Ann Barnhardt Tells It Like It Is!

Don't you wish our bishops had half of her courage?  She is a Catholic (note her correct use of the term "Church Militant") who is not going to be complicit in the politically-correct boot-licking in which Lindsey Graham is engaging.  Hear him, in this clip, say that "freedom of speech is a great idea, but.."   Click here if you can't see embedded video.



No, Senator!  Freedom of speech is more than a "great idea".  It's an integral part of the United States Constitution.  You do remember what that is, right?  Do you remember your oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution?   Try to understand that "uphold" and "subvert" are not synonyms!

Let me ask this question.  When is the last time you heard of Christians running amok when Bibles were burned?  When is the last time that Catholics went on looting and murdering sprees when the Eucharist was desecrated or the Blessed Mother's pictures were profaned?  I haven't heard, either.  So why is it that when the Qu'ran is burned, that we expect the jihadists to wet their pants and go on killing sprees?  Where are the so-called "moderate" Muslims on this?  Why aren't they condemning their more violent members?

Watch Ms. Barnhardt here.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

Attention All RINOs!

You know who you are!  You're the "country-club", ever-so-sophisticated inside-the-beltway elites who don't mind being the minority as long as you get a generous supply of crumbs from the table.  You are all too willing to throw conservative principles in the trash can in order to secure those plumb crumbs.  Well, despite your bumbling, you made significant gains in the Senate and won control of the House this past week.

Lindsey Graham Flunked "Civics 101" In School

Either he flunked or he didn't remember his lessons very well.  The Senate is given the responsibiity to base his/her vote on a nominee to the Supreme Court using the criteria of whether or not that nominee will adhere to the United States Constitution - period.  On the internet (and this blog) is copious evidence that she will subordinate the Constitution to a progressive agenda.  Of course there is also her lack of experience in sitting on a bench.

So what does he lamely cite as justification for his vote?  The Golden Rule - read one account and watch the video therein.  For the uber-progressive who prides him/herself in their lack of knowledge of the Bible, the Rule reads, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

He never quite gets around to stating how he specifically applies the Golden Rule to his vote.  Who does he think are the "others" in this vote scenario?  I can only surmise that he believes that Kagan, and perhaps Obama, are these "others".  But let's get back to the Senator's binding duties in this case.  I propose that the "others" in this case are the American people - the citizens of this country who have a right to a Supreme Court that will adhere to the United States Constitution, and not some "living interpretation" of the same.  It is our interests that Graham tossed under the bus as he kowtowed to the "politically correct" power brokers in Congress (some of whom we hope will be retired this coming November).