We will leave it up to the reader to determine whether Jim DeMint has made serious errors in in judgment. Jim has supported a Conservative Far Right Christian position especially when it comes to Church and State issues. It is apparent from the data collected, that the first amendment may be in danger from his past and future actions as well as other constitutional sections. He has supported deregulation of banks and the SEC causing the current economic Depression.

Jim DeMint's office stated that his position is that Certain Religions aren't "Real" religions. What is a real religion, Mr. DeMint? What you have been practicing? He says on the one hand that only certain Christian denominations are valid. Read the following and remember: "By their Works may they be known." This is a summary of information collected from several sources about Jim DeMint.

(Remember it is best to investigate on your own when looking at allegations about anyone. Don't believe us, think for yourself and investigate for yourself! And remember, the First Amendment Coalition and Religious Freedom Coalition of the South East do not represent any political party nor do we recommend any political candidate, nor are we involving ourselves in the political process.)

"Jim DeMint is one of the great pulsars of our times: a collapsed gravity well of unblinking stare. People innocently walking down the street, are drawn into his orbit, helplessly drawn in by how utterly dense he is. They cannot escape the completely impenetrable mass of evil darkness surrounding his mind and become totally crushed & moronized by him." By a Friend of Religious Freedom

Jim DeMint is Damned. That much is clear. But where and how ? Dante neglected to specify which circle of hell a soul is consigned to after betraying the citizens of South Carolina for the sake of Greed and politics.

Traitors are of course consigned to the innermost circles, ranging from traitors to their kin, lords, country and benefactors. No space appears to have been left for traitors his magnitude.

The thought struck us that hell is long overdue for a make-over. The business of sin has changed substantially since Dante's day. Not only are many of the sins archaic (it seems doubtful at this point that Protestants are damned as schismatics) but as in the DiMints case, Dante has failed to keep up with the times. What is the punishment for TV evangelists Political Liars, Political Thieves, or for that matter for those take advantage of Tea Party Politics.

Whatever DiMint's position, anyone who betrays South Carolina Citizens in that calculating manner deserves the fate that Dante would assign him: being trapped in ice up to the neck in the deepest pit of the Inferno, where treachery against basic human bonds is punished and where Satan himself, once the brightest of the rebel angels, beats his bat's wings.

Good Luck Jim, Satan is coming for you anytime now - he remembers when you sold your soul and he's coming to collect!!!

Excerpt from a post on salon.com by Andrew Leonard Jun 29, 2011

Tim Geithner's Jim DeMint smackdown

The Treasury Secretary rips apart Tea Party debt ceiling silliness

AP Jim DeMint and Tim Geithner

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner doesn't have many fans among progressive Democrats, but even the most hard-hearted critic of his Wall Street-friendly regime might be able to take some satisfaction in the dressing down he delivered on Wednesday to Senator Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

DeMint is one of the most prominent supporters (along with presidential candidate Michele Bachmann) of the notion that the U.S. government won't automatically default on its obligations if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. DeMint believes that Geithner can "prioritize" interest payments on debt over other government spending commitments, and thus escape a failing grade from the bond markets.

This has always been a ridiculous notion, but Geithner's letter provides the most in-depth and strongly-worded rebuttal we've heard from the Obama administration so far.

Some key excerpts:

Dear Senator DeMint...

I have expressed my concerns about this idea before, but I will restate them to be clear: this "prioritization" proposal advocates a radical and deeply irresponsible departure from the commitments by Presidents of both parties, throughout American history, to honor all of the commitments our Nation has made...

At its core, your letter is based on an untested and unacceptably risky assumption: that if the United State were to continue to pay interest on its debt -- yet failed to pay legally required obligations to its citizens, servicemen and women, and businesses -- there would be no adverse market reaction and no damage to the full faith and credit of the United States. Again, this idea is starkly at odds with the judgment of every previous Administration, regardless of party, that has faced debt limit impasses.

"Prioritization" also fails to account for how payments on principal would be made if investors were to lose confidence in U.S. creditworthiness. In August of this year, for example, more than $500 billion in U.S. Treasury debt will mature. Under normal circumstances, investors who hold Treasuries purchase new Treasury securities when the debt matures, permitting the United States to pay the principal on this maturing debt. Yet in the scenario you advocate, in which the United State would be defaulting on a broad range of its other obligations, there is no guarantee that investors would continue to re-invest in new Treasury securities. In fact, some market participants have already indicated that they would be disinclined to do so. As one of the major ratings agencies concluded in a recent report, failure to pay non-debt obligations "would signal sever financial distress and potentially imminent debt default," prompting the U.S. sovereign rating to be placed on "Rating Watch Negative."

If investors chose not to purchase a sufficient volume of new Treasury securities, the United States would be required to pay the principal on maturing debt, and not merely the interest, out of available cash. Yet the Treasury would be unable to make these principal payments without the continued confidence of market participants willing to buy new Treasury securities. Your proposal assumes markets would be unconcerned by our failure to pay other obligations. But if this assumption proved incorrect, then the United States would be forced to default on its debt.

Geithner is undoubtedly correct on this. As he notes elsewhere in the letter, the U.S. government is currently is borrowing 40 cent on every dollar. Without an agreement to raise the debt limit, the government would thus have to cut its current spending by 40 percent. Never mind the fact that spending cuts on that scale would immediately plunge the economy into recession. The fantasy that "market participants" would stand by and watch such the U.S. government commit fiscal suicide without running for the hills screaming in holy terror represents new heights in GOP ludicrousness.

In the past, it's always been easy to dismiss Jim DeMint as a resident of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party -- and therefore unrepresentative of mainstream reality. But right now, in a political climate in which Michele Bachmann is considered to have a legitimate shot at winning the Republican nomination for president, it's much harder to find an oasis of complacency from which to watch this madness.

Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21. More: Andrew Leonard

Jim DeMint Sends Mitt Romney Mixed Messages In Record Time

Excerpts from huffingtonpost.com on 03/17/11

Mitt Romney knows going into the 2012 GOP primary that the internecine attacks on the CommonwealthCare program he instituted in Massachusetts are going to intensify, from offhand barbs to full-out debate wedge, as his opponents try to paint him as the guy whose idea became the Affordable Care Act. But on Thursday morning, Romney had reason to feel a little relief, as a key figure in at the front of the Tea Party insurgency, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), stepped up to defend him.

The Hill's Michael O'Brien had the news:

"One of the reasons I endorsed Romney [in 2008] is his attempts to make private health insurance available at affordable prices," said Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.), a GOP kingmaker.
DeMint blames Democrats in the Massachusetts State Legislature for adding many of the features to Romney's plan that many on the right decry.

"It just depends on how he plays it. For me, I think he started with some good ideas that were essentially hijacked by the Democrat Legislature," DeMint said.

So, at this point, Romney's probably thinking, "Not bad, okay, Jim DeMint's got my back on this." Unfortunately, time passed, and during that time, DeMint apparently changed his mind entirely. Per Holly Bailey at Yahoo's "The Ticket":

An unnamed source "close" to DeMint tells The Hill's Michael O'Brien, who authored the original story, that the tea party leader "would never consider" endorsing Romney in 2012 unless he repudiates the Massachusetts health care law.
That seems like a wild departure from what DeMint first said.

Uhm, yeah! What gives, Jim DeMint?

"It's obvious Jim was just trying to be nice to the guy he backed over McCain, as many conservatives did in 2008," the source now tells The Hill. "But he would never consider backing Romney again unless he admits that his Massachusetts healthcare plan was a colossal mistake."

That's kind of a strange way of "trying to be nice," right? DeMint was a lot nicer, and much clearer, during Romney's first run for the White House, as Greg Sargent points out:

Jim DeMint, who cited Romneycare in a 2007 interview as -- you guessed it -- one of the key reasons he'd decided to endorse Romney:
"DeMint, who spent most of his life in private business, admires Romney's business background and believes Romney has shown the talent to apply that experience to government. 'He has demonstrated, when he stepped into government in a very difficult state, that he could work in a difficult partisan environment, take some good conservative ideas, like private health insurance, and apply them to the need to have everyone insured,' DeMint says. 'Those kind of ideas show an ability to bring people together that we haven't seen in national politics for a while. We don't need the nation to be more polarized.'"

Note that DeMint hailed Romneycare's reliance on "good conservative ideas."

So this has been a pretty confusing day in the life of Mitt Romney and Jim DeMint. I'm pretty sure that DeMint has now flip-flopped on RomneyCare faster and better than Romney has himself, which is amazing.

For what it's worth, the most complimentary take on RomneyCare can be drawn from the facts themselves. As Sargent points out, "the claim by the source close to DeMint that Romneycare was a 'colossal mistake' comes only two days after Gallup released new data showing that thanks in part to this 'colossal mistake,' Massachusetts boasts the lowest percentage of uninsured of any state in the country."

It's too bad Romney's running away from this accomplishment: "Our experiment wasn't perfect -- some things worked, some didn't, and some things I'd change." Lowest percentage of uninsured of any state in the country? Pray tell, Mitt, what would you change?

Who's running the TSA? No one, thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint

Excerpt of an article posted on the McClatchy Report - Lesley Clark contributed to this article

WASHINGTON — An attempt to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day would be all-consuming for the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration — if there were one.

The post remains vacant because Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has held up President Barack Obama's nominee in opposition to the prospect of TSA workers joining a labor union.

As al Qaida claimed responsibility Monday for the thwarted attack and President Barack Obama made a public statement about it, Democrats urged DeMint to drop his objection and allow quick confirmation of nominee Erroll Southers, a counterterrorism expert, when the Senate reconvenes in three weeks.

Obama, speaking from Hawaii, where he and his family are vacationing, told Americans, "We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable."

Obama warned anyone plotting against the U.S. from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia or elsewhere that he doesn't intend to rest at simply strengthening defense.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee announced a hearing to be set for next month to examine how Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian whose name was in a terrorism database, boarded a plane with explosive material.

"Why aren't airline passengers flying into the U.S. checked against the broadest terrorist database and why isn't whole body scanning technology that can detect explosives in wider use?" said committee chairman Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent.

Meanwhile, Florida Republican Rep. John Mica said in a statement that the TSA had grown lost and bloated in bureaucracy and called for a review.

Mica also said Congress "must change the process by which TSA administrators serve. There has been no TSA administrator for nearly a year and the next one will be the fifth in eight years. Running a security agency with a revolving door is a recipe for failure."

Janet Napolitano, the head of the Department of Homeland Security, of which the TSA is part, made the rounds of morning television news programs on Monday, backing away from her initial stance that the system had worked in averting attack.

She told NBC that "our system did not work in this instance. No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way."

Southers, a former FBI special agent, is the Los Angeles World Airports Police Department assistant chief for homeland security and intelligence. He also is the associate director of the University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, and he served as a deputy director of homeland security for California Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Two Senate committees have given Southers their bipartisan blessing. An acting administrator is in place pending his confirmation.

Marshall McClain, the president of the Los Angeles Airport Peace Officers Association, said that the Senate should have acted sooner to confirm Southers.

"Friday's terrorist attack on U.S. aviation makes it all the more imperative that there be no further delays in filling this crucial position," he said.

DeMint said in a statement that the attempted attack "is a perfect example of why the Obama administration should not unionize the TSA." He wants Southers to clarify his stand on unionizing the TSA, a shift that Democrats support.

Without collective bargaining, DeMint said, the TSA has "flexibility to make real-time decisions that allowed it to quickly improve security measures in response to this attempted attack."

If organized labor got involved, DeMint said, union bosses would have the power "to veto or delay future security improvements at our airports."

He urged Obama to "re-think" supporting unionizing the TSA "and put the interests of American travelers ahead of organized labor."

DeMint also wants a Senate floor debate and roll call votes, not confirmation by consent as the Democrats sought.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., hadn't scheduled a floor vote for Southers before the Senate left town on Christmas Eve.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Monday that the majority leader is working with the White House to get Southers confirmed "as quickly as possible" and charged that "Republican obstructionism has prevented TSA from having the leadership in place that the organization deserves."

DeMint spokesman Wesley Denton said that Obama didn't nominate Southers until September, and he charged that Reid "has been too busy trading earmarks for votes on health care" to deal with DeMint's concerns.

DeMint's objection creates a procedural hurdle that could take three days of debate and test votes to overcome, or could potentially be limited if Democrats offered DeMint a compromise. No one was taking conciliatory stance on Monday, however. Manley called DeMint's opposition "disgraceful."

Jim DeMint: A Tea Party Crowd Favorite

If you’re an underdog conservative running for Congress, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) should be on your speed dial these days.

A favorite of the tea party crowd and a longtime scourge for Democrats and some Republicans alike inside the Senate chamber, DeMint has emerged as the leading benefactor for any Republican who wants to challenge the establishment candidates backed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

DeMint has already endorsed conservative Assemblyman Chuck DeVore over party favorite Carly Fiorina in the California Senate race and was the first member of Congress to back conservative Marco Rubio over Gov. Charlie Crist in the closely watched Florida Senate race. He has been openly considering an endorsement of a conservative political unknown in the Illinois Senate race against moderate Republican Rep. Mark Kirk.

And in a sign of his growing influence, several of the party’s more moderate candidates are looking for DeMint’s support to give them some conservative street cred, like Rob Simmons of Connecticut and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who have begun to reach out to the junior senator from South Carolina.

These moves are signs that candidates believe a blessing from DeMint not only may hold off right-wing challenges in the Republican primaries but also could open up new lines of funding from an increasingly passionate, grass-roots conservative movement.

But while DeMint enjoys his growing influence in the conservative movement and is treated like a rock star at tea party rallies, he’s causing problems within the Republican establishment. GOP critics accuse him of unnecessarily hurting the party’s prospects in next year’s midterms by fueling contentious primaries and pushing candidates who may be loved by the base but struggle in the general election.

“He’s certainly speaking for an intense point of view in the party, but the ultimate test is whether or not the Republican nominee wins the general elections. If they lose, it strengthens the liberal Democrats,” said Republican pollster Whit Ayres. “Adding more Democrats to [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi’s team does not advance the Republican cause.”

DeMint says primaries are a helpful part of the process and that candidates are increasingly reaching out to him instead of the NRSC because “anything associated with the establishment now is not considered an asset in a Republican race.”

“I think a lot of Republicans see that Americans are coming back to these core principles of the Republican Party that some have tried to say we’re right wing, but more and more people are realizing that’s where they want us to be: right there in the mainstream,” DeMint said. “It’s been my goal to identify Republicans who have those core values and try to get behind them, raise some money for them, publicize them on websites and the media.”

DeMint has clashed with GOP leadership throughout his first term in the Senate, but if he backs a few winners, that could increase his standing in the Senate Republican Conference, with the addition of some like-minded conservatives.

“I’m looking to get a few recruits to shake the place up,” DeMint said.

NRSC Chairman John Cornyn, however, insists that “endorsements are overrated” and that he’s “not worried” about DeMint’s tactics.

“My preference is that we get more conservatives in the Senate,” Cornyn said. “The challenge we have is that somebody as conservative as Jim DeMint can’t get elected nor as conservative as John Cornyn can’t get elected in some parts of the country, even as a Republican. That’s the challenge.”

This philosophical split underscores the ongoing debate within the Republican Party about how to recapture the majority, with Washington Republicans generally favoring more moderate candidates who have a shot in states Barack Obama carried in 2008, while the GOP base is eager to push conservative candidates that all adhere to a core set of principles.

“The fastest way to a lasting Republican minority is to repeat the mistakes of the last decade — simply chasing numbers and power without living up to our principles,” DeMint said.

Senator Jim DeMint and the Republican Party Supports Rape by Defense Contractors!!!

I think that all homo sapiens can understand how the mere thought of an organization that receives government money through contract mechanisms being tangentially involved in setting up a fake tax shelter for a fake pimp and his fake prostitution ring of fake prostitutes can justifiably lead to lawmakers going absolutely cross-eyed with white-hot, impotent rage. But what happens when a similarly taxpayer-endowed contractor attempts to cover up employee-on-employee gang rape by locking up the victim in a shipping container without food and water and threatening her with reprisals if she report the incident? Somehow, it doesn't engender the same level of anger!

30 misogynist Republicans in the U.S. Senate are totally OK with rape, at least where women are concerned. Predictably in yet another routine attempt to serve their corporate masters, (this time the GOP stood by Halliburton) Republicans voted against women and for corporate contempt of rape victims.

Some Republican senators are taking heat for voting against an amendment that would allow employees of military contractors to sue their employers if they are raped at work -- and they want the Democratic senator who wrote the amendment to help them fight off the bad publicity.
In October, 30 Republicans voted against Sen. Al Franken's amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would de-fund contractors who prevent their employees from suing if they are raped by co-workers. Since then, those Republicans have faced outrage for what critics say amounts to support for rape.

Instead of standing up to take responsibility for or clarifying their disgraceful votes, Republican cowards are instead attacking Al Franken, blaming him for their votes.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) accused Franken exploiting the story of Jamie Leigh Jones -- a former KBR employee who says she was locked in a container in Iraq after alleging she was raped by co-workers -- to further his political agenda.
"Trying to tap into the natural sympathy that we have for this victim of this rape --and use that as a justification to frankly misrepresent and embarrass his colleagues, I don't think it's a very constructive thing," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in an interview.

I guess Franken held a sledge hammer over Cornyn's head and said if he did not vote against the anti-rape amendment Franken would crack it over his head.

What shameless cowards.

To summarize the Republican position: As women, we are not "average Americans," and gang rape is not a "serious" issue. As women, no matter how powerful we become on our own merits, the Republican establishment will still be hoping for a man to come along and put us in our place.

Not every Republican signs onto these views -- indeed, 10 Senate Republicans voted for the Franken amendment, giving the lie to the NRSC's claim of partisanship -- but this is the undercurrent of the party's policies. This is what they're hoping to get voters to overlook when they run a Sarah Palin or a Kelly Ayotte for office. This is why Bob McDonnell's campaign for Virginia governor has been such a popular campaign stop for 2012 prospects: because of, not despite, his opposition to marital contraception and women in the workplace. This is why David Vitter (who voted against the Franken amendment) is still a senator in good standing with the party of alleged sexual morality.

You don't have to go very far beneath the Republican surface claims of equality-but-not-really to get to the rock-bottom sense that women just don't count, that our rights and our wellbeing are always subordinate to whatever interest of men they might conflict with. When it comes to it, even the (themselves sexist) notions of chivalry and protecting women come behind protecting the right of corporations to imprison their female employees to shield their male employees from rape charges and still get government contracts.

Credit new Senator Al Franken however, for introducing an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would punish contractors if they "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." You'd think that this would be a no-brainer, actually, but that didn't stop Jeff Sessions from labeling Franken's effort a "political attack directed at Halliburton." Franken, of course, pointed out that his amendment would apply broadly, to all contractors, because otherwise, 'twould be a bill of attainder, right? Right?

ranken's amendment ended up passing, 68-30. Here's a list of the Senators who showed broad support for Rapists and Pedophiles by voting against it: (Click on their names to find out more about them)

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

ADDENDUM: It's been pointed out to me that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken amendment as well:

Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.

I guess we must cover up crimes like rape in order to save capitalism.

RELATED:
Franken Wins Bipartisan Support For Legislation Reining In KBR's Treatment Of Rape [ThinkProgress]

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Franken Gets His First Amendment Passed By Roll Call Vote