Take Action!

November 13, 2012

Dear Friends,

We are all discouraged by the outcome of last week's election, but we must keep fighting!  We have been through this before and although the battle is long, we know that they that wait upon the Lord will renew their strength.  They will rise on wings like eagles, they will run and not walk, they will not grow weary, and don't you dare grow weary, we need you now more than ever!

My recent column warns about the dangers awaiting us in the Lame Duck session of Congress that begins this week.  Obama's re-election and the liberals' maintaining control of the Senate removes some of the liberals' urgency to cram through their agenda, but our Capitol Hill sources tell us that there is a strong possibility the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) will come to the Senate floor.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is lobbying hard to become Secretary of State.  He is eager to get a UN Treaty through the Senate to boost his stature, and there are many terrible Treaties to choose from, like the UN Small Arms Treaty and the Law of the Sea Treaty, but he believes that the "Disabilities Treaty" will be the easiest to pass.

Before the Senate left for recess, our conservative ally, Utah Senator Mike Lee, obtained signatures from more than 34 of his Senate colleagues asking that no treaties be brought to the Senate floor during the Lame Duck session.  The total has now risen to 36 Senators who have signed this letter.  

Take Action! 

If your Senator has signed the letter, please take a moment to thank them, and urge them to stand strong against any Treaty that might come to the Senate floor during the Lame Duck session.  If your Senators have not signed this letter, please urge them to do so, and to oppose all Treaties during the Lame Duck session.

Every time an iGive member makes an online purchase at over 1,000 brand-name stores, a percentage of that purchase is donated to that person's charity of choice.

• Imagine booking a hotel room on Orbitz-and having 1.6% of that purchase price donated to ACT! for America.
• Or buying an Xbox at Best Buy-and having 1.2% of the purchase price donated to ACT! for America.

The same goes for buying merchandise at Amazon, Bath and Body Works, Advance Auto Parts, Game Stop, Kmart, Home Depot, Holiday Inn, Old Navy, NASCAR Superstore, Overstock.com, Mattel, J.C. Penney, Office Max, QVC, Radio Shack, Shoe Carnival, Pottery Barn-and on and on the list goes.

And the more I dug, the more I liked what I saw. For instance, both of my tech support questions were responded to within 60 minutes. How often does THAT happen?

If just 1% of ACT! for America members each purchased just $400 in merchandise in 2013, from all the available outlets, and the average percentage donated to ACT! was 1.5%, the total amount donated back to ACT! for America would be...

...$15,000. That's a lot of money, wouldn't you agree?

And if you were one of those ACT! for America members, it wouldn't cost you one thin dime to help ACT! for America receive $15,000.

If this idea really caught on, and eventually 5% of our members made purchases with iGive, that $15,000 could explode to $50,000, $75,000 or more!

One of the things I most wanted to know was their Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Check it out for yourself. I confirmed the terms with a company representative. And I like what I learned. As security-conscious as I am, I have no hesitation using the service-and I'm already doing so.

There are already chapter leaders who have signed up for the program, and the feedback I have been getting from them has been all positive. They love the idea and many of them are already using it.

Click here to register, email rw@jewishcenter.info or call 215.497.9925 .

High School Hockey Teams Told to Dump National Anthem

Is $7.00 really too much to spend to promote patriotism to hundreds of players and fans?

According to Fox News reporter Todd Starnes, nearly 200 high school hockey teams in Pennsylvania have been advised to eliminate the National Anthem because it takes too much time to perform and costs too much money.

"We are recommending the National Anthem not be played or sung or whatever it is," Ed Sam, commissioner of the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Hockey League (PIHL) told Fox News. "It has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism at all. That's the furthest thing from the truth."

Schools were notified of the directive in an email from the PIHL. He said teams are only allotted a certain amount of time to play matches.

Sam also said it had to do with economics. He said ice time is quite expensive and the national anthem eats into the clock.

Thousands of dollars are spent on equipment, uniforms, officials and facilities for a single ice hockey game. The National Anthem takes between 1:14 and 1:32 to perform. That is an average of $7.00 to conduct the total song. Mr. Sam believes this is just too much to spend on promoting patriotism and love of country to American students and families.

Do you agree with Commissioner Ed Sam?

TAKE ACTION

Send an email to PIHL Commissioner Ed Sam. Let him know the National Anthem is an integral part of high school sporting events and should continue to be played at PIHL games.

Send an email to PIHL Commissioner Ed Sam now!

Sincerely, Tim Wildmon, President American Family Association	Help us Financially Donate Online to AFA One-Time Monthly   Text the letters "AFA" to 20222 to give $10 Standard messaging rates may apply.   Order Now
P.S. Follow @AFAActionAlert on Twitter.

Was Petraeus Sacrificed for Obama?

By Matthew Vadum

The knives were out for the general for quite some time.
Read More » | Comments
 

A Conservative Sellout Is Not the Solution

By Daniel Greenfield

The rush to centrism is a rush to political suicide for the Right.
Read More » | Comments
 

Pushing Back Against Stealth Jihad Charter Schools

By Arnold Ahlert

Americans around the country are catching on to the Gülen movement.
Read More » | Comments
 

The Last Man: An Interview with Vince Flynn

By Mark Tapson

The bestselling writer talks about Benghazi, Afghanistan, and confronting evil.
Read More » | Comments
 

Obama's Second Term Horror Show - on The Glazov Gang

By Jamie Glazov

The approaching wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Read More » | Comments
 

America in Decline

By Joseph Puder

Is American exceptionalism evaporating?
Read More » | Comments
 

Disaster Ignorance

By Walter Williams

Why destruction never has been and never will be an "economic boon."
Read More » | Comments
 

What Do Young People Believe?

By Howard Hyde

Is there hope for the next generation?
Read More » | Comments
 

More to read:

Israel Under Siege
Explaining the Democrats' Success
The Jewish and Post-Jewish Vote
Business Rejects Obamacare
Israel Haters Invade Wheaton College

• David Petraeus and the New Style of American Politics (Robert Spencer)
• High Noon for America (David Solway)
• From PJTV -- Afterburner: Cannibals
• Feinstein Increases Criticism of Administration for Withholding Scandal Information (Bridget Johnson)
• Megalomania Chic: World War II According to Oliver Stone (Roger L. Simon)
• Makers and Takers and ... Someone We Forgot! (Andrew Klavan)
• November 7, 2012: Obama's Unluckiest Day? (Richard Fernandez)

Hawaii officials fingered for 'hiding' Obama's birth records

We haven't heard much about Barack Obama's eligibility lately, but now the head of Sheriff Joe's Cold Case Posse is unleashing an assault on officials in Hawaii who are allegedly "hiding" Obama's original birth records.

Read the latest now on WND.com.
 

Don't accept cover-up of Benghazi-gate

Are you fed up with Barack Obama's full cover-up since the day of the attack in Benghazi, Libya?

It's time for you to get involved ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Secession madness! Look how many states join fray

If any of the hundreds of thousands of people petitioning the White House in the blossoming battle over secession get their way, SOMEBODY is going to leave the union, either voluntarily ... or involuntarily.

What in the world is going on here?

Read the latest now on WND.com.    

Here's how touchscreens killed Romney votes

A Chicago voting-machine tech is sounding the alarm, claiming he witnessed multiple error messages on the voting touchscreens this election - but only in cases where people voted for Mitt Romney.

Here's his explanation ...

Read the latest now on WND.com.  

Black-mob Knockout Game meets the Moms

Usually when black mobs attack white victims, the story ends with the victim left a bloody pulp. But now enter a new factor that could change things ...

Read the latest now on WND.com

Plus!

Computers are now being turned into secret surveillance machines ...

Click here for details

Chart Time 

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 04:03 PM PST

(Steven Hayward)

I'm making my students this semester produce time-series charts and graphs as part of their assignments for a variety of reasons in addition to the usual sadism of all classroom instructors.  Chiefly because a good data graph can tell a story more dramatically than straight prose, which you may not take in or believe anyway.  So here's a few stunners out right now.

From Slate.com, this wonderful chart showing how Google is killing newspapers and magazines:

From investor John Mauldin, I learn that not only has China passed the U.S. in coal consumption, they've also blown way past us in meat consumption:

Wait until the meat-hating environmentalists learn about this (or Mayor Bloomberg-I'll bet the ChiComms have LOTS of salt on their meat).

Also from John Mauldin, this interesting chart in the relation of farmland prices and gold prices, which is susceptible of many interpretations:

By the way, you can sign up for Mauldin's free email newsletter at MauldinEconomics.com.  Interesting guy.

Honor 

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 02:11 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

In his book Power and Constraint, Jack Goldsmith notes that the military responded to the War in Vietnam, "which left the U.S. military at the lowest point in its history . . . with a renewed emphasis in instruction and training in military honor, ethics, and morality at West Point and other officer-training grounds." Goldsmith connects this emphasis on honor, ethics, and morality to the rise of "lawfare" - the relatively recent phenomenon of law and lawyers significantly affecting the conduct of war. And Goldsmith describes the leading role that Gen. David Petraeus played in the rise of lawfare.

Are those who enter the military from West Point and other officer-training grounds more honorable these days? I don't know. The military is more legalistic and more politically correct, but that's not the same thing.

I suspect that today's military officers behave with approximately the same amount of honor as their predecessors from the Vietnam era and before. This wouldn't be surprising. The politics of an institution sometimes changes in a generation, but human nature doesn't.

Let's not make an immigration deal 

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 01:15 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

Our friend Ed Morrissey adds his voice to those urging Republicans to "cut a deal on immigration." He makes both a policy argument and a political one.

Ed's policy argument is that the nation shouldn't go four more years without reforming its broken immigration system:

[T]he issue of border security has been left in limbo for more than 11 years after 9/11, and more than seven years after the 9/11 Commission rightly demanded better security on both borders, and the broken visa program that offers no follow-up on expired entries. If we continue to punt rather than compromise, we will be left waiting for at least four more years to get any kind of solution.

By focusing first on policy, Ed adds to the debate, which, in conservative circles, has focused almost solely on the politics of immigration reform. However, I doubt that improving border security in relation to terrorists requires Republicans to buy Chuck Schumer's immigration reform agenda, including a path to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens (and future Democratic voters).

The Democrats cannot risk a terrorist attack that is traced back to a lapse in border security on their watch. Such an attack might well derail President Obama's second term and adversely affect his legacy. Obama, therefore, is unlikely to tolerate a heightened risk of an attack caused by poor border security.

Accordingly, if the current system is so flawed as to create an undue national security risk, Republicans hold a winning hand. The key for them is to flag this issue big-time by holding hearings in the House and, if necessary, by passing a House bill fixing just this aspect of the immigration system.

Right now, Democrats are convinced that the Republicans will cave on immigration reform, and with good reason. Indeed, they have long understood that strong elements within the Republican Party want to cave; this was clear during the Bush administration's attempt at immigration reform. If Republicans can demonstrate that they won't cave, Democrats will be unlikely to accept a heightened risk of a terrorist attack just to prove a point.

As to the political dimension, Ed argues:

[C]ontinued obstruction means that immigration reform will continue to hang around the GOP's neck like an albatross. Hard-liners argue that a Republican compromise won't convince Latinos to shift to the Republican Party, and they're correct in the short run. However, it's difficult to make the kind of free-market and family values pitches that might make some serious inroads with Latino voters when Republican candidates and activists talk about deportations - self-initiated or otherwise - of family, friends, and others within their communities. That conversation has lasted far too long, and it has caused significant damage.

But Republicans don't need to talk about deportation. There are middle ground positions between deporting illegal immigrants and providing them with a path to citizenship. To be sure, the Democrats won't accept anything short of the citizenship path. Thus, meaningful compromise is impossible.

Under these circumstances, Democrats will continue to have a significant upper hand in the quest for the Hispanic vote. But they will have one anyway, even if Republicans capitulate on citizenship.

However, by proposing a middle ground position, Republicans won't be talking about deportations. If, as Ed says, it is this talk that's standing in the way of a greater Hispanic embrace of Republican "free-market and family value pitches," the problem can be solved without capitulating to the Democrats, as Republican leaders now seem quite inclined to do.

JOHN adds: I think the immigration system should be reformed in a number of ways, so that it will better serve the interests of the United States. We should be encouraging and promoting the immigration of skilled workers from other countries, and we should not be accepting, let alone encouraging, immigration of unskilled workers, with only rare exceptions. The forgotten man in this story is the American citizen who does unskilled and semi-skilled work, and whose wages have been beaten down for many years by competition from unskilled immigrants, especially illegals. Republicans should be on the side of those unskilled and semi-skilled Americans, about whose welfare the Democrats hypocritically pretend to be concerned, not on the side of the Chamber of Commerce types who want cheap labor, and least of all on the side of non-American citizens who came here illegally.

Consistent with that approach, we should be enforcing our existing laws to protect American citizens against inherently unfair competition from illegals. It would be perverse, I think, to facilitate such competition by granting citizenship or even amnesty to existing illegals.

Where, exactly, does the clamor for "comprehensive immigration reform" come from? I don't see any existing problems that would be solved, as a matter of policy, by "comprehensive immigration reform," as opposed to more effective law enforcement, e.g. at the borders. The real motivation on both sides seems to be political: Democrats want to add millions of loyal Democratic voters, and Republicans are afraid that opposing "comprehensive reform" will cause them to lose votes with Mexican-Americans and others who are already citizens. Both sides cannot be right in their political calculations, and when it comes to political calculation, it is generally a good bet that the Democrats are the ones who have it figured out. In my opinion, the idea that the illegals who would become voters by virtue of "comprehensive reform" are Republicans in training is delusional.

So, yes, Republicans should propose immigration reforms: 1) make it easy for skilled workers to come here from every corner of the world; 2) make it difficult or impossible for unskilled workers to come here legally; and 3) tighten up border security and law enforcement. These policies will help lower-income Americans more than just about anything the federal government can do. There will still be a considerable number of illegals here for the foreseeable future, but so what? There is no need to talk about deportation, or anything else.

Lindsey Graham poised to sell out to Chuck Schumer on immigration reform 

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 08:29 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

When the smarmiest Senate Democrat and the smarmiest Senate Republican sit down for talks on an issue of fundamental importance to the nation, and to the future of conservatism, conservatives should be very scared. When the smarmy Democrat is Chuck Schumer, a shrewd partisan, and the smarmy Republican is Lindsay Graham, a squish who gets his kicks from cooperating with Democrats, conservatives should panic.

Schumer's objectives in the negotiations are clear: to reach a deal that will enable the Democrats (1) to cement their position as the Party that dragged reluctant Republicans into a breakthrough immigration deal, thereby keeping the Dems' promise to Hispanics and (2) to cement his Party's future success by bringing millions of reliable Democratic voters into American politics.

Graham's objective is also clear. He wants to ensure his status as a star legislator who is able to broker bipartisan deals that address the nation's most important problems.

It's obvious which Party will emerge as the winner in these negotiations.

But we don't have to infer the nature of the impending deal from the character of the dealmakers. We know what a Schumer-Graham deal will look like because we've seen their plan before. As the National Journal reports, it would purport to strengthen border security and enforcement of immigration laws by toughening punishment for businesses that hire illegal workers; require fraud-proof Social Security cards to prevent hiring of workers who lack them; create a temporary worker program; and set a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country.

The only meaningful part of the upcoming Schumer-Graham deal is the path to citizenship. Employer sanctions don't work, not because the penalties are insufficient but because neither political party (the pro-illegal immigrant one or the pro-business one) has an interest in punishing businesses that hire illegals. By contrast, both parties have a strong interest in protecting the border from threats to our national security. Thus, accomplishing this objective doesn't require a grand immigration bargain.

As for the path to citizenship, it will, over time, ensure that the Republican Party ceases to exist as a conservative force. If Republicans think it's difficult to win elections now without veering to the center, wait until millions of new low income voters enter the electorate.

In fact, the injection of these voters might well sink the Republican Party altogether, since the Party's turn away from conservatism will likely give rise to a third party. Alternatively, Republicans will limp along as a "me-too" party that loses more often than it wins.

I don't doubt that such a future is okay with Lindsey Graham, who isn't much of a conservative and who regards himself as above Party. Graham's name will be on landmark legislature and he will have been at the center of an historic, bipartisan deal, and that's what matters most to him.

I would once again call Lindsey Graham the Arlen Specter of the South, but to do so now would dishonor a dead man.

Freedom Stuff 

Posted: 13 Nov 2012 07:49 AM PST

(John Hinderaker)

Michael Ramirez sums up this year's election in a manner that I think is about right:

No Need to Panic  

Conservatives are, rightly, disappointed.

A president who's recklessly spent trillions, expanded government and put many of our principles and institutions at risk will enjoy a second term. But it's no time for despair. Now is the time to stand up and declare we will continue to work to rein in big government and defend freedom.

Voters gave conservatives a mandate of sorts two years ago, electing a Tea Party-supported House of Representatives to check President Obama's excesses. And it worked.

After ramming through measures including Obamacare and Dodd-Frank in his first two years, the president failed to deliver any big liberal programs after that.

In 2012, voters returned the president to the White House, yet also made him the first president since World War II re-elected without improving his margin of victory. "The bad news is that Paul Ryan remains in the House," quips Hugh Hewitt. But, "The good news is that he remains in the House, and that the rising generation of governors remains incredibly talented and innovative and they now add Mike Pence to their number."

President Obama won a clear victory in the Electoral College (that's one of the reasons it exists), but: "Much like Truman, Obama enters a second term with no mandate to speak of, and with roughly half of the country intractably opposed to his policies," writes Jay Cost at the Weekly Standard. Obama's grand themes were Big Bird and birth control.

His campaign mostly consisted of attack ads and personal insults. He won, many say, by managing to stitch together a coalition of those seeking federal largesse.

"The Democratic Party is mostly an incoherent amalgam of interest groups, most of which are vying for benefits for themselves and their members at the expense of other Americans," notes Yuval Levin. "This kind of party is why America's founders worried about partisanship and were, at least at first, eager to avoid a party system. It is a bunch of factions more than a party."

For their part, conservatives must find ways to limit big government. For as William McGurn warned, the recent hurricane exposed its failures. "The irony is that modern American liberalism has become a movement grounded less in practical politics than a sort of religious fervor-and often requiring the same strong faith in the face of disappointment and failure. The difference, of course, is that while religions often promise to deliver in the next world, government is supposed to do it in this one."

Conservatives can make headway in this divisive atmosphere by offering the right policy proposals. The end of the campaign brings the beginning of the governing season. We have a lot of work to do. From entitlement reform to national defense and energy policy, The Heritage Foundation has developed and will continue to advocate for the solutions the country needs.

Obamacare is dragging down our already struggling economy. Our nation is far beyond just broke; our national debt is $16 trillion (a 60 percent increase under President Obama) and climbing every day. A lame duck Congress will return to Washington to try to head off Taxmageddon. The present House of Representatives must hold the line over the next two months and refuse to sign on to even more spending or higher taxes. We must stop our national binge of spending, taxing and borrowing. And we will.

Whatever the policy battles, remember this above all, happy warriors: It's the First Principles that undergird America that make this country great. Conservatives must work harder than ever before to defend them and to see them translated into the right public policies.  

Forward this message to a friend!   Quote of the Week     I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.    ~ Nathan Hale  For more quotes, visit westillholdthesetruths.org

What's Next for Marriage after Tuesday's Vote?

This column by ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski was published on November 10, 2012 on Breitbart.com.

Supporters of traditional marriage lost big on Election Day, with four states redefining marriage to include same-sex couples. Marriage defenders acknowledge they have serious work to do on several fronts going forward, even as the nation must now begin to consider the question of polygamy.

Washington State and Maine redefined marriage in their states to include two-man and two-woman couples. In Maryland the legislature recently did so with a new statute that was signed into law by Governor Martin O'Malley, a Democrat weighing a presidential run in 2016, and a statewide ballot measure to overturn that law narrowly failed. And in Minnesota, a proposed state constitutional amendment to reaffirm marriage as one man and one woman narrowly failed to pass. 

Read the Entire Column

Supreme Court to Hear Constitutional Challenge to Voting Rights Act

This column by ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski was published on November 9, 2012 on Breitbart.com.

Early next year, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on a constitutional challenge to one of the most powerful provisions in federal law, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in the case Shelby County v. Holder.

The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. It gives force to the Fifteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids voting rights from being abridged on account of race or color. Whenever any unit of government violates voting rights, that government can be sued under VRA Section 2.

Read the Entire Column

Why the Single-Issue Campaign Failed

This column by ACRU Senior Fellow Robert Knight was published November 9, 2012 on The Washington Times website.

"It's the economy, stupid."

Maybe not. Mired in the worst recovery since the Great Depression, with unemployment near 8 percent, companies laying off workers over Obamacare, a $16 trillion debt and gasoline at double the 2008 price, America still re-elected Barack Obama.

Mitt Romney ran a single-issue campaign: the economy, stupid.

The missed opportunities were endless. After CNN's Candy Crowley silenced him in the second debate over the attack in Benghazi, Libya, Mr. Romney declined to expose Mr. Obama's shocking lies and transparent cover-up. He also declined to educate Americans about the administration's brazen lawlessness, especially that of the Justice Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Labor Relations Board.

Read the Entire Column

The Fiscal Cliff and America's Coming Recession

This column by ACRU General Counsel and Senior Fellow for the Carleson Center for Public Policy (CCPP) Peter Ferrara was published November 9, 2012 on Forbes.com.

Since the end of World War II two thirds of a century ago, federal spending has been stable at around 20% of GDP. America prospered to become the mightiest economic power in the history of the world with the federal government limited to that level of spending.

But President Obama is certain he has a better idea. He wants higher taxes and higher federal spending. Only with that can he "spread the wealth around." He believes that would make the economy grow faster "from the middle class out," as the middle class and the poor spend the money "the rich" were wasting in savings and investment.

Read the Entire Column 

Where Republicans and Conservatives Went Wrong

This column by ACRU General Counsel and Senior Fellow for the Carleson Center for Public Policy (CCPP) Peter Ferrara was published November 8, 2012 on The American Spectator website. 

The American people lost literally trillions in the financial crisis, in home values, in stock values, and in lost jobs and wages. Obama had a narrative as to what caused the financial crisis. It was Bush's, and maybe even Reagan's, tax cuts, and Republican deregulation. And the argument that won the election for Obama in my opinion was that Romney just wanted to go back to the same policies that caused the financial crisis (the mess we are in) in the first place.

Read the Entire Column 

Dismissed Obamacare Lawsuit May Return to Lower Court  

This column by ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Ken Klukowski was published on November 2, 2012 on Breitbart.com.

Just when most people thought all legal challenges to the Individual Mandate were dead and buried, one springs back to life, and with a twist.

Unless they've been living under a rock, most Americans have heard that the Supreme Court decided a constitutional challenge to Obamacare's infamous Individual Mandate in NFIB v. Sebelius. Plenty of Americans are unaware, however, that out of over 30 cases challenging the Mandate, NFIB was only one of five challenges that were considered serious and credible.

Read the Entire Column 

November 13, 2012

On Today's Program   

Agenda 21 explained: You've been hearing a lot about Agenda 21 lately - find everything you need to know about it and why you're seeing it on TheBlaze HERE.

• TODAY ONLY, you can pre-order Agenda 21 for 50% off from booksamillion.com. 

More than 30 states have a serious secession movement:  The White House website contains a section dedicated to letting the people's voice be heard. Got an idea for a petition? Got enough signatures? The White House promises it will be "reviewed" and that they will "issue a response" to it. Should be interesting to see how the White House responds to the 30+ states who have garnered enough signatures to secede from the United States. Glenn has more on the movement HERE.

Tonight's Primetime Lineup on TheBlaze TV

• 5pm ET - The Glenn Beck Program: Glenn updates you on the latest in the General Petraeus scandal and how it ties into the terror attacks in Benghazi. 
• 6pm ET - Real News: The panel talks about the rush by some states to file for secession in the post-election. 
• 7pm ET - Wilkow!: Andrew tells you why it's time for John Boehner's reign as House Speaker to end. Plus, Sen. Rand Paul tackles the fiscal cliff.
• Watch live or on demand:  Start your free trial now!

TheBlaze Radio Network! TheBlaze Radio Network is the exclusive home to Jay Severin, one of America's top 25 radio hosts! His show is now live every weekday afternoon from 2-5pm ET. Get the network's full lineup and listen for FREE every afternoon.

Congrats Barack! Another new food stamp record

The federal government held back the release of the latest food stamp numbers until after the election and the stats reveal why: there are now 47.1 million Americans receiving food stamps. That's a 420,947 increase in one month. Also, it's likely everyone in Ohio who voted for the food stamp President is very confused today because they just received a big fat cut to their food stamp benefits. More on radio today.

MSNBC mocks 'wild' theories on Petraeus

MSNBC, the network who ranted and raved about Scooter Libby all day long; the network that claimed Bush lied and people died; the network that mentioned Halliburton many, many times for some reason or another: THEY have decided that there's no foul play at ALL going on with the Petraeus scandal. It's all on the up and up. 

BACON!!! Get 41% off a mind altering, mouthwatering maple bacon gift package! For just $39.99 you'll receive five delicious products at 41% off the original price of $67.50 from small business Bacon Freak!

Is there anyone without a woman on the side? Petraeus update

The scandal keeps getting more and more bizarre as another highly decorated general and an FBI agent have been dragged into the mix. Earlier in the year it was the Secret Service and now this. Is there anyone left with morals? Sure doesn't seem like it. Glenn reacts to the latest Petraeus update on radio today.