- Avenging Charlie Kirk: The Conservative Redemption of Liberal Academia
- The American Spectator
- Congress Takes a Holiday from Oversight
- Leibniz and Calhoun: The Christian March of Progress and Postmillennial Truth
- A Seat at the Table, Not Just a Chair in the Room
- Venezuela Briefing 9-15-2025
- The Purpose of your Life -
- Concise Theology in Scripture
- Ukraine War Update September 22, 2025
- The Direction of American Religion
- Are We Going To Let Moon Bats Destroy Us?
- Have You Heard of The REAL Political Spectrum?
- Some Of Our Favorite Things
- U.S. Tomahawk Missiles and Ukraine
- Bradley Pulls Out of October 7 Spartanburg County Republican Party Forum, Reaffirms Commitment to Voter-First Campaign
Henry Lamb
President Obama's Marxist Majority
- Details
A reporter asked Majority Leader Harry Reid how he could justify exempting Nebraska from Medicaid payments forever, in exchange for Sen. Ben Nelson's vote. His reply:
There's a hundred senators here. And I don't know if there's a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them. And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them. That's what this legislation is all about. (Harry Reid, Dec. 21, 2009, Democratic press conference after cloture vote on health-care bill)
Democrats' Despicable Duplicity
- Details
- By Henry Lamb
Democrats insisted on changing the law in Massachusetts to require an election to fill the office of Sen. John Kerry, should he be elected president in 2004. They argued that the people, not the governor, should choose the senator's replacement. Of course, the governor at the time was a Republican, Mitt Romney. Now that the governor is a Democrat, the people should not choose Ted Kennedy's successor; the governor should make the appointment. The duplicity here is despicable.
Democrats went berserk over what they called President Bush's "power grab," but are silent in the face of President Obama's massive consolidation of power. The duplicity here is despicable.
Welcome to USSR, 1920
- Details
- By Henry Lamb
When the president announced last week that he would “cut out the middleman” and make direct government loans to students, he laid bare his contempt for free enterprise. He is fulfilling a campaign promise by overhauling the system through which he claims, “Private lenders are costing America’s taxpayers more than $15 million dollars every day and provide no additional value except to the banks themselves.”
Consider the philosophy behind his statement. If government cuts out the middleman and performs the service instead, it will be cheaper and more efficient, he reasons. Apply this same reasoning to, say, the entire banking industry. Government’s direct involvement in the banking industry can eliminate all those bonuses paid to greedy executives and profits earned by greedy share holders, and make sure that loans are extended to low-income borrowers whether they qualify or not. Direct government control of the banking business will surely make it fairer and more efficient.
Browse by the Top Tags ...
