The U.S. Senate voted on two amendments yesterday that show exactly how tightly politicians cling to power.

The first vote was on a resolution I offered expressing support for a Constitutional Amendment limiting the number of terms someone can serve in Congress.

The term limits amendment was defeated 24-75 with 52 Democrats and 23 Republicans opposing it.

Click here to see how your Senators voted on term limits.

The most common argument I hear against term limits from politicians is that they’re unnecessary because “that’s what elections are for.”

I certainly agree that we should use elections to remove people from office (and there’s probably nobody in Congress who works harder to achieve that goal than me), but incumbents have a significant advantage over challengers. We need term limits to ensure there is a regular rotation of the people who represent us.

The longer someone serves, the more power they accumulate, and the more they lose touch with the voters who elected them. It’s no surprise that the senators who opposed my amendment have been in the Senate an average of 13.6 years compared to just 6.4 years for those who supported it.

The second vote was on an amendment offered by Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) to permanently ban congressional earmarks.

Toomey’s earmark ban was also defeated 40-59 with 46 Democrats and 13 Republicans opposing it.

Click here to see how your Senators voted on the earmark ban.

The most common arguments I hear in favor of earmarks is that the Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse” and Members of Congress know their districts better than government bureaucrats.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to appropriate funds, but it doesn’t say those funds should be allocated in a way that puts seniority and campaign contributions ahead of merit and common sense. And in most cases, the federal government has no business operating these programs. They should either be devolved to the states or eliminated entirely.

I’ve heard some say we should just get rid of the bad earmarks and keep the good ones, but earmarking is an all-or-nothing enterprise.You see, if you vote against a single earmark (no matter how bad it is), the committee chairmen will take away your projects. This is why lawmakers will often vote for budget-busting omnibus spending bills just to secure one or two tiny earmarks.

We could have won majority support for Toomey’s earmark ban yesterday if every Republican had supported it, but many in my own party are still reluctant to give up their earmark addiction.

The outcome of these two votes is yet another a reminder of why we must remain focused on electing true conservative leaders to the U.S. Senate — leaders like Josh Mandel in Ohio, Ted Cruz in Texas, Don Stenberg in Nebraska, and Mark Neumann in Wisconsin.

We can count on them to support common sense reforms like term limits and the earmark ban. We can count on them to fight to restore America’s greatness.

Thank you for your continued support and encouragement. I’m honored to join you in this effort to take our country back.

Respectfully,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator
Chairman, Senate Conservatives Fund

P.S. All five of the senators SCF helped elect in 2010 — Toomey, Rubio, Paul, Lee, and Johnson — voted in favor of these two common sense reforms. Your support for SCF and our endorsed candidates is changing the Senate one senator at a time.

By James G. Wiles
Here we are in another Presidential election year. Earlier this month, all the GOP presidential candidates were in town for the big “First in the South” GOP Presidential Primary Debate on Monday night at the Convention Center.

So maybe you’re thinking (like most Republicans along the Grand Strand): even if the national election is in doubt, at least the GOP is going to pick up one more Congressional seat from South Carolina. That spanking new Seventh Congressional District just created here as a result of the 2010 Census, it’s good our name is written all over it. After all, this is “America’s reddest state.”

You might want to re-think that. Check the map.

The newly restructured S.C. District 7 map.
If the 2012 Congressional vote in the eight counties of Chesterfield, Darlington, Dillon, Florence (except for the area around Ollanta and Lake City), Georgetown, Horry, Marion and Marlboro which make up SC-7 comes in like it did in 2008, the Democrats will carry the District by 27,000 votes. That means a second Democrat Congressman in South Carolina to add to the SC-5 seat, which has been held since 1992 by Democrat James Clyburn.

Let me repeat that: on its face, and assuming President Barack Obama is at the top of the Democratic ticket, the Democrats may well carry SC-7. That’s the dimension of the challenge facing the potential GOP nominee.

The Congressional race has started, too. It’s a crowded field, although two GOPers have dropped out in the last week.

The first SC-7 Congressional candidates debate was held in Columbia on Tuesday. A GOP Candidates Forum is being conducted by the South Carolina GOP at Ripley’s Aquarium this Sunday night at 7 p.m. It’s one event out of many being held around Myrtle Beach as part of the GOP Presidential Debate weekend. Go to sc.gop.com for details.

“But back to the stats,” as John Madden might say.

Granted, no political scientist would accept as valid my extrapolation of the 2012 vote based on the 2008 vote. That’s because SC-7 is made up of counties carved off of three other Congressional Districts The eight counties have never voted together as a unit before; and there’s no evidence that the average voter in, say Chesterfield, knows he’s now in the same Congressional District as Myrtle Beach. Or vice versa.

Yet, several reasons suggest that using the 2008 vote totals as a starting point for analysis makes sense.

First, there’s history. The new SC-7 occupies the area which once – prior to the re-districting of 1992- largely made up the old SC-6.

The old SC-6 was a reliable Democratic district. In its entire history, the GOP only carried it twice – and then promptly lost it back to the Democrats at the next cycle. Like the 2008 vote totals, that bit of history is suggestive. So’s the SC gubernatorial election in 2010.

Second, there’s SC-7’s ethnic, educational and economic make-up. As you can see, Horry – where, admittedly, 40% of the registration and 50% of the GOP vote is concentrated – is unrepresentative of the rest of SC-7.
The huge drop-off in the Democratic turn-out between 2008 and 2010 is attributable to the failure of African American voters to turn out in 2010. Yet, notice that in 2008, the total Democratic vote exceeded the total African American registration in the eight counties by 24,000. Even allowing for record black turn-out, that tells you that there’s a substantial white Democratic vote in SC-7.

Several counties in the District have stunning levels of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment. Besides being home to several of the counties on the infamous “Corridor of Shame,” the Seventh Congressional District has three of the ten South Carolina counties with the highest unemployment rates in the state.

Even the nickname – “Pee Dee District” – is a misnomer. While the Great Pee Dee River runs through the heart of the District, from Georgetown to Cheraw, only five of SC-7’s counties are in the Pee Dee area. SC-7 actually comprises the Midlands, the Pee Dee and the Low Country. In other words: SC-7 is not homogenous at all.

With President Barack Obama again at the top of the ticket, how do the Republicans win SC-7? Well, a combination of the right candidate and higher voter turn-out.

The ideal GOP candidate would have, so to speak, one foot on each side of the Intracoastal. It’s no secret that the Beach and Florence/Darlington resent each other. The ideal GOP candidate needs to command support in both places. He or she would not be a lawyer and, preferably, would not be a career politican – although relevant experience would be desirable.

Second, even in 2008, 32% of registered voters did not vote.

Therein lies the Republican challenge – and the opportunity.

It’s likely that the Dems maxed out their vote totals in 2008. Any higher turn-out in 2012 is likely to trend Republican.

Thus, a Republican who can carry SC-7, if the person can also serve three terms, has the potential to leave a great legacy: a sixth, safe Republican seat in the Palmetto State.

SC-7 is anything but that now.

So much for prognostication. Here’s the only things which are certain about this year’s election for the new Congressional seat called “SC-7.” It’s wide open and it’s going to be fun.

And, oh, yeah, we’re going to have ringside seats.

Last week Newt, aka Candidate Moonbeam, attacked Romney’s Bain Capital for firing the workers of failing companies.This week, in an appeal to the wine and green cheese set, he’s come up with a plan for expanding government to the moon. Mark Steyn notes the ceiling on our 15 trillion dollar debt has already expanded to the moon.
I got the idea for this one from the 1902 silent movie A Trip to the Moon by Georges Melies – not that I’m a film buff, but the man in the moon picture is pretty famous.

Gingrich Moon Colony Idea Not Well Thought Out, John Glenn Says

Read more:

FINALLY, AN ACTUAL COURT HEARING ON BARACK OBAMA’S ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT AND IT DIDN’T GO WELL FOR HIM!

Joseph Farah – WorldNetDaily.com
For four long years, compelling evidence has been available that challenges the constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

In fact, I would say the evidence that he does not meet the simple requirements of the law is overwhelming. But it was not until Thursday that the evidence – any of it – was heard in a single courtroom in America.

Not until very recently has any of it been examined by any official public proceeding or reviewed by any agency of government.

They say the wheels of justice grind slowly, but this is ridiculous.

The good news for the rule of law is what happened in a Georgia courtroom this week and what is happening in the office of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in Arizona. Justice may yet prevail.

In the courtroom of Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings, sworn testimony was delivered rapid-fire over two hours to the effect that Obama is not qualified to have his name on the 2012 presidential ballot because his father was not a U.S. citizen, which precludes him from being a “natural-born citizen,” a clear, unambiguous requirement of the Constitution.

Obama refused to honor a subpoena to attend the hearing, produce records answering the charges or even send legal representation to dispute the evidence. Instead, they sent a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp suggesting the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.”

In response, Kemp warned Obama and his counsel that if they chose not to participate in the proceedings, “you do so at your own peril.”

Read more…..

Over the last three years, the number of Americans on food stamps has skyrocketed by two-thirds and stands at a record-high 46 million citizens, or one out of every seven people in the United States.  Despite the historic rise in food stamp use, however, the Obama Administration believes not enough people are receiving food stamps who should be and is offering $75,000 grants to groups who devise “effective strategies” to “increase program participation” among those who have yet to sign up.

Critics, however, find that line of logic unconvincing and say that is like arguing that car theft provides “economic stimulus” because it generates work for window repair shops, car radio stores, and police officers.

The Department of Agriculture’s website lists the 2001 through 2009 SNAP Outreach Grant recipients but offers no data for 2010 or 2011.  Of the years listed, the highest recorded total grant allocation occurred in 2002 when $5,046,915 in grants were allocated.

Given the historic rise in the number of Americans now receiving food stamps over the last three years, one might assume that a program to enroll more citizens in the SNAP program is no longer needed.

Republicans, however, contend that taxpayer spending on the food stamp program has doubled under President Barack Obama and will reach $89 billion in 2012.  Furthermore, they believe the program now suffers from serious fraud, abuse, and a lack of proper oversight.

On January 9th, the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) sent a letter to Secretary Tom Vilsack requesting a full report on the Agriculture Department’s oversight efforts.  And last year, the Wall Street Journal declared that under President Obama a “food stamp crime wave” was rampant in America.

Still, thus far, the Obama Administration has decided to continue offering cash grants through the SNAP Outreach Grant program and plans to pursue its stated strategic plan of increasing food stamp enrollment through 2015.

Yep…. this is what entilement vote buying is all about!

Big Government