Sen DeMint Says Give It Up, Let It Go

DeMint: Gingrich, Santorum Should Consider Dropping Out

The South Carolina Republican and tea party favorite tip-toed around flat out endorsing Romney as a candidate, but did say that the possibility of the former Massachusetts governor as the nominee “excited” him, reports CNN.

“I can tell conservatives from my perspective is that, I’m not only comfortable with Romney, I’m excited about the possibility of him possibly being our nominee,” DeMint said. “Again, this is not a formal endorsement and I do not intend to do that right now but I just think we just need to look at where we are.”

DeMint joins former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who called on the Republican Party to unite behind Romney yesterday.

From the "If Its Not There We'll Invent It" File

A white Democrat in South Carolina is bemoaning the fact that none of the Republicans vying for the nomination bothered to acknowledge Dr King's birthday by attending an event and even resorted to terrorist tactics by scheduling their debate on the night of Dr King's birthday. Surely there must white hoods and burning crosses somewhere. (I know, I know, don't call me Shirley)

Meanwhile, most thinking, reasonable, logical citizens will see this for what it is: the left injecting race into a political process in an attempt to once again brand conservatives as racists. However, had any of the candidates actually appeared at a Dr King event, the white Democrat would have the decried the exploitation of Dr Kings memory for political gain by pandering racist Republicans.

Holder Math: How the Obama DOJ & the Media Tricked South Carolina And Protected Voter Fraud

Holder Math: How the Obama DOJ & the Media Tricked South Carolina And Protected Voter Fraud

This entire scam – there’s no better word for it – is based an interesting but totally irrelevant math quirk; when numbers are small, the difference between them is larger.
An Easy Math Trick
To understand the math behind this, let’s start simply and look at two very small numbers – 1 and 2.
If you had one dollar and I had two dollars, I have one dollar more than you. However, if I wanted to try to impress someone, just telling them that I was a dollar wealthier probably wouldn’t work. In an effort to sound more impressive, I could find a way to pump myself up by claiming that I had twice as much money as you. It’s true, of course – 2 is twice as much as 1 — but just knowing that I had twice as much money as someone else doesn’t really paint the whole picture.
If I want to get extra-fancy, I could also say “I have 100% more money than that person.” This is saying the same (misleading) thing as “I have twice as much” in a slightly different way. There’s a simple equation for determining this percentage difference for any two numbers.
(X / Y) – 1

So in this case, ( 2 / 1 ) – 1 = 1.

To get the ‘percent’ we just move the decimal point to the right two times and we get 100%.

Here’s the quirky part — as numbers get bigger, this difference decreases. Now imagine that you have $100 and I have $101. I still only have one dollar more than you but because the numbers are larger, I can’t pull my ‘twice as much money’ claim trick. In fact, I only have 1% more money than you.

(101 / 100 ) – 1 = .01.

Move the decimal and you’ll see that 101 is 1% more than 100. And of course, saying ‘I have 1% more money‘ doesn’t sound that impressive.

In both cases, I only had one more dollar but the lower the numbers, the more impressive I can make the difference sound.

Now, in both of these examples, the simpler way to express our financial differences is to say “I have a dollar more than you” or by spelling it all out, such as “I have two dollars and you have one dollar.” The whole bit about ‘twice as much money’ or ‘100% more’ is just a way to obfuscate the truth that I only have one more dollar and it works only when the numbers are low.

Thus ends the math lesson.

This intentional obfuscation is exactly what the Federal Government and the Holder Justice Department did to the people of South Carolina. They used this same mathematical quirk to hide the truth about the actual statistics and the media dutifully repeated the ‘Holder Math’. Unfortunately, the state of South Carolina was also bamboozeled by this simple math game and failed to expose what the Obama DOJ was up to.

Now that you’re armed with the knowledge that the difference between low numbers is exaggerated, let’s set the record straight.

Conservative leaders threaten critics of Sen. Jim DeMint

Conservative leaders threaten critics of Sen. Jim DeMint

Led by Richard Viguerie, who heads the Web site ConservativeHQ.com, a group of three dozen high-profile DeMint backers, say they will respond to the senator’s detractors “in word and deed.”

“Conservatives will not only challenge and beat more Republican senators in Republican primaries, but conservatives will stop funding and volunteering for the NRSC and the RNC,” Viguerie wrote in a letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. “Instead, conservatives will send their money to, and volunteer for, Senator DeMint’s Senate Conservative Fund and the candidates Senator DeMint supports.”

And Viguerie and his counterparts didn’t stop there:

“It would be our goal for the Senate Conservatives Fund to raise more money than the NRSC,” the letter continues. “Conservatives will also work to defeat in Republican primaries those Republicans who retain consultants who criticize or try to undermine Senator DeMint.”

What he said....

Conservative HQ

Not only have we stopped sending money to the cajone-less NRSC, we will continue to not send money until someone in charge grows a pair.

I will donate no more forever.
Why is Jim DeMint not in charge anyway?

More From The Hammer

The Daily Grind

BY Mary Katharine Ham

The White House has a slideshow up of Obama's furrowed brow in various positions along the path to health care.

"Reps. Steve King (R-Iowa) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) plan bills seeking to repeal health reform as was finally passed by the House yesterday, and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) plans a similar bill in the Senate."

Yikes. Pelosi's and Reid's approval ratings at 11 and 8 percent, respectively.

Let the rehabilitation of Obama, Fearless Leader commence.

Ezra Klein makes the stimulus pitch for health care. "Hey, things woulda been worse if we'd done nothing!" That's always been so convincing when talking about $1 trillion programs.

"Shame on those who have said the election of Obama proves a public taste for this labyrinthine nightmare simply because he campaigned on reform. Everybody wants reform of our vastly imperfect health care system. But if Obama had run on a pledge to bring us this specific bill, even a lethargic John McCain would have beaten him."

Fox News actually does a story on conflicting claims and lays out evidence about alleged racial slurs and spitting incidents at this weekend's Tea Party. This will somehow prove it's not a real new organization, because the job of a real news organization is to call a crowd of thousands racist based on reports of several incidents, none of which were caught on tape despite the presence of several video cameras.

Paul Ryan: It's not over.

Good news: The president will speak about health care today.

Paul Ryan is getting the rest of the Hill in shape. Proactive for the Party of No, no? "I keep my body fat between 6 and 8 percent."

Justice Thomas On CU v FEC Decision

So it would appear that the original law dates back to the early 1900's with a Democrat Senator from Dixie trying to keep the black man in his place and silence the mean old Republican corporations.

Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

Brave, Brave Congressman

Update: Congressman Wilson has apologized to the office of the President for "inappropriate behavior." Which, to be honest it was. Very classy.

Now, when can we expect President Obama to apologize for calling millions of Americans liars?

.....(crickets chirping).............

Nancy Pelosi looks like a 4th grade teacher who wants to know who shot that spitball!

South Carolina's Congressman Joe Wilson has some conjones!

"LIE!"

Amen brother!



h/t Gateway Pundit

The Durbin Doctrine’s Assault on Free Speech

Heritage Foundation Morning Bell

Following a premeditated White House campaign to demonize Rush Limbaugh, Newsweek aided the left’s “Hush Rush” campaign with a cover story pushing for Rush to be silenced. Now, Rush can handle criticism from the White House and Newsweek just fine. But there was also a little noticed vote in the Senate late last month that could enable the left to accomplish by government regulation what they could never accomplish with actual debate.
During the debate over the unconstitutional bill that would give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) each sponsored amendments with major implications for the First Amendment. DeMint’s amendment banned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine which, prior to 1987, was used by the government to stifle free speech on our nation’s airwaves. DeMint’s amendment passed 87-11. Score one for free speech.
However, Durbin’s amendment also passed, although by a much narrower 57-41 margin. And what does Durbin’s amendment do? It forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.” In other words, Durbin wants to bring the wonders of government enforced affirmative action to our nation’s airwaves. Sen. James Inhofe warns: “The revocation of broadcaster licenses [under the Durbin Doctrine] is a real possibility, which at the very least will threaten the willingness of broadcasters to appeal to conservative listeners.”The true intention of the Durbin Doctrine could not be more clear. Its language is modeled after a Center for American Progress report that aims to fix “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” And just two years ago, Durbin told The Hill: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”Durbin’s commitment to squelching free speech has not diminished at all since that 2007 statement. But Durbin has gotten smarter. He knows that reinstating the old Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter so he has come up with a new but equally pernicious law that will accomplish the exact same thing. Conservatives need to wise up in the fight for free speech. The Fairness Doctrine is dead. The real threat is the Durbin Doctrine.

QUICK HITS

President Hugo Chávez ordered the navy on Sunday to seize seaports in states with major petroleum-exporting installations, part of his effort to assert greater control over infrastructure that had come under the dominion of political opponents in regional elections last year.

Billions of American taxpayer dollars used to bailout insurance giant AIG are flowing to some of the largest foreign banks in the world.

President Barack Obama’s new small-business loan plan will be run through an agency that the GAO says has insufficient oversight in place for that program.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has downgraded the jobs created by the stimulus from 4 million down to 3 million.

Govs. Rick Perry (R-TX), Mark Sanford (R-SC), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Haley Barbour (R-MS), and Bob Riley (R-AL) have all rejected federal unemployment stimulus money that would have forced them to permanently expand their states unemployment programs.