coalition of his own. (So far.) His only play is to tear Newt down, now, no matter what the cost.

Newt Gingrich at Veterans for a Strong America, 3rd in series, "Commander in Chief" Foriums

2012-01-25T18:06:00.000-06:00

JACKSONVILLE, FL, January 25, 2012 - Veterans for a Strong America will be hosting GOP presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich in Jacksonville on January 26^th at 1:00 p.m. in the Grand Banquet Hall at University Center on the campus of University of North Florida – just hours before the CNN debate later that evening. Frank J. Gaffney Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, will also speak at the event, and Frank Luntz will moderate.

Veterans for a Strong America Chairman and Iraq Vet, Joel Arends, made the following announcement, “We’re excited to announce that Speaker Gingrich will appear at the Veterans for a Strong America event on Thursday in Jacksonville. This could be the last time Floridians get to meet one of the presidential candidates before the primary on January 31^st."

Arends went on to state, “President Obama’s announcement that he is making unprecedented cuts to our military underscores the need for a different direction in this country. A strong economy is vital to a strong defense and a strong defense is absolutely required to support this great nation. We look forward to introducing veterans and all other citizens to quite possibly the next commander in chief.”

Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. will speak on the pending drastic defense cuts proposed by the Obama administration and their impact on national security.

This event is the third in a series of presidential candidate events called the Commander in Chief Forums. The forum presents citizens with the opportunity to learn more about the presidential candidates and how they are prepared to serve as the next commander in chief.

Event Details:

What: Veterans for a Strong America Commander in Chief Forum
Where: University of North Florida, University Center, Grand Banquet Hall
When: 1:00 p.m., January 26 2011

Learn more about Veterans for a Strong America at www.veteransforastrongamerica.org.

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public.

For more information visit www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

###

Fred Thompson, former United State Senator (TN) Endorses Speaker Newt Gringrich for GOP Presidential Nominee!

2012-01-25T17:52:00.000-06:00

Speaker Newt Gingrich Endorsed by former U.S. Senator of TN Fred Thompson

I am one of the countless number of Americans who know firsthand that, in this country, a person may be born into modest circumstances, but that he comes into the world blessed in ways that have been unimaginable to the vast majority of people who have ever lived. We are born with the birthright of freedom and opportunity – free to make our own choices about the important things in life and the opportunity to fulfill our God-given potential.

The greatest fear that I have for my country is that our government now has us on a different path. Instead of freedom and opportunity, it is one of debt, dependence division and decline – a path that will weaken our country and sap the vitality of the American people.

I believe that we are at a tipping point, one from which we may not return. To avoid these disastrous consequences, our country needs leadership that is fearless and confident, a candidate who can give voice to the concerns and frustrations of the American people, a candidate who understands – and will never apologize for – American Exceptionalism.

We don’t need to just manage the way Washington works. We need to fundamentally change Washington. We need someone who has the courage and ability to communicate the truth to the American people. Someone who will explain the hard choices that we must make if we are to give our children and grandchildren the same opportunities our forefathers bestowed on us and avoid the fate that other great nations have suffered throughout history.

I believe that person is Newt Gingrich. And that is why I strongly support him and his candidacy for President of the United States.

We are just a few days away from a very important primary in the Sunshine State, and we have the opportunity to build on this campaign's momentum with a victory in Florida. The stakes have never been higher, and I'm challenging you to join me in standing with Newt Gingrich.

America needs someone who is able to articulate the message of growth, free enterprise and freedom, someone who knows that bold ideas have preceded every major achievement of mankind – including the United States of America.

America needs Newt Gingrich.

Sincerely,

Fred Thompson

"Come Hear the REAL State of the State" says Carl Bearden, Executive Director of United for Missouri's Future and United for Missouri

2012-01-25T07:22:00.002-06:00

Carl Bearden

LEADERS LEAD LOCALLY INSTITUTE, Building Bridges for Legacy Leadership will host Mr. Carl Bearden as the keynote speaker for the First Monday Monthly at 6:45 pm conference February 6, 2012 in the City of Mount Vernon's community center, the MARC, "Fireside" community room.

"Come hear the REAL State of the State," said Mr. Bearden when asked to highlight his prepared remarks.

CARL BEARDEN — Executive Director; United for Missouri’sFuture and United for Missouri, (www.unitedformissouri.org)

These two organizations seek to educate, communicate and activateMissourians on state and local fiscal policy issues. This mission is accomplished through trainingsessions, rallies, assisting other organizations in helping their members’voices being heard and provide opportunities for Missourians to let theirlegislators know of their support or opposition to numerous legislativeproposals. Since beginning in July 2010, the organizations have seen 63,000Missourians become donors and/or members.

Beardenwas the state director of the Missouri Chapter of Americans for Prosperity fromSeptember 2007 until July 2010. Duringhis tenure as state director, the AFP-Missouri chapter saw phenomenal growthadding over 26,000 members in less than three years.

FormerRep. Carl Bearden, a Republican, represented part of St. Charles County(District 16) in the Missouri House of Representatives.

Beardenserved in a number of capacities during his tenure in the House. He was the Speaker Pro Tem and Chairman ofthe House Budget Committee. As SpeakerPro Tem, Rep Bearden was in charge of policy development. As Budget Chairman, Bearden restructured theHouse Budget process in a number of ways which are still in use today. Bearden successfully challenged the statusquo on revenue estimation going against more “seasoned” prognosticators andother big government proponents through the application of in-depth analysisand modeling.

Agraduate of Clearwater R-I High School in Piedmont, Mo., Bearden served sixyears in the United States Air Force and received a bachelor of science degreein industrial technology from SIU-Carbondale.

Carl Bearden lives in an unincorporated part ofSt. Charles County with his wife, Debbie. They have two daughters, ason-in-law, and two grandchildren.

Horace Cooper, Constitutional law professor at George Mason University in VA to be Great Guest on Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi!, again...

2012-01-24T11:04:00.001-06:00

Horace Cooper, Ph.D.

The host of Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! the Venue for Vision & Values in Our Communities, is pleased to announce, "Horace Cooper, Ph.D, who taught constitutional law at George Mason University in Virginia, will, again, be a Great Guest Friday 27 January, 2012 at the 3:40 pm central mark."

Dr. Cooper will address: Supreme Court Decision in United States v. Jones a Significant Step in Preventing a Surveillance State

Horace Cooper is an adjunct fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, a member of the African-American leadership group Project 21 and a legal commentator. He taught constitutional law at George Mason University in Virginia and was general counsel to U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! - "Newt News in Missouri" through Super Tuesday, March 6, 2012

2012-01-23T18:17:00.003-06:00

Speaker Newt Gingrich, GOP Presidential candidate

Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! the Venue for Vision & Values in Our Communities, broadcasting nationally three times a week, Mon-Wed-Fri at 3:33 pm central takes a new focus: Newt News in Missouri.

Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! , in the 4th year, now exceeds 100,000 listens & reads coupled to the blog, River Rising Review. The host, the radio rabbi, is ranked in the Top One Percent of “Culture” category broadcasts on Blog Talk Radio out of 13,000+.

Batter-up!

You are warmly welcomed to step up to the plate … dialogue by text in the chatter box, or hit a single on the listener line #646.929.1024. Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! is available live or on demand.

Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! is a fast-paced, on-fire, grand slam conservative broadcast. Pitched friendly and forward-looking, we don’t throw liberal’s curves. We do call-em out!

NEWT NEWS in Missouri

Our newest bases loaded broadcast will focus on former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. We coach Newt News in Missouri past Super Tuesday, March 6, 2012, eighteen thirty-minute broadcasts, or 540 minutes of Newt News in Missouri!

Speaker Newt Gingrich is the third Speaker of the House from the State of Georgia and the first Republican of Georgia elected to Speaker.

Speaker Howell Cobb was the first Georgia Speaker serving one term in the 31st session, elected December 22, 1849 [a pro-slavery southern Democrat elected only after sixty-three ballots cast for thirty candidates among Democrats, Whigs and Free-Soilers. More than half the House were freshmen].

Speaker Charles F Crisp, of Georgia, elected December 8, 1891 served two terms for the 52nd and 53rd sessions of Congress [a Democrat, elected after thirty ballots, born in Sheffield, England of naturalized English-American parents. Crisp served in the Civil War, captured at Spotsyvlania, studied law and was elected to the 48th Congress in 1882].

Speaker Gingrich was elected January 4, 1995, 104 years since the last Speaker from Georgia. Speaker Gingrich served two terms, the 104th and 105th sessions of Congress.

Jewish World Review Jewish voters to play a key role in Florida's Republican primary By Melissa Dribben

2012-01-23T06:40:00.001-06:00

Meet the feisty seniors who are loud and proud about being GOP Jews

JewishWorldReview.com

Palm Beach, Florida

Dressed in his tennis whites, Sid Dinerstein hunches over the Palm Beach Post's scramble, Sudoku, and crossword, saying they're the most worthwhile part of a paper he dismisses as "another left-wing rag."

Fortified with a can of Diet Sierra Mist, the 65-year-old chairman of the Palm Beach County Republican Party says he usually hits the courts five times a week, but as the national political ship sails towards Florida, he has had to cut down to three.

His phone keeps ringing. Mitt Romney has led in polls here, but that was before Newt Gingrich's big win in South Carolina. Florida's Republican primary is Jan. 31.

Gingrich's victory means the Sunshine State will see "two titans slugging it out big-time for the next 11 days," Dinerstein said Saturday night. "It's going to be great political theater."

The state's nearly 640,000 Jews are just 3.4 percent of Florida's population. But because they vote in extraordinarily high numbers, they are 6 to 8 percent of Florida's turnout, says Ira Sheskin, who runs the University of Miami's Jewish Demography Project.

http://jewishworldreview.com/0112/jewish_vote_florida.php3

Why Newt? Ben Domenech · 15 hours ago · Edited

2012-01-22T08:19:00.001-06:00

Over a fantastic meal at Husk in Charleston, old fashioned cocktails at the Gin Joint, cigars on East Bay and a classic low-country breakfast this morning - can you tell this is a great place? - I posed the same question to several local South Carolina friends: why Newt? What can explain the rise of Newt Gingrich here in South Carolina, to the point where he may very well win today?

As I am sure all you smart Ricochet folks know full well, South Carolina historically has been a place where the leading candidate confirms their position and marks the last gasp of any opponents. It has voted for every Republican nominee since 1980, even in 2008, when Mike Huckabee came close to beating McCain. The fact that it's the home for many a desperate last stand is one of the reasons the state is a petri dish for dirty tricks and last minute surprises - but that historical record makes it all the more stunning to think that Gingrich, who came in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire, could pull off a win here after the polls close in an hour's time.

So what's the explanation?

The assessment I heard from friends and compatriots was interesting. A caveat acknowledging bias, before this decidedly unscientific listing of views: everyone I asked had voted for Huckabee or McCain in 2008 (Romney came in fourth here then, so his voters from 08 are fewer in number anyway).

With that said, here are the three areas that stood out to me:

The Media Battle. Nearly every person brought up of their own volition the idea that in order to beat President Obama in November, the Republican candidate will have to endure a barrage of attacks from the liberal media, who will be dedicated to his reelection.

We're all familiar with Gingrich's longstanding jousting matches with moderators and journalists, but this is different than just that - it's skepticism that Romney can withstand the similar pressure. The last two debates have hurt Romney a great deal on this account, if they are to be believed. One line from a Charleston friend: "Romney had this whole teflon thing going for a while but now I think they would tear him apart."

Via email, Josh Trevino raised a point about this that I think is very accurate:

Conservatives (accurately) perceive the media mainstream to be a de facto organ of the liberal left, and by extension, the Democratic Party - and they understand that conservative governance is absolutely impossible unless that organ is defeated or co-opted. On the latter count, ask President John McCain how his co-option efforts went. When Newt Gingrich crushes a hapless journalist, he isn't just tossing up a parlor trick: he's demonstrating an indispensable prerequisite to conservative governance today.

For a state that has seen more than its fair share of media games - and in fact just elected Governor Haley in spite of widespread (and quite personal) attacks from the local media - this is a point that resonates all the more.

The Importance of the Debates. Gingrich initially rose, and Perry fell, due to the overabundance of debates this cycle. Everyone - and again, Thursday's debate was in Charleston - cited this as significant, and Gingrich's performances in the past two debates have impressed them even as Romney (hounded by Santorum on Romneycare, meandering on his tax returns) turned in arguably two of his worst performances.

Consider: both Gingrich and Romney saw the questions coming - Gingrich on his ex-wife, Romney on his tax returns. One was prepared to defend himself, and one seemingly was not. That apparently resonated, and not just with my friends, as Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post points out today:

Exit polls from #scprimary: Two-thirds of voters say recent debates were the most or one of most impt issues in deciding vote. AMAZING.

Indeed.

And as much as people cited the positives from Gingrich's performance, there was much more concern expressed about Romney's negative performances. The rationale is simple: what if Romney can't hack it in a debate with Obama? Failing to mount a defense of conservatism on the debate stage and in the public square - a failure that reminds conservatives of much of the worst moments of George W. Bush's tenure - was one of the most significant reasons Rick Perry is back home in Texas today.

Conservatives have no interest in people who become shrinking violets on the stage. Consider this quote from an evangelical voter in The State, the largest newspaper here:

"No one does not have baggage. Newt's was just exposed more because of his time in politics," she said. "I think it's time for a bulldog president. Grab 'em by the pants leg and don't let go until you draw blood. That's Newt."

But there's more here than just the power of words. Here's an email from a non-South Carolinian on this point, which I heard echoed in their views:

The whole reason why former Perry/Cain/Bachmann/Pawlenty/Santorum supporters are giving Newt a hearing is that they reject the notion that a guy with Romney's record is a conservative, and they recognize that since 1964 the GOP's losses in national races have all come from the party's moderate wing... Newt has a record. It is not one of unbroken conservative success, but it is a record of a great electoral triumph and some significant policy accomplishments at a time when Newt was the party's de facto national leader and the Left's #1 target. That record of being the Man in the Arena with the scars to show for it gives him a credibility behind his rhetoric that, say, a Herman Cain would not have.

Most members of the pundit class view the arrows in Newt's back as election problems. They probably are for any potential general. But to the conservative base that makes up much of the electorate in a red state like this, those battle scars are viewed as an asset, not a liability - a sign that there's principle behind the words, not just poll-testing.

Questioning Mitt's Message. While Gingrich was speaking to a raucous crowd of 700+ in Orangeburg yesterday, Mitt Romney was giving his standard stump speech at a more subdued rally in North Charleston, which just lacked any real energy (and was prefaced, oddly, by a band playing Fleetwood Mac's "Landslide" and Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a Changing" - the last time I heard those at a rally, I'm pretty sure it was Clinton-Gore 1996). He has bused in many younger volunteers from out of state who are more passionate, but the stump speech was the same old, same old. The journalists who have heard it a hundred times find this honed perfection boring; I find it certainly passable, but by no means inspiring.

Is this a problem? Well, it could be.

One of my friends specifically directed me to this Laura Ingraham interview with Romney yesterday, where the former governor advanced his general election argument on jobs and why he should beat Obama.

The political challenge: what if the economy starts to look up by Election Day, even just thanks to modest improvement in the numbers, and even if it's in spite of Obama's policies, not because of them? Here's what Ingraham asked:

INGRAHAM: Isn't that a hard argument to make if you're saying -- Okay, he inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now we're seeing some more jobs, but vote against him anyway? Isn't that a hard argument to make? Is that a stark enough contrast?

ROMNEY: Have you got a better one, Laura? [laughter] It just happens to be the truth.... at some point it's going to get better, but I don't think President Obama's helping it.

That is just not a good enough message, and it's not a principled one, my friend pointed out - and he's right.

Electability concerns for Gingrich are well in evidence, but if Romney's only argument is reduced to "pay no attention to improving numbers," that sounds like a losing approach. There has to be a more principle-focused rationale to take to the voters.

By way of contrast:

Gingrich has shared a message based around that rationale in large part because of the specific way he talks about "jobs" - not rattling off statistics as Perry and others did and do, but by expressing what having a job means, often in terms that are very specific to the locality he's in (unlike Romney, Gingrich's stump speech is very localvore).

This example from the most recent debate features a line Gingrich has been repeating on the stump here across the state: "Elect us and your kids will be able to move out because they’ll have work." It is aspirational talk, not spreadsheet talk, and in the South, that sells.

Two quick practical notes, in addition to all this:

Romney's money advantage mitigated? South Carolina has been absolutely blanketed with ads. More than $13 million has been spent on TV there, which is an astonishing amount for the state - every time you turn on the TV, it seems like one's running from the various Super PACs. The mailboxes are just as clogged.

But in contrast to Iowa, the anti-Romney and anti-Gingrich ad content seems to be roughly equivalent (partly because Romney's ads are only attacking Gingrich now, and Santorum and Gingrich are both attacking Romney).

Being at parity on this front hurts Romney a bit I'd think.

Which endorsements matter?

The endorsements that came to Romney last time and this time are not doing much to move people. Jim DeMint has not endorsed Romney, and while Governor Nikki Haley has (as did Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell this week), she's still a controversial figure here who doesn't have strong poll numbers.

Much of the legislature's conservative leadership, contra Haley, has jumped in to endorse Newt, along with many of Jon Huntsman's backers.

None of my friends mentioned any endorsements as influencing them one way or the other, though one did say he was surprised popular Rep. Tim Scott did not endorse anyone, and a few remarked about their decision being easier without Perry and Huntsman in the race.

This GQ article notes the reaction of some conservative South Carolina congressmen to Haley's endorsement:

Mulvaney says, "So here's the $64,000 question that I'm sure GQ would love an answer to, and I'm going to try to ask it in a way that won't get any of us in trouble: Nikki Haley's endorsement more helpful in state, or out of state?"
"Out of state," Duncan says quickly. Gowdy is emphatic. "OUT. OF. STATE."

In sum:

South Carolinians are wary of nominating another uninspiring moderate guy who can't defend himself or conservatism in the public square.

They've seen these candidates, and their ads, for more than a week now. And with a field down to four, the momentum is swinging Newt's way because of his ability to defend himself, his record, and conservative ideas in the debates and the public square.

This is something the voters I spoke to believe is essential for any nominee - and it is something that, at least in this state, Romney has failed to do.

A Naughty Newt, A Bitter Ex and Misplaced Rage by Doug Giles at Town Hall

2012-01-22T07:42:00.002-06:00

As a Christian, I will neither defend nor excuse Newt’s past adultery.

That said, after watching his ex-wife Marianne go off on him on ABC, as a man, I now get why he supposedly wanted an “open marriage.” Holy crikey. That chick is scary! Hell hath no fury like a furry woman. That’s one angry, gangrenous ex-Gingrich chica right there, folks. Let’s see … what do we have here? Lonely and bitter? Table for one?

Now, before I get my inbox stuffed with hate mail labeling me insensitive, calling Newt a cad, and painting Marianne as a damsel in distress, let me state up front that … I know … he was … and oh, please.

Someone help me here. When did Marianne start giving a crap about Gingrich committing adultery? She didn’t mind his “open marriage” policy when she was doing the fig Newton with him while he was married to his first wife, Jackie. I’m sure if the Speaker’s initial esposa were still around she’d have some choice words to share about this duplicitous dame. Alas, she is not. But I imagine that Jackie is in heaven right now watching this sordid ABC tabloid smack screaming, “Hey, Jezebel! Go sell crazy somewhere else, devil bird!”

Yep, this is the same Marianne who was spooning Newt while his wife was in the hospital. Oh, I forgot. I’ve transgressed. I cannot blame Marianne for her adultery. Only guys, especially conservative guys, are the villains in an adulterous affair. Women, according to the lame stream media and the loons on the Left, are helpless victims who are not responsible for their wanton ways. Hallelujah. Ain’t that convenient?

Now, Newt, according to his own admission, was a scallywag.

But also according to his own admission, he has repented.

Is it BS? I don’t know.

All I know is that when people verbally repent we’re supposed to forgive them. I believe that’s how the Jesus movie went. And it looked as if lots of South Carolinians were ready to forgive Gingrich judging from the standing ovation they gave him after he horsewhipped John King when he brought up Newt’s past peccadilloes.

Oh, and by the way, I believe according to Christ that if you look at a woman lustfully you’ve committed adultery in your heart in His holy estimation. In other words, we’re all guilty, and Jesus is the only one ever to navigate that tightrope successfully.

As Dennis Miller once said, “He that hath an empty hand, let him throw the first stone.”

Boy, the Left is grasping at straws, aren’t they?

They think they have breaking news about Newt’s randy ways. Uh, hello. This stuff has been out there and dealt with now for fifteen years. Fifteen years. As in One Five.

But that’s just it: divert, divert, divert—talk about Newt 15 years ago rather than about what Obama has been doing for the last 15 months! Also, you do know that if Gingrich were a Democrat and we found out he just had a chunky female volunteer shine his apple on his election bus 15 hours ago that he’d be hailed as a rock star and defended for his wang dang ways.

My final assessment of this puritanical witch-hunt against Gingrich instigated by the anti-puritanical Left is this:

I’m concerned more about how Obama’s policies have radically screwed this nation more than who Newt boinked two decades ago.

Newt Gingrich Wins. What It Means. Erick Erickson at RedState

2012-01-22T07:24:00.001-06:00

Mitt and Newt will both have trouble beating Barack Obama. Mitt's trouble will come from Obama. Newt's trouble from himself. But right now, the base doesn't care.

Posted by Erick Erickson Saturday, January 21st at 7:07PM EST 336 Comments

No candidate has won the GOP nomination for President without winning South Carolina since Ronald Reagan in 1980. But every one of those candidates who won had also won either Iowa or New Hampshire.

We’re now confronted with a designated front runner, Mitt Romney, who got less votes in Iowa in 2012 than he got in 2008 and who lost South Carolina. His reason for being somehow remains that he is “electable.”

If you read a lot of the Republican commentary coming out of Washington even before the polls closed, suddenly South Carolina is irrelevant and the hick rubes of the Palmetto state are just petulant children.

Actually, like with Iowa, it is a rather desperate scream to get another player on the field. It is a red flag. It is the giant “Danger” sign ahead for the general election.

Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance. But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its thought and party leaders in Washington, DC. The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since.

Adding insult to injury, the party and thought leaders now try to foist on the base a milquetoast moderate from Massachusetts.

Newt Gingrich can thank Mitt Romney and more for the second look he is getting. Base hostility will now be exacerbated by Mitt Romney’s backers now undoubtedly making a conscious effort to prop up Rick Santorum to shut down Newt Gingrich.

Consider, before going below the fold, that this is the first time non-Romney ads against Romney have been at parity with Mitt Romney. And that parity caused a rapid erosion of support for Mitt Romney. Parity in advertising, not superiority to Romney, was all it took to begin the end of his South Carolina dominance.

People are mad as hell they are about to be stuck with another boring, moderate, uninspiring choice that has at best a 50/50 shot at losing to the worst president since Carter. They are flocking to Newt not because they think he’s a great guy, but because right now, he’s the only one fighting for conservatism and GOP voters are looking for a vessel to channel their anger with Obama and their complete disappointment with the GOP establishment which is now embodied perfectly by Romney.

They want a conservative fighter because most conservatives look back at Ford, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush, and McCain and see only the ones taking a conservative path against the Democrats actually winning.

Trump was a flash in the pan last year, but it was because he took the fight to Obama. And all of the others (Bachmann, Perry, Cain, etc) got their rise because at the time voters sensed they would fight back with them. If nothing else, in the last year, Newt has proven he won’t wilt like Mitt did yesterday under pretty basic questioning from Laura Ingraham or a month ago under routine questioning from Brett Baier.

Newt has taken the worst the media, Romney and the left can dish out, and he’s still standing and fighting with passion and eloquence.

Sure, he’d probably be an erratic President, but right now Republican voters don’t care about his Presidency. They care about the fight with the left both Mitt Romney, and the Washington Republican leaders like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell don’t seem inclined to engage in.

In every way in the last two weeks, Romney has signaled he won’t fight for the base. He looks like a lost child when trying to answer the taxes issue. He couldn’t stand up to Santorum in the debate. He sounds every bit like Gordon Gekko, not Milton Friedman, when he talks Bain and free markets.

Basically, today’s vote is about Republican grassroots giving the Washington Republican establishment the finger.

The base is angry, and right now, only Newt is left to fight for them, as imperfect as he is. We may still end up with Romney, but voters aren’t going to let him have it easily.

Party leaders who have invested so much in Mitt Romney might want now to ride on to a brokered convention and find someone acceptable to everyone. Because this most divisive and bitter primary in years is going to wipe out the GOP’s chances to win in November. And while few of the Romney advocates of the past four years will admit it, it is because they have tried to foist onto the base a milquetoast moderate from Massachusetts as energizing to conservatives as a dead battery.

Consider this related post by Ben Domenech a must read on this subject.

American Minute with Bill Federer Jan. 21 Cecil B. DeMille & the Ten Commandments

2012-01-21T21:09:00.000-06:00

Cecil B DeMille

He produced epic films in Hollywood for almost five decades and started Paramount Pictures.

His name was Cecil B. DeMille and he died JANUARY 21, 1959.

His best-known films include: Samson and Delilah, The Ten Commandments and The Greatest Show on Earth, for which he won an Academy Award.

At the opening of The Ten Commandments, 1956, Cecil B. DeMille stated:

"Man has made 32 million laws since the Commandments were handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai...but he has never improved on God's law...They are the charter and guide of human liberty, for there can be no liberty without the law."

President Harry S Truman stated in his address to the Attorney General's Conference, February 1950:

"The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days."

Truman concluded:

"If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except for the State."

American Minute is a registered trademark.

January 21, 2012 Why I'm Giving Newt a Pass on the Scarlet-A Factor By Kyle-Anne Shiver

2012-01-21T19:44:00.002-06:00

Originally posted at AMERICAN THINKER

Newt Gingrich is an adulterer many times over, which is old news.

The second Mrs. Gingrich, scorned in favor of the third Mrs. Gingrich, is in the process of spilling the sordid divorce beans in her long-stated goal of stopping Newt's climb to the presidency.

But I decided a couple of months ago to give Newt a pass on the Scarlet-A factor, and I seriously doubt there's a single thing an embittered ex-wife can say that will change my mind at this point.

Yes, I empathize with the 2^nd Mrs. Gingrich. Yes, I believe that adultery is a very serious offense. Yes, I wish the man I am supporting for president had a perfect track record in all aspects of his life, both public and private.

I'm putting my country over the matron's sisterhood here, and a couple of my friends have already stared at me incredulously as I've explained my reasons.

How could I, outspoken defender of monogamy and premarital chastity, so compromise my own principles to vote for a man who has trashed his own wedding vows and, if he wins the presidency, would ensconce his former mistress as first lady?

Well, it's complicated.

For one thing, I don't see red-blooded, healthy, high-testosterone men through a set of 1950s June-Cleaver glasses.

Newt's a Boomer, for crying out loud. He's a Boomer through and through, down to every one of his adulterous acts.

We Boomers honestly did believe that sexual morality could be separated from all other spheres. We heralded cohabitation as the commonsense precursor to healthy marriage. We pushed the bounds of every sexual prohibition to its furthermost limits and insisted on the right to exterminate our young in the womb to offset female disadvantage. We've embraced serial monogamy so enthusiastically that we've made it mainstream. Kids from our broken families are everywhere now, and bonded step-families are now as commonplace as they were rare in June Cleaver's America.

In many ways, Newt Gingrich is us. He is us in ways Mitt Romney doesn't even seem to know exist in the real world.

Not all Boomers bought into this now-quite-blemished idea of separating our sex lives from all the rest in terms of morality, but more of us did than didn't. And pretending that's not the case isn't going to put this Boomer-released genie back into its bottle. America will have to depend upon the new generations' learning from our mistakes to even come close to doing that. And I doubt seriously whether these young libertarians want to go back to straight-laced, Christian sexual morality enforced by law anyhow.

The point is this.

Newt Gingrich, like Bill Clinton, is a Boomer in this sexually liberated regard.

And right this very minute, there are as many women who identify with Callista Gingrich, the mistress who became a wife, as will identify with the formerly scorned ex. In my own circle of close female friends, two of them were former mistresses.

As Boomers, we would have to do a whole lot of Scarlet-A shunning to keep the marriage vow-breakers out of our midst. Unfortunately, that would mean most of us Boomers would have fewer friends than we could count on one hand. Amongst the younger generations, the only place where one can beam solidly on the side of chastity is at church on Sunday.

At any rate, fair is fair, and since the 2^nd Mrs. Gingrich is now nursing her divorce-grudge in public, the public needs to remember just how it was that Marianne came to be the second wife of Newt Gingrich. She had an affair with him while he was still married to wife #1.

Exactly so, dear readers.

The second wife, now running to the press crying foul over Newt's adultery, was his mistress (in an adulterous affair) before she became his wife.

Wife #1 was Newt's former high school math teacher, with whom he was having backseat sexual dalliances by the time he was only 16 years old. When Newt was of age, he married his teacher, and they had two children. Newt's only daughters have both defended their father in public, and it was their mother who was scorned for wife #2, Marianne, who is now doing all she can to turn a long-lost grudge match into the death knell for Newt's presidential aspirations.

A man who is able to keep the high regard of his daughters under such circumstance is a man worthy of second and third and fourth chances, in my opinion.

Let's not forget that Newt Gingrich is a Southerner. And Southern men have long, long, long, long been known for their randy ways, which a great many of us women find as attractive as we find it nettlesome when we are ourselves scorned for more verdant female pastures.

Whether South Carolina women will give Newt a pass on his hound-dog history is up in the air, but knowing Southern women as well as I do, I will bet that they will.

Many are thinking right this minute along the lines of Sarah Palin.

We've got bigger fish to fry at the moment, and when one's Country is on the line, it's no time to be indulging puritan fantasies about men. Many women are thinking that we've got a once-married, publicly chaste president in the White House now, and it's not working out so well for America.

Southern women are not idealists wearing rose-colored glasses, especially when it comes to men. Even the most religious among us tend to see men as they are and not as we would wish them to be. Even in the Antebellum South, women turned a willfully blind eye to a husband's sexual romps in favor of financial security and the social status of marriage. Then, Civil War and Reconstruction deprivations only reinforced this already-strong survival instinct among Southern women, who quite often will put up with a mistress on the side and only get vengeful when the husband takes that mistress for his new wife. Southern women tend to believe that it's as much a woman's duty to keep her man as it is a man's duty to remain in marital fealty.

So, I'm getting pretty darned fed up with men running around screaming that Newt will cause a gender gap so huge that it simply can't be ameliorated by other factors more important.

I'm planning to vote for Newt myself.

And I can guarantee you we women are a heck of a lot more complicated than this anyhow.

Actually, c-o-m-p-l-i-c-a-t-e-d doesn't even spell the half of it when it comes to women.

Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and PJ Media. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.

"NEWT NEWS in Missouri" new focus at Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! M-W-F 3:33pm central on BlogTalkRadio

2012-01-21T19:24:00.002-06:00

Newt nukes liberal CNN moderator

"The new leadership focus for Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! the Venue for Vision & Values In Our Communities, is "NEWT NEWS in Missouri"," announced the radio rabbi host, Rabbi Eukel.

Speaker Newt Gingrich's smack back on CNN's John King is worth watching again, again, again and again!
http://www.youtube.com/embed/ZcYF5aNwUeI

Additionally, read at AMERICAN THINKER, Clarice Feldman's piece of Jan 22, 2012 (the day after Newt's presidential campaign wins largely and astoundingly the GOP South Carolina primary) on "Newts Third Law."

Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! broadcasts three times a week, Monday-Wednesday-Friday at 3:33 pm central on BlogTalkRadio.com. "As we begin our fourth year we continue to see evidence of GOD's favor as promised in Psalm 2:8, "Ask Me for the Nations, and every nation on earth will belong to you," continued the Messianic rabbi.

Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! is heard nationally and in 25 foreign countries with listens and reads coupled to the blog River Rising Review exceeding 100,000. Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! is ranked in the top one percent of broadcasts in the "Culture" category of BlogTalkRadio out of over 13,000.

The new "NEWT NEWS in Missouri" leadership focus will center on the grandiose question: Can NEWT's 2012 LEADERSHIP NOW presidential theme win the future for Southwest Missouri, specifically in Lawrence County?

Is Newt Gingrich the Republican Party’s King David? Friday, January 20, 201 2 by Jeannie DeAngelis, posted at Jeannie-ology.com2

2012-01-21T19:06:00.001-06:00

Remember King David?

David was God’s man of faith and power: a psalmist, a great leader, and a man after “God’s own heart.” Unfortunately, David had issues with temptation, lust, adultery and murder.

Sound familiar?

Now the Republican Party is grappling with similar issues concerning a conservative candidate who, if he had comported himself in his personal life in a manner similar to progressive Republican Mitt Romney, we wouldn’t be having discussions about what happened 20 years ago.

But here we are, and Newton Leroy McPherson, aka Newt Gingrich, is a man with David-like qualities, likely the best representative for what the conservative wing of the Republican Party stands for, and the most likely able to slay a Goliath named Obama.

The Republican Party is desperate to find a candidate that can trounce Obama and dial back the country to its more Reaganesque past, thus Newt Gingrich is a candidate on the rise. If Newt is taken down, it will be because when he wasn’t about the business of finding “American Solutions,” he spent too much time like King David, walking on rooftops and gazing upon Bathshebas in or around the halls of Congress.

Despite his brilliance, Newt’s one drawback is past appreciation for women who weren’t his wife. Gingrich is guilty of what King David did, and not once, but twice.

The former speaker’s ex-wives paid for it, and his grown daughters, regardless of what they say, surely carry the pain of their father’s betrayals.

Repentance or no repentance, conversion or not, like a pebble being thrown into a pool of water, even years later adultery has ongoing repercussions.

All American voters will be affected if Newt is Herman Cain-ed and shoved out of the running because of a salivating media who blithely excused Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes, but are more than willing to crucify Mr. Gingrich for his past mistakes.

Jackie Battley Gingrich was Newt’s first wife of 19 years. Infamously, the Congressman surprised her while she was recovering in a hospital after surgery to remove a potentially cancerous tumor by asking her for a divorce.

At the time, Newt was anxious to be unattached from the mother of his children because he admittedly was seeing 28-year-old congressional aide Marianne Ginther Gingrich. They married six months after his divorce from Jackie was finalized.

Nineteen years after Newt married Marianne, Callista became the third Mrs. Gingrich, and the duo have been gloriously joined at the hip now for 12 years. Question: What exactly was Gingrich thinking when he criticized Bill Clinton for committing adultery with Monica Lewinsky when he himself was married to Marianne and carrying on with a woman 23 years his junior?

With that in mind, until that 19-year mark comes and goes, the present Mrs. Gingrich shouldn’t get too comfortable.

And the Lord said to David: “You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.” Thus, twenty-odd years later, those initial adulterous ripples have made contact with Newt’s aspirations to become President of the United States, and have grown into waves smashing with great force against the side of his campaign.

Despite his admitted repentance and ability to explain his way out of any situation, Newt is presently being sucked into a vortex of disgrace. Why? Because there are four people involved in a twenty-year-old scandal: three wives – two of whom are former mistresses – and the perpetually married Mr. Gingrich.

Based on his own admission, we know that the presidential hopeful cheated on his two ex-wives with two congressional aides, both of whom he eventually married. That means at the bare minimum we have three people with a history of being less than truthful.

There’s Newt, who may be a great debater, historian, and politician, but who’s past track record in the veracity department does leave a lot to be desired. Then there’s Marianne Ginther Gingrich, second wife/woman scorned.

Marianne’s tawdry story may or may not be true, because let’s face it – when Ms. Ginther was a congressional aide she had no problem skulking about with a married man.

And let’s not forget the perfectly-coifed Callista who, besides carrying on with another woman’s husband, is also a published author, player of the French horn, singer in the choir at the Basilica of the National Shrine, and creator of Ellis the Elephant. First lady hopeful Callista followed in Marianne’s footsteps and did to Marianne what Marianne did to Jackie.

Even still, like King David, Gingrich does have the potential to be a great leader.

The American people would benefit greatly with Newt as president, but if what happened to Herman Cain – with a lot less evidence – is any example, it remains to be seen whether Newt’s dream will ever come to pass.

Jeannie DeAngelis at jeannie-ology.com

A modern day reenactment of an ancient king’s fall from grace may or may not end up being Newt Gingrich’s downfall. Unlike King David, who slew Uriah to cover his sin, thankfully in Newt’s case no one lost their life in the literal sense.

However, if the resurrected scandal sticks, conservatives who have been faithful to Newt and the principles he espouses could be in for a political death of epic proportions.

Sheriff Brad DeLay of Lawrence County Missouri

2012-01-19T17:27:00.001-06:00

01/19/2012 - Sheriff's Office Releases MOSMART Officer Stats

Sheriff Brad DeLay

The Lawrence County Sheriff's Office is releasing stats regarding drug investigations for the months of July 2011 through December 31, 2011.

This position was grant funded and the funding for this grant was not reallocated for any agency in Missouri. A request was made for the position to be added into the County budget but that request was also denied.

Currently the Sheriff's Office is actively seeking funding to bring the position back.

Meth labs seized - 10

Chemical/Glassware/Equipment seized - 1

Clandestine Lab Dumpsites - 5

Arrests for Manufacturing Methamphetamine - 12

Arrests for Attempting to Manufacture Methamphetamine - 2

Arrests for Distribution of Methamphetamine - 6

Arrests for Possession of Methamphetamine - 22

Missouri GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Bill Randles on Governor Nixon's State of the StateSpeech

2012-01-19T17:14:00.000-06:00

Bill Randles & wife, Bev, both lawyers

Randles Responds to Nixon's State-of-the-State Address

Liberty, Mo., January 18th, 2012 -- Bill Randles released a written statement today in response to Governor Jay Nixon's State of the State address given last night.

"Last night Jay Nixon delivered his fourth State of the State Address. It was simply more of the same failed policies that have placed Missouri near the bottom in every measure. His governorship has been one of failure in every category.

He claims Missouri is a business-friendly state, but a study released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2011 ranked us dead last in terms of regulatory burden and business-friendliness. Under Jay Nixon Missouri lost 90,000 jobs in 2010, the third worst performance in the country. Missouri is one of only three states that spends more than 30% of its state budget on Medicaid alone.

Under Jay Nixon, Missouri has lost a record number of jobs and businesses. His solutions? More bandaids in the form of government programs and crony capitalism. The same formula he has been pushing for three years and that has failed so miserably.

We heard not one word about any serious reform of the policies that led us here. He, of
course, said nothing about our broken tax code, dysfunctional judiciary, or outdated labor
policies. No, he once again has chosen to put the interests of trial lawyers, labor unions, and
crony capitalists ahead of the interests of ordinary Missourians.

His education policies are a disgrace. He makes excuses for the failures of the Kansas
City and St. Louis public schools. He mouths the teachers union line that more money will fix everything – ignoring the billions of wasted dollars already poured into them. He then has the audacity to attack charter schools and claim they need to be more accountable. But apparently this call for accountability does not apply to the public schools in our urban areas that have incinerated billions of dollars, dimmed the future prospects for generations of out more vulnerable children, and enjoyed a virtual monopoly for decades. No, Jay Nixon prefers to placate and reward the failed urban education monopoly and continue to trade our children’s futures for his political convenience.

Jay Nixon is a failed governor. Last night’s speech shows a tired product of a corrupt political machine uninterested in and unable to fix the serious structural problems in our state. He seems to believe his record of failure has earned him another four years. Missouri businesses, tax payers, and children cannot afford another four years of Jay Nixon."

--Bill Randles, Republican gubernatorial candidate

This isn’t what winning looks like by Jim DeMint on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:33pm

2012-01-19T15:48:00.001-06:00

The two political victories leading Republicans planned on celebrating today only showcase how much we have to lose by compromising with the Democrats.

The non-binding vote of disapproval on the debt ceiling increase held in the House today and the Obama Administration’s decision not to authorize the Keystone Pipeline were supposed to be excruciating political exercises for the Democrats. They turned out to be a walk in the park.

Instead of generating a great public uproar over the debt, economy, and jobs, all President Obama had to do was reiterate his long-held positions—that the debt ceiling should be increased and the Keystone Pipeline should not be authorized.

Giving the President exactly what he wants and then asking him to remind the public that he wanted it after the fact isn’t a strategy to win. It’s a strategy to cover-up a stunning loss under the guise of a compromise.

During the very heated debate to increase the debt ceiling last summer, conservatives insisted on passage of a balanced budget amendment to limit government spending in order to raise the nation’s borrowing limit. But, at the last minute many in the party lost their courage and decided a watered down package to create a debt commission, sequesters, and require the president to ask for debt increases in series of requests would be an adequate substitute. In the end, the debt commission failed to produce any recommendations and several members of Congress are already seeking to undo the sequesters. Additionally, the debt deal sidelined Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R.-Wisc.) budget that was passed by the House and allowed appropriators to increase spending above his levels.

That all goes to show that as a result of the debt deal, no long-term reforms to change the way Congress spends money have yet been enacted and the government continues to borrow and spend much more than it takes in.

Conservatives fought again when the payroll tax holiday approached its expiration date last December. President Obama claimed the year before that a one-year reduction in the payroll tax, the funding stream for Social Security, would create jobs and help the economy. Instead, unemployment is still at record highs and the economy still hasn't recovered. That's because temporary gimmicks make for good press releases but bad economic policy. Businesses create new jobs based on long-term planning, not one-year tax holidays.

America doesn’t have a temporary economy and the nation simply can’t keep operating on temporary tax policies. We need serious tax reform that ends all the exemptions, deductions and gimmicks and permanently lowers rates. That's the only way we'll truly encourage job creation through the tax code and be competitive in a global economy.

Either the payroll tax holiday should be made permanent and the government should find a new way to finance the Social Security program, or the “holiday” must come to an end. Instead, the so-called compromise merely put off making any kind of decision, forcing businesses to operate in an unstable and uncertain environment.

Republicans should also note that although President Obama likes to portray himself as a protector of the Social Security program, he’s putting it in jeopardy. Payroll taxes fund Social Security and by suspending those taxes, President Obama is only making the already insolvent program more vulnerable. Suspending those contributions effectively transforms the program from a pay-as-you go entitlement into direct welfare for seniors that is financed by general revenues. While President Obama is certainly comfortable with expanding the welfare state in America, the Republican Party should not be and should not permit it to happen.

I opposed both these decisions because I believe our nation is on the edge of a fiscal cliff. It’s important now to fight for long-lasting reforms for our country than make deals to get through day-to-day political skirmishes.

Today’s events show that when Republicans compromise with Democrats, Americans lose. We cannot save our country from economic collapse by caving to political pressure. It's time for Republicans to show voters that we will stand for the principles that made America the strongest and most prosperous nation on Earth.

The Anti-Semitism of a Local Newspaper Editor-Publisher

2012-01-19T14:56:00.000-06:00

Will Rogers, once a neighbor to Missouri, made a quip about NOT arguing with someone who buys ink by the barrel. That was during a period when newspapers were a dominant influence in our communities large or small - still more important than radio and before the emergence of network television.

The 21st century digital information age has not eradicated newspapers, but readership as a percentage of population is fewer than in Will Rogers' time. So, it is not clear anymore than a local weekly community newspaper buys ink by the barrel, if they ever did. Circulation is less than 7,000 and that is giving them credit for the free, printed-but-not-distributed rags. Readership is certainly less, despite the "pass-a-long" numbers used to boast influence to maintain advertising rates.

Proof? LEADERS LEAD LOCALLY INSTITUTE paid for a dominant 3x4 ad space and got "zero" response. Some who are careful readers of the local weekly community newspaper could find no "record" of our ad because of the "burial" placement. On-the-other-hand, a community newspaper who both accepted the advance news release about the inaugural conference-meeting of LEADERS LEAD LOCALLY INSTITUTE in the newly acquired church-turned-into-a-community center with over a million dollars of citizen's tax-paid hard-earned money, did a small write-up. The result? Citizens from 15 miles outside the City of Mount Vernon, MO came to the conference-meeting.

Furthermore, the local weekly community newspaper continues to practice an intentional ignoring of leadership activity of Rabbi Eukel. Weekly, Rabbi Eukel leads "Prayer on the Square" where local citizens who are not paid professional pray-ers show up at noon every Thursday on the south lawn of the historic Lawrence County Court House to pray for righteous leadership. Local residents have been faithfully doing this for nearly two years, not just on the National Day of Prayer when some, but not all, preachers show-up to pontificate once-a-year for our Nation.

Rabbi Eukel is twice appointed by the Mayor, a member of the Planning & Zoning Commission and has been elected by the other commissioners as secretary. He chairs the first ever established committee of the P&Z to study and make a recommendation to the commissioners about "mother-in-law" quarters additions to existing residences. Bureaucrats refer to them as "ADUs- alternative dwelling units."

Rabbi Eukel's leadership is evidenced at public meetings of city council, municipal standing committees and the county commissioners annual budget hearings. More than attending, he speaks up strict, straight and strong for the renewal of smaller and smarter limited government in our constitutional republic. He is straight forward in challenging elected officials about vision-less initiatives to grow the economic pie by attracting an increase in population and commercial-industrial family-friendly enterprises. When and where traditional American values are missing, seen simply by the absence of honoring ceremonies with an invocation, pledge and presence of the United States flag, the rabbi makes a point of pointing out the American value-less agenda.

However, unless you were at the meeting, you would not be aware that Rabbi Eukel was there, and as a citizen servant-leader spoke up. As far as the local weekly newspaper is concerned, unless the rabbi is paying for an advertisement, he does not exist in community life.

Anti-Semitic? Yes. The push back by the newspaper's editorial and publishing staff is a shunning by silence in space allocation. Elected officials then feel empowered to dismiss a rabbi's remarks because the challenge is not made more public. Another American citizen is ignored by our government.

One day the soft-bigotry and soft-ignorance will result in not-so-soft removal of GOD-given rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness for not just one American Jewish citizen, but for his neighbors. The local weekly newspaper will have also been silenced because they long ago gave up freedom of the press as a bulwark against tyranny.

Mark Levin's AMERITOPIA describes it as majoritarianism in its purest forms that encouraged factionalism and threatened individual sovereignty.

Redistricting Nightmare: Maps (Missouri) Thrown Out Six Weeks Before Filing Period

2012-01-19T11:31:00.001-06:00

The census and subsequent redistricting has made this a particularly nasty election season in politics.

Case in point: Missouri's maps were thrown out yesterday.

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out a pair of newly redrawn state Senate district maps and sent the new congressional map back to a judge for review.

This would have been bad news weeks ago. But this is just a little too late in the ballgame for this kind of political strategy.

With candidate filings for the 2012 elections set to begin Feb. 28, the rulings opened the door to the possibility that final district boundary lines won’t be drawn by then. That would cause confusion and possibly discourage some candidates from running, party leaders said.

Statewide politics in Missouri is a joke thanks to the mismanagement and activism of the show-me-left, as has been well documented on this blog.

But this is embarrassing.

- B.H. - "The Source"

January 19, 2012 4:00 A.M. Ron Paul: Wrong on the Taliban They protected al-Qaeda even at the cost of their own power. By Andrew C. McCarthy

2012-01-19T08:45:00.000-06:00

a delusional Ron Paul

Ron Paul knows even less about the history of our enemies than he does about their proper treatment under the Constitution. He actually interrupted Monday night’s Republican candidates’ debate so he could interject the following:

I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. So Taliban are people who want — their main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It’s the al-Qaeda — you can’t mix the two. The al-Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says, “We don’t want foreigners.” We need to understand that, or we can’t resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come.

Everything in this statement is wrong. Everything.

Let’s start with the most basic point. The Taliban most certainly were not “our allies when we were fighting the Russians.” How could they have been, considering that the Taliban did not exist at the time of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan?

I won’t belabor the point that it was not the United States but the Afghan mujahadeen, with the help of non-Afghan Muslims (mostly Arab), who did the actual fighting against the Soviets. We did, after all, fuel the anti-Soviet jihad with billions of dollars in materiel and other assistance — through our intermediary, Pakistani intelligence, with the Saudis matching our aid dollar-for-dollar.

Presumably, this is what Representative Paul was talking about. Nevertheless, while a number of the Taliban’s eventual founders were veterans of the anti-Soviet jihad, the fact is that the Taliban was not established as an organization until 1994. That is five years after the Soviet Union skulked out of Afghanistan and three years after it collapsed.

Paul’s claim that the Taliban is just opposed to foreign interference in Afghanistan is patently absurd.

To begin with, the Taliban’s creation was a direct result not of foreign invasion but of Afghanistan’s internecine tribal warfare after the Soviets left and the Americans lost interest. Its unabashed goal was to crush Afghan factions that impeded its establishment of a retrograde sharia state.

Moreover, the Taliban craves foreign interference, without which it would never have come to power. A Pashtun movement driven by Islamic scholars and spearheaded by Mullah Mohammed Omar in Kandahar, the Taliban owes its existence to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These Muslim nations, two of the only three nations in the world to recognize the Taliban-led government in Kabul, nurtured, armed, and financed the Taliban in its origin. They did so precisely because the Taliban was an effective ally in their machinations against regional rivals — India for the Pakistanis and Iran for the Saudis. The alliance was also grounded in the Taliban’s espousal of Deobandism, an uncompromising construction of Islam propagated in Afghan madrassas built by the Saudis’ Muslim World League in conjunction with Jamaat-e-Islami, Pakistan’s supremacist Islamic movement.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the Taliban willingly gave al-Qaeda safe haven, knowing full well that bin Laden’s network was engaged in a global jihad that targeted the United States as its primary enemy.

Al-Qaeda struck American interests several times while it had sanctuary from the Taliban, attacking American embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole in Yemen before orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.

By quite consciously accommodating and protecting an international terrorist organization that was at war with the United States, the Taliban joined al-Qaeda and became an enemy of the United States. It was thus every bit as much a part of al-Qaeda’s attacks on the U.S. as was al-Qaeda itself.

That is not only how war works, it is a straightforward application of the criminal-law principles that Representative Paul claims to like so much — a conspirator and an aider-and-abettor is responsible for the actions of his confederates.

Speaking of the criminal law, it bears remembering that the American invasion of Afghanistan was not inevitable.

Contrary to Paul’s offensive depiction of a ravenous, empire-building America ever on the prowl for the next military conquest, the Bush administration did not rush to war.

As I’ve pointed out before, in the weeks after 9/11, even after Congress authorized the use of military force, President Bush pointedly asked the Taliban to hand bin Laden and his organization over to the United States so that they could be tried — bin Laden having been indicted years earlier by an American grand jury. The Taliban repeatedly refused. Our choice at that point was either to invade, overthrow the Taliban, and smash al-Qaeda, or to let it be known that the United States would tolerate a massive attack on our homeland. That was no choice at all.

Ron Paul is dangerously delusional about the Taliban’s Weltanschauung.

To be fair, these are delusions he shares with leftists — including members of the Obama administration– who insist that we must purge all references to Islam from our consideration of the threat we face.

The Taliban does not say, “We don’t want foreigners.”

If you are an Arab jihadist, an operative of Pakistan’s heavily Islamist intelligence service, or a Saudi Wahhabist royal ready to build Afghanistan’s next-generation madrassas, the Taliban is delighted to have you in their country. It is non-Muslims they don’t want.

And it is non-Muslim superpowers that they especially despise, since these they see as standing athwart their divine mission to subject the world to the rule of Islamic law.

That is why they protected al-Qaeda even at the cost of their own power.

That is why negotiating with them is self-defeating and leaving them alone, as Paul would have us do, is suicidal.

Of course we should avoid unnecessary wars.

But when we find ourselves in necessary wars, we need to win them.

To adopt the Paul rationalization that such wars are our own fault and that we can secure ourselves by shrinking from them is just as fatuous as rationalizing that democracy will tame the jihad.

— Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

The 2012 Republican Primary and the Seeds of 1966 January 19, 2012 | by Samuel G. Casolari | Topic: The American Story, The Path to Freedom

2012-01-19T08:29:00.002-06:00

The Republican primary contest has come down to a choice between Mitt Romney and the anti-Romney.

It is another in a series of battles between the non-conservative and conservative wings of the GOP. Arguably, the political seeds of today’s Republican schism were planted in 1966 when Ronald Reagan became governor of California and George Herbert Walker Bush became a congressman from Texas.

Their political heirs have been contending for the soul of the Republican Party ever since.

In 1966, Reagan and the elder Bush became recognized nationally by opinion leaders, activists, and—especially in the case of Reagan—the general public. Reagan went on to win another term as governor while Bush lost a Senate race in 1970. Reagan gained the national stage as a conservative leader, while Bush retreated to competent stints as an envoy to China, a U.N. ambassador, and CIA director. By 1976 Reagan challenged George Bush’s boss, President Gerald Ford. Reagan’s conservative bona fides were established while Bush’s establishment credentials cemented.

The two men came to political blows in 1980. Reagan advocated supply-side economics to address the tax code and stagnant economy. Bush derided Reagan’s economic policies as “voodoo economics.”

Reagan’s nomination settled their battle, and their alliance was sealed when the victor offered Bush the vice presidential nomination. The election set the Republican Party stage as a decades-long struggle between the Reagan and Bush factions.

After Reagan’s two-term presidency, Bush presented himself to a skeptical and divided conservative electorate as the nominee promising a kinder, gentler America. His non-conservative instincts surfaced as he violated his “no new taxes” pledge and muddled through a domestic program and a recession with no real political narrative or Reagan-style economic growth policy. Conservatives were not happy and liberals did not endorse the kinder, gentler record. Bush lost to Bill Clinton in 1992, garnering a mere 38 percent of the vote.

Clinton’s healthcare proposal and leftist excesses led to Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America. Gingrich challenged the establishment congressional Republicans and the Bush presidency—and functionaries like John Sununu, who now supports Mitt Romney—by refusing to accept a tax deal, which violated Bush’s own pledge.

Gingrich vigorously opposed President Clinton and executed a strategy to regain control of the Congress and the conservative agenda. The historic 1994 Republican victory corrected the muddle of the first Bush presidency and captured control of Congress under Gingrich’s leadership.

1994 was also significant because of the emergence of three other figures: After repudiating the Reagan era, Mitt Romney lost a Senate race in Massachusetts, George W. Bush won the governorship of Texas, and Rick Santorum won a Senate seat in Pennsylvania.

The kinder, gentler instincts of the elder Bush morphed into the compassionate conservatism of the younger Bush. Bush the younger became the Republican nominee for president; and though failing to win the popular vote, he defeated Vice President Al Gore in 2000.

In 2002, Mitt Romney barely stumbled into the governorship of Massachusetts and adopted as the centerpiece of his one-and-only term in office an individual mandate for health insurance coverage.

At the same time, President Bush was advancing No Child Left Behind, the unfunded expansion of Medicare, increased federal spending, and Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve. Combined with nation building in two distant countries, the admirable War on Terror was lost to voters, leading to catastrophic losses for the GOP in 2006 (when Mitt Romney did not even bother running for another term and Rick Santorum lost his Senate seat) and again in 2008.

Barack Obama became president on the back of a country weary of war and, much like the elder Bush, had no economic or political narrative.

Like 1994, the Republican grassroots reacted to the Obama excesses, and again won historic victories in 2010. But yet again, the political heirs of George Bush muddled the victory.

Gone are the strong and principled opposition to Obamacare, the failed stimulus and fundamental fiscal-reform efforts. Instead, the party of Bush is engaging in small, inconsequential turf wars over two-month tax extensions, is close to nominating a candidate for president who supported an individual mandate, and is forcing the heirs of Reagan to accept a nominee for president who rejected Reagan and his revolution.

2012 is 1996 all over again. The party may be nominating another candidate with neither vision nor fixed values. Expect a Dukakis-style campaign of competency and management. Like Clinton, Obama will prevail and the heirs of Bush will lead the Republican Party to an unnecessary defeat.

Will history repeat itself?

The party of Bush appears ready to anoint Governor Romney.

But will the party of Reagan stand by his side?

This time, perhaps not.

The 1966 seeds sown between Reagan and Bush cast a long shadow.

Samuel G. Casolari

Samuel G. Casolari, J.D., ’83 is managing attorney and shareholder of the Cleveland office of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin and a trustee of Grove City College. A contributor to The Center for Vision & Values, he earned a juris doctor degree from the University of Akron School of Law. (The opinions expressed by the author are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Grove City College or its Board of Trustees.)

AMERICAN MINUTE with Bill Federer on Justice Douglas Jan 19

2012-01-19T08:16:00.000-06:00

American Minute with Bill Federer

Jan. 19 - Justice Douglas "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being..."

Justice Douglas

William Orville Douglas died JANUARY 19, 1980.

He was a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for 36 years, after having taught law at Yale and Columbia University.

In the 1952 case of Zorach v. Clauson, Justice Douglas wrote:

"The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State...Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other - hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly...

Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; "so help me God" in our courtroom oaths - these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment.

A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court...'"

Justice Douglas continued:

"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being...

When the state encourages religious instruction...it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.

To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe."

Justice William Douglas concluded:

"We find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion...We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion."

Extremist Animal "rights" groups from outside Missouri

2012-01-18T14:37:00.002-06:00

Missouri Farmers Care has been keeping a close on eye on HSUS and other animal-rights extremists' activities in Missouri. Today we released this press release on how animal-rights activists are trying to manipulate the Missouri constitution with their "Your Vote Counts" initiative petition. Please take a minute to read about what HSUS is up to in Missouri and please share this information with your friends and family.

Missouri Farmers Care questions animal-rights extremists' involvement in Your Vote Counts Committee

(JEFFERSON CITY, MO) With the release of their fourth quarter fundraising report, the Your Vote Counts Committee disclosed that the vast majority of their funding comes from extremist animal-rights groups and donors from outside of Missouri.

"Your Vote Counts should be called 'Their Money Talks,'" Missouri Farmers Care Chairman Don Nikodim said. "Contrary to their rhetoric, this initiative petition isn't about giving a voice to Missouri voters, it's about giving more power to out-of-state special interests like HSUS and ASPCA. These animal-rights extremists are just trying to make it easier to advance their anti-hunting and anti-agriculture agenda."

The report, found on the Missouri Ethics Commission's website, shows that the Your Vote Counts Committee received a total of $164,863.92 in monetary and in-kind contributions from out-of-state individuals and special interests groups. Animal-rights groups ASPCA and HSUS contributed $50,000 and $87,305.39 respectively. Only two donors accounting for $150 were from the state of Missouri. In total, 99.91 percent of the Your Vote Counts Committee's funding came from outside of Missouri in the fourth quarter of 2011.

"For an organization claiming to stand up for Missouri voters, they don't seem to have much support from Missouri," MFC Vice-Chairman Jeff Windett said. "These groups are abusing the initiative petition process to force their values on us. This initiative petition is just a way for these extremist groups to make it easier to come into Missouri and spend their way onto the ballot. I hope people will take a close look at who is really behind Your Vote Counts before they decide on it."

-30-

Members of Missouri Farmers Care include: Missouri Pork Association, Missouri Cattlemen's Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Missouri Corn Growers Association, Midwest Dairy Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, MFA Incorporated, Missouri Beef Industry Council, Inc., Missouri Dairy Association, Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, Missouri Egg Council, Inc., MFA Oil, Missouri Agribusiness Association, FCS Financial, Missouri Dairy Growth Council, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, Cargill, Missouri Rural Electric Cooperatives Missouri Pet Breeders Association, Monsanto, United Producers, Inc., Missouri Sheep Producers, Missouri Livestock Marketing Association, Missouri Farmer Today, Professional Pet Association, Missouri Association of Meat Processors, and the Missouri Whitetail Breeders and Hunting Ranch Association.

Follow Us

Paid for by Missouri Farmers Care - Dale Ludwig, Treasurer

2012 Republican Response to the Missouri State of the State

2012-01-17T20:52:00.001-06:00

2012 Republican Response to the Missouri State of the State

January 17, 2012

Senate Appropriations Chairman Kurt Schaefer (Columbia) and House Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones (Eureka) delivered the Republican response to State of the State address. They called on Gov. Nixon to do more than just give speeches; instead, he should get serious & work with the General Assembly to solve Missouri’s budget problems.

http://youtu.be/tv8-omPVuv4

The transcript:

SEN. KURT SCHAEFER:

Good evening, and thank you for joining us. I’m Senator Kurt Schaefer, and I am joined by my colleague, House Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones, to deliver the Republican Response to the State of the State. Representative Jones will begin with a few words about what you heard from the Governor this evening.

REP. TIM JONES:

Thank you, Sen. Schaefer.

Every January for the past three years, Governor Nixon has come to the Missouri Capitol and delivered a compelling speech—full of lofty rhetoric, brimming with hope.

Tonight was no different.

We in the General Assembly would hope that Jay Nixon would follow through on his promises. But if the past is any indication, his leadership will stop once the cameras are turned off and the reality of life continues.

We have witnessed this every year.

Governor Nixon talks about creating jobs—but Missouri has fallen behind on his watch.

He talks about standing up for Missourians—but he silently supports his party when they ram Obamacare and destructive cap-and-trade proposals through Congress. And he remains silent when his State Tax Commission once again decides to raise taxes on Missouri’s farmers to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

He talks about working with the legislature—but he remains on the sidelines, as a spectator, every time we need him to lead.

At a time when our economy is stagnating and the unemployment rate remains unacceptably high, Missourians deserve far better.

Tonight, 250,000 Missourians cannot find a job, many more are underemployed, and countless others struggle to make ends meet.

Employers are fleeing Missouri to states like Kansas and Tennessee—taking jobs and precious revenue with them.

This should strengthen our resolve to keep jobs here. But when one company moved to Kansas just last year, Jay Nixon’s Economic Development Director shrugged his shoulders.

A true leader fights for every job, every time. Instead, we have a governor who gambles state money on risky projects without vetting them first.

In 2010, the governor called a press conference to announce more than 17 million dollars of your taxpayer money for a now infamous company called Mamtek in Moberly.

If the governor had done his homework, he would have learned that the company misrepresented their capabilities, the company’s president was in deep financial trouble, and he would have realized that the project at its essence, was a fraud.

If he had done his homework. But he did not.

The company went bankrupt, and the city of Moberly was left with tens of millions of dollars of debt—and zero new jobs.

Instead of taking responsibility, Jay Nixon pointed fingers and even claimed he doesn’t run his own Department. A Missourian who became President once famously said that the buck always stopped with him. Apparently with Jay Nixon, the buck stops with everyone but the governor.

In 2009, Governor Nixon provided a 1 million loan to a Kirksville company, even though that company was run by a man with a history of tax problems. He again didn’t do his homework. The company defaulted—and taxpayers still haven’t been repaid.

And in 2010, Nixon promised $2 million to a Cape Girardeau company run by a man on probation for financial fraud. The governor didn’t do his homework.

Missourians deserve better.

You see, Governor Nixon, it’s not enough to fly around the state on the taxpayer dime and promise jobs— you need to make sure those jobs are actually created.

Just like it’s not enough to make one lofty speech every year—you need to have an agenda, follow through on that agenda and seriously address the issues that are facing our state.

If you are willing to lead, the peoples’ elected representatives are eager to work with you to create the environment necessary for businesses to create jobs, to balance the budget without new job-killing taxes, to improve our schools, and to protect Missouri values.

In December, Republicans in the State House released our “Blueprint for Missouri” to accomplish just that. We are committed to creating a stable business climate that allows employers to grow, expand, and create good-paying jobs.

We are determined to reset the priorities of government so it serves the taxpayers first. We plan to improve the education of our children—especially those in failing schools. And we will continue protecting the sanctity of life and our 2^nd Amendment rights.

Missourians are a proud, determined, independent people. We want to work, we want to provide for our families and we want to restore our state to greatness.

Accomplishing greatness requires boldness, vision and courage in our leaders. We invite Governor Nixon to join us, in our vision and in our determination to reach our goals of making Missouri the jewel of the Heartland.

Now, Senate Appropriations Chairman Kurt Schaefer will discuss Missouri’s budget situation.

SEN. KURT SCHAEFER:

Thank you, Representative Jones.

Over the next several months the General Assembly will review the Governor’s proposed budget and make decisions regarding scarce taxpayer resources during one of the most challenging fiscal years in Missouri history.

As we do this, we will remember that governing is about priorities, especially during these difficult economic times.

Article III, Sec. 36 of the Missouri Constitution specifically states the order of priorities for appropriating the people’s money. After payment of public debt, the education of Missouri’s children is at the top of the list. This clear mandate has been ignored in recent times and the budget has been balanced on the back of public education.

Missouri schools have received less and less money—for classrooms, for transportation, for technology, and for creating future opportunity.

The truth is in the numbers.

Over the past three years, state funding for school districts and teachers has been slashed and underfunded by 7% or $232 million dollars, and funding for Missouri’s public higher education institutions and scholarships has been reduced by more than 14%, which totals about $153 million dollars. Yet during the same period, Medicaid spending has skyrocketed—increasing by over $1.6 billion dollars, a 24% increase of an already massive program.

The Governor has furthered this trend through withholds and reductions of the General Assembly’s increases for public education. When we can’t afford busses to get our children to school and when we continue to cause dramatic increases in the price of earning a college or technical degree, it’s time to reevaluate our priorities.

The General Assembly is committed to protecting Missouri’s most vulnerable citizens. We must provide assistance to those who cannot otherwise help themselves. But the growing diversion of funding away from programs that assist all our citizens in order to fund an expanding welfare state is simply unsustainable.

When we fail to prepare our children to compete, we condemn them to a future that is less bright and devoid of opportunity. Cutting public education to fund expansion of Medicaid does little more than guarantee future Medicaid growth.

Additionally, helping Missourians recover from natural disasters will always be a top priority for the General Assembly. The $500 million Rainy Day Fund was created so such adversity would not keep us from crafting a strong future for all Missourians.

The Governor’s speech tonight should be the beginning—not the end—of his involvement in solving our budget crisis.

In the past the Governor has been unwilling to work with the General Assembly on the budget, so tonight I renew my invitation to him to put aside differences and design a budget that respects Missouri’s priorities.

But whether or not the governor chooses to work with us, the General Assembly will continue to live within our means and deliver a balanced budget.

The poor economy has accelerated our arrival at a cross-road: do we sacrifice the potential of our young people to put an ever increasing amount of the public’s money into maintaining the status quo, or do we invest in our children and our future?

For us, the answer is clear. Working to strengthen public education is our top priority.

If we engage the right stewardship today, I am optimistic we can build a Missouri full of ever increasing opportunity.

Thank you for listening this evening.

May God bless you, and may God continue to bless the Great State of Missouri.

Austin TX Author Lisa Fritsch's book, Obama TEA Parties & GOD

2012-01-17T14:58:00.000-06:00

One of the 2,500 Great Guests, the radio rabbi has hosted on Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! the Venue for Vision & Values in Our Communities is an Austin, Texas author, Lisa Fritsch.

Lisa, a guest on Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck and Neil Cavuto, has authored Obama, TEA Parties & GOD: What it means to be an American, a Patriot and a Christian. Ms Fritsch sent an autographed gift copy to the radio rabbi acknowledging her appearance on the national broadcast Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi!, exceeding 100,000 listens & reads coupled to the blog River Rising Review.

Lisa Fritsch

"Thank you, Lisa."

From the back Cover:

Lisa is a conservative activist. She gained national attention for her willingness to stand up to the NAACP for accusing TEA Party patriots as racist. Fritsch is also a political commentator. She is the founder and president of ACTS Alive (Americans for Christian Conservative Truth) an organization that seeks to correctly define the truth about conservative ideas in all forms of media. Lisa Fritsch is a member of the national advisory council for Project 21 black leadership network. Fritsch is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin, a wife and mother who lives and loves with her family in Austin, Texas. www.lisafritsch.com

"Friendly" Injury ...

2012-01-16T09:46:00.000-06:00

A Marine squad was marching north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist who was badly injured and unconscious.

On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.
The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in
the ditches along the road. I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable, lowlife scum bag who got what he deserved.

And he yelled back that Barack Obama is a lying, good-for-nothing, left wing Commie who isn't even an American.

So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and acts like a frigid, mean-spirited lesbian!

He retaliated by yelling, Oh yeah? Well, so does Nancy Pelosi!.

And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us.

River Rising Review

Senior Travel

Strategic Abdication February 15, 2012 | by Earl H. Tilford | Topic: The American Story, The Global Challenge, The Path to FreedomPrint

Constitution 101: The Meaning and History of the Constitution

American Minute with Bill Federer Feb. 15 - Slavery in Cuba & the U.S.S. Maine blown up

Legislative Updates from Missouri Farmers Care

Susan's (Lapin) Musings: Santorum's Spotlight

God and Man at CPAC: Facing the 2012 Election

Marvin J. Folkertsma

Hi-Tech Missouri Sheriff - Sheriff Brad Delay, Lawrence County

The Limits of "Term Limits" for Entitled Senators, like Missouri's McCaskill

"Mittens'" Poor - A Net to Keep Them Safely Poor?

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."

--Benjamin Franklin

U.S. Constitution: A Reader from Hillsdale College Press

"Obamneycare" Linked

Catholic Education Alternative in Kansas City MO as told by an eighth grader from the Sudan

Missouri Forum between AKIN and STEELMAN

2 of 3 GOP Senate Candidates Meet Monday Night for Debate #2

Romney's "Ruse" on a blind trust in his own words

Senator Rick Santorum in Missouri Monday Jan 30, 2012

Conservatives Win - Remember Ronald Reagan?

Legalize Marijuana, NOT Lawrence County Sheriff Brad DeLay

2012 Initiative PetitionsApproved for Circulation in Missouri

Constitutional Amendment to Article IV, Relating to Cannabis, version 3, 2012-082

Jewish World Review Jan 26 , 2012 / 2 Shevat, 5772 Newt the closet anti-Semite? By Jonathan Tobin

MY MAN MITT Re-elect Obama: Vote Newt! Ann Coulter: Voters want a real conservative, not Gingrich's 'hotheaded arrogance'

The radio rabbi: Why I am 'With Newt'!

Newt: "What Do You Think the Founders Meant When They Used the Word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence?"

Newt's Daughters: Kathy Gingrich Lubbers & Jackie Gingrich Cushman

Newt Gingrich Responds to SOTU

Weekly Standard's "Cold Open" Romney at DEFCON 1 - Nuke Newt Now!

Newt Gingrich at Veterans for a Strong America, 3rd in series, "Commander in Chief" Foriums

Fred Thompson, former United State Senator (TN) Endorses Speaker Newt Gringrich for GOP Presidential Nominee!

"Come Hear the REAL State of the State" says Carl Bearden, Executive Director of United for Missouri's Future and United for Missouri

Horace Cooper, Constitutional law professor at George Mason University in VA to be Great Guest on Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi!, again...

Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! - "Newt News in Missouri" through Super Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Jewish World Review Jewish voters to play a key role in Florida's Republican primary By Melissa Dribben

Why Newt? Ben Domenech · 15 hours ago · Edited

A Naughty Newt, A Bitter Ex and Misplaced Rage by Doug Giles at Town Hall

Newt Gingrich Wins. What It Means. Erick Erickson at RedState

American Minute with Bill Federer Jan. 21 Cecil B. DeMille & the Ten Commandments

January 21, 2012 Why I'm Giving Newt a Pass on the Scarlet-A Factor By Kyle-Anne Shiver

"NEWT NEWS in Missouri" new focus at Ramble & Rumble with Rabbi! M-W-F 3:33pm central on BlogTalkRadio

Is Newt Gingrich the Republican Party’s King David? Friday, January 20, 201 2 by Jeannie DeAngelis, posted at Jeannie-ology.com2

Sheriff Brad DeLay of Lawrence County Missouri

Missouri GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Bill Randles on Governor Nixon's State of the StateSpeech

This isn’t what winning looks like by Jim DeMint on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 3:33pm

The Anti-Semitism of a Local Newspaper Editor-Publisher

Redistricting Nightmare: Maps (Missouri) Thrown Out Six Weeks Before Filing Period

January 19, 2012 4:00 A.M. Ron Paul: Wrong on the Taliban They protected al-Qaeda even at the cost of their own power. By Andrew C. McCarthy

The 2012 Republican Primary and the Seeds of 1966 January 19, 2012 | by Samuel G. Casolari | Topic: The American Story, The Path to Freedom

Samuel G. Casolari

AMERICAN MINUTE with Bill Federer on Justice Douglas Jan 19

Extremist Animal "rights" groups from outside Missouri

2012 Republican Response to the Missouri State of the State

2012 Republican Response to the Missouri State of the State

Austin TX Author Lisa Fritsch's book, Obama TEA Parties & GOD

"Friendly" Injury ...

2012 Initiative Petitions
Approved for Circulation in Missouri