It’s possible, at least theoretically, to win the 2012 Republican presidential nomination without the support of South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint. But nobody wants to risk it.

DeMint has emerged as a key power broker in the 2012 Republican contest. His clout extends far beyond his home state; through some carefully planned visits, he has now become a player in Iowa and New Hampshire. But it is in South Carolina, home of the first-in-the-South primary, that DeMint rules the political roost.

“He is enormously popular,” says David Woodard, a political scientist at Clemson University and director of the Palmetto Poll. “If he were to pick out a Mitch Daniels or a Tim Pawlenty, then almost overnight they would do very well.”

So far DeMint, who in 2008 supported former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has given no hint about who he will endorse, or whether he will endorse at all. But after the first Republican debate in Greenville last Thursday, he laid out one requirement any candidate has to meet even to be considered for DeMint’s approval. And in the process, DeMint sought to enlist the GOP presidential field in the spending fight currently raging on Capitol Hill.

DeMint, along with every other Republican in the Senate, supports a balanced budget amendment that, if passed, would a) require a balanced budget within 10 years; b) limit federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product; and c) require a supermajority vote to raise taxes. DeMint won’t vote to raise the nation’s debt ceiling unless the amendment is passed first. And in Greenville, he made clear he’ll only consider a candidate who feels the same way.

“I couldn’t support a presidential candidate who did not say we have to have a balanced budget amendment pass before we support [raising the debt ceiling],” DeMint said. “I think we should go to the mat with Obama. I don’t think there should be any compromise on that, and if Obama wants to be closing part of the government next fall because he’s unwilling to balance the budget, I think we can win that argument.”

None of the candidates has publicly come out in support of the specific balanced budget amendment under consideration in the Senate. But DeMint will soon begin a series of meetings with the candidates, and once those are over, they’ll have no doubt what it will take to win his support. “He is taking the position that, if you’re a Republican candidate who deserves to be elected, it’s balanced budget or bust,” says one source in the DeMint circle. “That goes for the ’12 presidential candidates, and also for Senate candidates.”

DeMint’s power comes in large part from his popularity with Tea Party activists. In recent weeks, he has been urging those activists in key caucus and primary states not to commit to any candidate until the balanced budget fight takes place. “I’ve told the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire in the last few weeks, ‘Don’t endorse. Watch what they do. See if they take a stand or stay on the sidelines,’ ” DeMint says. “These vague and general answers aren’t going to work. I want to hear them weigh in. If I hear them say, ‘Let’s be adults and increase the debt ceiling’ — that one’s off my list.”

There are plenty of arguments against a balanced budget amendment. Amending the Constitution necessarily takes a lot of time, and there is a deficit crisis right now. It’s not at all clear that spendthrift lawmakers wouldn’t find ways around the requirement to balance the federal budget. And of course, Congress already has all the authority it needs to pass a balanced budget — and last did so just a decade ago.

Of course, all that is true and there is still a $1.65 trillion deficit this year, with more to come if nothing is done. DeMint makes the entirely reasonable case that all the commissions and gangs and compromises and bipartisan agreements that are the normal stuff of Washington politics won’t solve the problem. The debt ceiling fight, DeMint believes, is the perfect opportunity for Republicans to hang tough against the White House and Democrats. And he’s not looking kindly on any Republican who doesn’t go along. “If we can’t get the members of Congress to agree that we have to balance our budget sometime in a 10-year window,” says DeMint, “then every one of them ought to be fired.”

When Jim DeMint stated some time back that he would rather have a small core group of true conservatives that a majority of RINOs, he drew sharp criticism from the GOP establishment and raised concern  in the minds of others, many of whom considered him on an impossible Don Quixote-esque mission against impossible odds.

However, Jim DeMint didn’t listen. Not only has he been taking his case straight to the American people (angering the leadership of his own party by doing so – go figure), but he formed a PAC to support true-blue conservatives get elected. And what are the results?

According to a Bloomberg article,

Since then, DeMint’s money and manpower have upset Senate Republican nomination contests in Colorado, Utah, Kentucky, and Delaware. Of the 13 candidates he’s endorsed, only three have lost. Last year he raised $1.3 million. This year his PAC has pulled in more than $4 million, says spokesman Matt Hoskins.

According to this article, DeMint has “vaulted from backbencher to conservative kingmaker.”

Here’s more of the media buzz following his latest Delaware victory:

Once again, DeMint’s candidate prevailed over the candidate boosted by the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee.  He set out to transform the Republican party and it looks like he just might be pulling it off. (ABC News)

“Based on the number of Republicans DeMint has helped get elected this year, I would say he’s done quite a bit to elect a majority,” Hoskins told CNN. “Perhaps the real reason some unnamed leadership aides are upset is that these Republicans actually have principles.” (CNN)

DeMint, whose endorsement boosted O’Donnell late in her primary race, cited other tea party favorites who are doing well in polls, including Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio and Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul. Both defeated better-established Republicans in primaries. (MSNBC)

Christine O’Donnell’s upset win in Delaware’s GOP Senate primary put Sen. Jim DeMint back on TV and in the headlines. The South Carolina Republican has been taking on the GOP establishment this election season, backing a number of candidates who have challenged incumbents from the right. (Wall Street Journal)

All of this success, because DeMint chose the path of unwavering principle and initiative. As Scripture says, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.” (Isaiah 55:8)

This approach seemed backwards to so many, but in the end it has resulted in more success than the establishment methods could approach. And, DeMint himself stands poised to be a powerful force in the 2010 Senate, bypassing the ordinary route of the senority ladder.

Through it all, DeMint has remained devoid of personal ambition.

“DeMint is a modest man, and he always makes clear that he is by no means the only force behind the seismic shift of power in the Republican party this year.” (Wall Street Journal)

All of this, because one man refused to sit by and do nothing, and because he refused to sacrifice his principles in the process.

“For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him.” (2 Chron. 16:9)

You’d think the Obama administration is busy enough controlling the banks, insurance companies and automakers, but thanks to whistleblowers at the Department of the Interior, we now learn they’re planning to increase their control over energy-rich land in the West.

A secret administration memo has surfaced revealing plans for the federal government to seize more than 10 million acres from Montana to New Mexico, halting job- creating activities like ranching, forestry, mining and energy development. Worse, this land grab would dry up tax revenue that’s essential for funding schools, firehouses and community centers.

President Obama could enact the plans in this memo with just the stroke of a pen, without any input from the communities affected by it.

At a time when our national unemployment rate is 9.7 percent, it is unbelievable anyone would be looking to stop job-creating energy enterprises, yet that’s exactly what’s happening.

TWT RELATED STORIES:
• Lawmakers cry ‘jobs’ to push through bills
• Bunning relents; jobless bill passes
• Obama considers GOP health bill input
• Supreme Court appears set to widen gun rights
• D.C. issues first gay-marriage licenses

The document lists 14 properties that, according to the document, “might be good candidates” for Mr. Obama to nab through presidential proclamation. Apparently, Washington bureaucrats believe it’s more important to preserve grass and rocks for birdwatchers and backpackers than to keep these local economies thriving.

Administration officials claim the document is merely the product of a brainstorming session, but anyone who reads this memo can see that it is a wish list for the environmentalist left. It discusses, in detail, what kinds of animal populations would benefit from limiting human activity in those areas.

The 21-page document, marked “Internal Draft-NOT FOR RELEASE,” names 14 different lands Mr. Obama could completely close for development by unilaterally designating them as “monuments” under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

It says all kinds of animals would be better off by doing so, like the coyotes, badgers, grouse, chickens and lizards. But giving the chickens more room to roost is no reason for the government to override states’ rights.

Rep. Robert Bishop, Utah Republican, made the memo public because he didn’t want another unilateral land grab by the White House, like what happened under former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Using the Antiquities Act, President Carter locked up more land than any other president had before him, taking more than 50 million acres in Alaska despite strong opposition from the state.

President Clinton used the authority 22 times to prohibit hunting, recreational vehicles, mining, forestry and even grazing in 5.9 million acres scattered around the country. The law allowed him to single-handedly create 19 new national monuments and expand three others without consulting anyone.

One of the monuments President Clinton created was the Grande Staircase-Escalante in Utah, where 135,000 acres of land were leased for oil and gas and about 65,000 barrels of oil were produced each year from five active wells. But, President Clinton put an end to developing those resources.

President Obama could do the same in other energy-rich places unless Congress takes action. At least 13.5 million acres are already on his Department of Interior’s real estate shopping list.

This includes a 58,000-acre area in New Mexico. The memo said this should be done so the lesser prairie chicken and the sand dune lizard will be better protected. Are these animals going extinct? No. The bureaucrats wrote that the land should be locked up to “avoid the necessity of listing either of these species as threatened or endangered.”

In Nevada, the Obama administration might make another monument in the Heart of the Great Basin because it, supposedly, is a “center of climate change scientific research.”

In Colorado, the government is considering designating the Vermillion Basin as a monument because it is “currently under the threat of oil and gas development.”

Americans should be wary of any plans a president has to seize land from the states without their consent. Any new plans to take away states’ freedom to use land as they see fit must be stopped.

That’s why I sponsored an amendment to block Mr. Obama from declaring any of the 14 lands listed in the memo as “monuments.” Unfortunately, the Senate, led by Democrats, rejected it on Thursday evening by a vote of 58-38.

It was particularly disappointing that the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, voted against the amendment. The government owns more than 80 percent of the land in Nevada and the unemployment rate there is 12.8 percent. Surely it would help job prospects if more land were open for business.

This is a nationwide problem. The government currently owns 650 million acres, or 29 percent of the nation’s total land.

Federal bureaucrats shouldn’t be wasting time thinking up ways to acquire more, especially in the middle of a recession. Taking the nation’s resources offline will stifle job creation and dry up tax revenues.

If anything, the government should be selling land off, not locking more up. By voting against my amendment, the Democrats tacitly endorsed Mr. Obama’s secret plan to close off millions more acres to commerce.

If enacted, the plan would mean fewer jobs for Americans.

The Democratic Congress refused to stop it, but one sure way Americans could help block it is if they decide some Democrats should lose their jobs on November.