5 reasons why Jeb Bush should drop out now, before officially entering 2016 race


This is from Liberty UnYeilding.

Jeb Bush or Chris Christie as the GOP presidential nominee will assure a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Conservatives stayed home in large numbers in 2012 and the numbers will be larger in 2016.

After finishing the first draft of this piece I received a late-night return phone call from a Florida Republican power player who asked that his name be withheld. He was responding to a question from me earlier about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s prospects for winning the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. Coincidentally, he had just left a high-dollar local fundraiser for Florida Senator Marco, which was the reason he gave for calling so late.

Here are some direct quotes from our conservation:

“Jeb’s people are now Rubio’s people.”

“Jeb is not relevant.”

“Jeb has no momentum.”

“Jeb has no new people supporting him, just the same old people, just the same old money people.”

His candor surprised me since my source has known both Bush and Rubio for many years. And, like many active Republicans, he is still uncommitted to any specific 2016 candidate.

I took this eerily-timed conversation as an affirmation for what I had written hours earlier — five reasons why Jeb Bush should drop out of the 2016 presidential nomination race before he officially declares.

 Jeb Bush’s Nomination Would Result in a GOP Civil War

If the GOP is to win the White House in 2016 there must be the equivalent of a peaceful, loving, marriage ceremony uniting the party’s conservative and establishment wings at the Republican National Convention scheduled for July 18-21, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio.

Undoubtedly, Jeb Bush is the least likely major candidate to bring about such a union. In fact, his nomination would likely spark a brutal civil war ripping the party asunder — resulting in a walk-out of convention delegates, the possible rise of a conservative third-party candidate and drastically reduce the number of traditional GOP campaign workers. I cannot over emphasize the degree to which anti-Jeb passion currently exists among many GOP primary voters.

For example, on the popular conservative site RedState, which is read by many GOP activists, the title of a recent “recommended” column perfectly sums up this sentiment: “Jeb Bush: Worse of the Worst for 2016.”

Then the Washington Times posted a headline signaling war clouds on the horizon: “Conservatives strategize in separate meeting to sway 2016 Republican nomination.”

Within the piece was this gem:

For many conservatives planning to attend the gathering, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is the dreaded incarnation of the inevitable establishment candidate next year who could out fund-raise the entire field of competitors.

Given these negative general feelings among a growing number of Republicans, it is only a matter of time before Jeb and his loyal team of long-time advisers realize that all the establishment money in the world cannot buy love among primary voters who find Jeb unacceptable as their 2016 leader. Furthermore, if Team Jeb thinks they can change a majority of GOP hearts and minds — they are delusional.

Jeb Bush Hurts the GOP Brand

Question: Why would a party still recovering from its last unpopular president — whose name and brand have been thoroughly denigrated during the last two presidential elections — nominate a candidate with the same last name?

Answer: Insanity.

Now, to elaborate on that answer, check out two web videos from the Democratic National Committee and American Bridge which appeared shortly after Jeb’s recent inartful statements on FOX News concerning his brother’s justification for the Iraq War.

These are exactly the kind of campaign commercials that Republicans can expect to see in a general election if Jeb wins the GOP nomination.

Furthermore, Republicans supporting Jeb should be reminded that an Associated Press 2012 presidential election exit poll revealed that almost half of the voters (unfairly, in my opinion) blamed former President George W. Bush for the nation’s economic challenges instead of President Obama. This is a direct result of Obama twice waging a successful “blame Bush” campaign strategy. Thus, it’s a given that Hillary Clinton’s campaign will attempt to convince voters that Jeb’s name equates to George’s on the ballot.

You can just hear Hillary or her surrogates saying, “Why would you vote for the family who got us into this mess?”

Like I said, “insanity.”

Jeb’s Negative Poll Numbers Are Off the Charts

A George Washington University Battleground Poll released May 11, but conducted  May 3-6 (several days before Jeb’s May 10 Fox News kerfuffle about Iraq,) revealed some fascinating data that should be used to convince Team Jeb to disband their nomination efforts now in order to save Jeb Bush and his distinguished family from future embarrassment.

For the record, the poll was jointly conducted by the Republican-leaning Tarrance Group and the Democrat-leaning Lake Research Partners with data gathered from 1,000 registered voters.

Here is a sample question: “Would you consider voting for this person for President or, no, you would not consider voting for this person for President?” (After the pollster says he is going to read a list of names.)

Jeb was the overall loser with 41% of registered voters stating that they strongly would not consider voting for him. This, combined with the 19% who said they somewhat would not consider voting for Jeb – adds up to a whopping 60% of registered voters.

Need I mention the word “insanity,” again?

But wait there’s more: The poll asks after reading a list of names, “If you have heard of that person and, if so, whether you have a favorable or an unfavorable impression of that person. If you do not recognize the name, just say so.”

Among registered voters, 30% have a strong unfavorable impression of Jeb. Then, adding the 18% who have a somewhat unfavorable impression, leaving Jeb with a 48% total unfavorable rating.

On the positive side, he has an 8% strong favorable and 27% a somewhat favorable rating, yielding a 35% total. However, Jeb does not have much room for improvement — with only 11% of registered voters having “no opinion” of him and only 6 percent having “never heard” of him.

Overall the poll reveals that virtually the entire GOP field is unknown and in most cases they do not yield high favorable or unfavorable numbers – leaving them time to make a positive impression. Whereas Jeb is “known” — albeit due to his last name.

Conversely, the poll shows Hillary Clinton, like Jeb, has a high total unfavorable number at 49%, but a much higher total favorable rating at 48%. Only 1% have “never heard” of her and 4% have “no opinion,” which brings us to reason number four:

Jeb is NOT the “Fresh Face” Needed to Contrast Hillary

Given the almost universal opinion that Hillary Clinton is a flawed, retread candidate with whom Democrats are stuck — why would Republicans nominate their own flawed, retread-named  candidate when there are so many new fresh alternatives?

In the unlikely event that Jeb were to win the nomination (not having taken my advice to drop out), running with his polarizing last name against a candidate with an equally polarizing last name does not make for a level playing field. Instead, it pits one old brand name against the other. And, since perception is reality, the Clinton brand is perceived more favorably than the Bush brand according to Real Clear Politics poll averages showing Hillary Clinton defeating Jeb Bush by 7.7% in a 2016 general election match-up.

Moreover, while the Bush family brand is associated with ill-conceived wars and an economic meltdown, the Clinton brand hearkens back to better economic and more peaceful times, despite all their old and new scandals.

Here is the takeaway: The GOP does not have to play the brand comparison game if Jeb drops out.

Without Jeb in the mix, the party moves ahead from the Bush years. Whereas now, with Jeb raising millions of old Bush family donor dollars, his candidacy acts as a deterrent — keeping those “fresh new faces” from reaching their full potential in the early days of the 2016 campaign. In addition, Jeb will continue to suck-up media bandwidth mopping up his brother’s legacy, which brings us to reason number five:

Running for G.W. Bush’s Third Term is a Losing Proposition

Jeb’s current media quagmire, rehashing history over his brother’s 2002 Iraq war initiative, is a foreshadowing of Jeb’s inability to rehabilitate his family brand – something he must do in order to win the nomination and the White House.

Unfortunately, because former President George W. Bush’s name is poison with the media, most of the electorate, and within much of the GOP, Jeb Bush – who last ran successfully for his Florida gubernatorial reelection in 2002 – is now slightly rusty and has little chance of reversing such entrenched national name negativity.

Meanwhile, because politics is unfair, Hillary can run for both Bill Clinton’s and President Obama’s “third terms”, and expect support from traditional Democratic voter groups. But Jeb, given the national and media climate, must run away from his brother’s entire two-terms and that is unfair to him, his brother and his entire family. So don’t do it, Jeb!

Drop out now before you take the official plunge. Release your major donors so the party can move ahead and fight the Clinton past, present and into the future with new names and faces.



Ted Cruz Warns: A Republican Presidential Nominee Who Isn’t Conservative Enough Won’t Win in 2016

1 Comment

This is from The Blaze.

The Establishment Republicans are in love with squishy moderates or Northeastern liberals.

A man the Establishment Republicans said could not win won two landslides of 44 an 49 states that man was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney or Lindsey Graham will guarantee Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or any other Democrat will be elected in 2016.


MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. (TheBlaze/AP) — Republican Sen. Ted Cruz is urging South Carolina conservatives to help nominate a Republican president from their own ranks in 2016 or risk losing a third consecutive national election.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks to the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition convention on January 18, 2015 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. (Image source: Richard Ellis/Getty Images)

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) speaks to the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition convention on January 18, 2015 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. (Image source: Richard Ellis/Getty Images)

The Texan spoke Sunday in Myrtle Beach at the Tea Party Coalition Convention. His remarks reflect the view that recent GOP nominees haven’t been conservative enough.

“If we nominate another candidate in the mold of a Bob Dole or a John McCain or a Mitt Romney, all of whom are good, honorable, decent men,” Cruz said, according to the according to the Houston Chronicle, “the same people who stayed home in ’08 and ’12 will stay home in 2016 and the Democrats will win again.”

In his speech, Cruz celebrated Republicans’ midterm election sweep and mocked establishment Republicans who chided him in 2013 for his role in a partial government shutdown.

He said the midterms prove the country is ready for a Republican president from the conservative movement.

Cruz met privately with a few dozen grassroots organizers and prominent donors. South Carolina hosts the first Southern presidential primary in the weeks after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

Which RINO in 2016?


On Friday I stopped by Murphy’s Law blog  and read his observations about Jeb Bush being the 2016 nominee.

It made me think of my election rant at my brother-in-law’s house on Christmas Day. My in-laws are pretty conservative, so we were all in the same frame of mind politically.

That being said, I did shock my father-in-law by saying if Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or Mitt Romney were the nominee, I would not vote for the President in 2016.

My father-in-law then said that not voting for Bush, Romney, or Christie is a vote for the DemocRats. I said that at least we know what the DemocRats stand for hating America.

I replied Jeb Bush stands for giving the illegals legal status at the very least. I am not sure what Chris Christie stands for except being a suck-up to advance his agenda. And Mitt Romney is a confirmed presidential loser.

I stated that at least we knew what Ronald Reagan stood for, and he won with his stance by two landslides.

(Then my father-in-law said that Reagan lost also. Actually, Reagan got screwed by the Establishment Republicans in 1972 with the Gerald Ford nomination.)

If any of these RINO’s get the 2016 GOP nomination, I believe that very many Conservatives like myself will not vote.

I held my nose and voted in 2008, and again in 2016. No more. I refuse to accept any more northeastern liberals or any more Bush family members to continue the dynasty.

I will no longer vote for a RINO just to defeat a DemocRat when the RINO will be a DemocRat lite.

I will no longer go along to get along I will fight to the bloody end to keep a RINO out of the White House in 2016.

I personally do not think Bush, Christie, or Romney could be elected.


Conservative leaders gang up to block Jeb Bush, say he opposes Reaganism

1 Comment

This is from The Washington Examiner.

If Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Mitt Romney gets the 2016 GOP nomination, I will not vote on November 8,2016.

They would be the third and fourth term of Obama.×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017

Conservative leaders who had a hand in key Republican victories including Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the Contract with America and the birth of the Tea Party, are ganging up to oppose a Jeb Bush presidential bid, declaring him easier to beat than Bob Dole or John McCain.

“I don’t know of any conservatives who are supporting him,” said Richard Viguerie, chairman of

“Jeb is a very good moderate Democrat,” added top-rated talk radio host Mark Levin. “He’s very boring. He doesn’t elicit excitement and energy outside a very small circle of wealthy corporatists and GOP Beltway operatives. Time to move on.”

The criticism of Bush, a media darling and leading centrist GOP potential presidential candidate, took off when Phyllis Schlafly updated her 50-year-old conservative manifesto, A Choice Not an Echo, with a slap at Bush.

n her latest revision, provided to the Washington Examiner, she wrote: “Do you get the message that the media buildup for Jeb Bush has begun and that the 2016 Republican National Convention may nominate another establishment loser, the next one in line? But it doesn’t have to be.”

Many conservatives are critical of Bush’s support for Common Core educational standards and immigration reform.

But his biggest hurdle may be his last name.

“The objection so many Reaganites have to another Bush is because he is another Bush,” said Reagan biographer Craig Shirley. “He, too, has an alarming belief in centralized authority. From the standpoint of history, the Bush family got their start in 1980 opposing Reagan and Reaganism, as they continue to do today.”

“We just don’t trust him,” said Viguerie, who favors Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz. “Conservatives are going to be very, very critical of Jeb, not only for the sins of the father and brother, but also for his own views.”

Cruz to CPAC: ‘Time To Bring Back Morning in America’

Leave a comment

This is from NewsMax.

America needs a president with the fire of Senator Ted Cruz(R-Tx)..

We do not need third term of Barack Milhous Capone Kardashian by electing Hillary Clinton or Chris Christie.

I  think Ted Cruz(R-Tx). could become the next Ronald W.Regan.

 Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz served up a rousing battle cry to open this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, calling for conservatives to “bring back morning in America” by ending Washington “corruption” and Obamacare.

“We need to end the corruption. We need to eliminate corporate welfare and crony capitalism,” said the tea party favorite, outlining his plan for restoring America to an enthusiastic CPAC audience Thursday. “We need to tell the truth. The truth is, Washington is corrupt.”

Story continues below video.

The nation’s capital is full of a “corrupt and interlocking system of lobbyists and lawyers who are suckling off of Washington, and people in Washington and Wall Street are making a great deal of money,” Cruz said.

“How do we win elections in the contrast between Washington and the American people?  We stand with the American people.”

Cruz drew perhaps his largest cheers when he called for “repealing every single word of Obamacare,” which he complained is a “massive wealth transfer” from the nation’s young adults to the rest of the country. Further, he insisted that his push against Obamacare that led to the federal government’s shutdown last fall was worth it.

He also called to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and adopt a flat tax that is “simple enough for Americans to fill out on a post card.”

In addition, he said, President Barack Obama’s policies are destroying the nation’s young people.

“If you were to sit down and hammer the living daylights out of young people, you couldn’t do better than the Obama administration,” Cruz said.

“We need to stop bankrupting our country,” he said. “What we’re doing to our kids and grandkids is morally wrong. If we don’t change course, they will be left working to pay off the debts their deadbeat parents and grandparents stuck them with.”

“I’m going to suggest a radical suggestion to you. Hope and change,” he said.

The Texas freshman senator, who is often mentioned as a potential 2016 presidential contender, called for more U.S. energy production, which would allow the nation to stand up against threats from “petro-tyrants like [Russian President Vladimir] Putin.”

“You want to lose elections, stand for nothing,” he told the CPAC crowd, saying that in recent years the GOP was only successful in 2010, when tea party supporters rallied against Obamacare. “We said we stand unequivocally against Obamacare… we won a historic tidal wave come the election.”

“We will bring back morning in America,” Cruz said. “That’s why we’re here and that’s the future for the young and everybody else in this country.”

Cruz also joked about some recent presidential candidates who were considered moderate and ended up losing their elections.

“Of course all of us remember President Dole and President McCain and President Romney,” he said.

But he praised former President Ronald Reagan and former Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the father of Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican who could be one of Cruz’s rivals in 2016.

He said both Reagan and the elder Paul were not young men, but they energized young people when they “painted a bold inspiring picture of America of how we can all do better.”

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Why Conservatives Won’t Defend Christie the Way We Defended Clarence Thomas

1 Comment

This is from Rush

I would never run to support Chris Christie or vote for him.

If Christie did get the GOP nomination in 2016 I could not vote for him.

I held my nose in 2008 and voted McCain and again in 2012 to vote for Romney.

I sure as Hell refuse to do it in 2016!


RUSH: If I do this right, I think, this is telling. It’s important.  I want to take you back, talk about Chris Christie and talk about why there is not a huge wave of people defending him.  The Tea Party isn’t because the Tea Party doesn’t like him.  The Tea Party does not think that he is a conservative.  The Tea Party…

This Bridgegate’s one thing, but basically embracing Obama and screwing Romney, that was all it took, that one time and you’re done.  But the Tea Party’s not Christie’s buddies.  The Republican Party establishment is Christie’s buddies, and they aren’t even defending him.  They’ve all got this caveat, “He’s home free IF he’s telling the truth.”  “IF.”  Now, can I contrast this with something for you?  Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill.

Clarence Thomas was nominated the Supreme Court by George Bush 41.  The moment he was nominated, the left’s long knives came out.  That was their seat, Thurgood Marshall.  Clarence Thomas, Republican, conservative, traitor, Uncle Tom.  When this all happened, I didn’t know Clarence Thomas.  I had never met Clarence Thomas. I had to read about Clarence Thomas to find out who he was.  From the moment Paul Simon, Democrat senator from Illinois…

His wife, actually, was the one responsible for this, if you want to know the truth. They dragged Anita Hill forward. Snerdley, you’ll remember this because you’ve been here the whole time. I began the biggest, full-throated defense of Clarence Thomas that there was, and I didn’t know him.  I’d never met him.  I had to read and find out who he was and, you know, about his life, the things he’d done, where he’d worked, gone to school.

Yet I didn’t feel I was taking a risk at all in a full-throated, never-ending, full-fledged not only defense of Clarence Thomas, but an attack, a returned attack on Anita Hill and the Democrats.  Now, how was I able to do this with such confidence, not having met the man, not having known the man?  I don’t do things for show here.  I don’t do things to get noticed here.  I was in either Tulsa or Oklahoma City on the Rush to Excellence Tour.

I was doing an appearance on Saturday when the Anita Hill stuff really hit, and all of the outrageous allegations, the “pubic hair on the Coke can” and all the sexual harassment stuff, and I can’t tell you how livid I was.  I spent the entire almost two hours on stage that night (it was a Saturday) talking about this, and how sick it made me and how angry it made me.  The reason that I — and I have been fully vindicated, by the way — was able to defend Clarence Thomas with total confidence against this, is I knew he didn’t do it.

I knew he didn’t do it, and I didn’t know him.  But I learned about his character.  I learned about his family.  He was conservative.  He was courageous. He was a conservative African-American.  You learned that they had tried to destroy him at Yale ’cause he didn’t get in with affirmative action. He betrayed them. He betrayed the civil rights coalitions because he climbed the ladder without them, showing that it could be done.

I learned very quickly that Clarence Thomas became the biggest threat breathing to people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the biggest threat alive to the civil rights coalitions, because Clarence Thomas was living proof that a minority could reach the pinnacle without having to be a liberal or a Democrat or part of that whole civil rights coalition.  I also knew that the people attacking him were totally capable of lying and making things up.

The left, the Democrats, take your pick — Biden, take your pick of ‘em on that committee.  Ted Kennedy.  I knew their character, and so without knowing Clarence Thomas, without ever having met Clarence Thomas, I knew he didn’t do it.  I’ve since gotten to know Clarence Thomas.  He’s become a very good friend and he didn’t do it.  He thwarted all of that by standing up for himself at those hearings, if you’ll recall, by finally accusing the people of conducting a “high-tech lynching” on him.

But what was it, folks?

I didn’t know Clarence Thomas.

What was it that made me do this? I didn’t think I was risking anything.  I really didn’t.  If I’d had the slightest doubt of his innocence, I woulda never opened my mouth.  If I thought that there was just a tiny thread of possibility that what Anita Hill was saying and what the Democrat witnesses were saying was true, I woulda stayed silent.  But I didn’t.  I went to the equivalent of the mountaintops and started shouting.  Now, why?  Character, conservatism, and and my knowledge of the left.

I only bring this up because there isn’t any of this going on for Governor Christie, from anywhere.  Now, partly, the fascinating thing about this… I’m not saying it’s not deserved, don’t misunderstand.  My point is that the Republican RINOs, Republicans-In-Name-Only, and the Tea Party have an ideological basis for not running to Governor Christie’s defense.  They disagree with him on policy.  They felt that he betrayed his own party and cause with that embrace of Obama.

They feel he sabotaged his own party in their quest to win the White House. The Tea Party, they’ve got substantive reason.  Now, the people on the right who support Christie, to launch him, this is the problem with the Republican Party.  There’s no foundation there.  There’s no ideological basis on which to defend Christie, is my point.  They’re RINOs. They’re Republicans-In-Name-Only. They’re establishment types.

Washington’s the beginning and end of everything, what happens there, and whatever you have to be to succeed there is what you do.  So Christie may well be worth defending, is my point.  I don’t know.  He may well be worth a Clarence Thomas-type defense, but notice that nobody is coming forth with one.  They’ve all got that caveat.  “He’s home free IF he’s not lying.”  This is not a comment about Governor Christie, so please don’t misunderstand or be confused.

I’m trying to illustrate (What’s the word?) the emptiness of the Republican… (interruption) No, it’s not. My purpose here is not to comment on Governor Christie.  I’m trying to make the point that over there in the RINO Club, the Republican establishment, the wildebeests, whatever, there’s not an ideology. There’s not a belief system. There’s not a foundation on which to base a defense, as I had with Clarence Thomas — and, by the way, he’s not alone.

I have also offered full-throated defenses of Sarah Palin and Robert Bork, and a whole bunch of people on our side. Miguel Estrada.  I mean, the left has tried to take out people on our side with cheap lies and phony accusations, like they did with Clarence Thomas.  They’ve done it with Bork.  What Kennedy did to Robert Bork, to me, to this day still — and what they tried to do with Clarence Thomas — is just near criminal, even though it all falls within the purview of the First Amendment and politics. (interruption) Carl McCall?

Well, yeah, but Carl McCall…  I wasn’t defending Carl McCall ideologically.  I was defending Carl McCall because his own party abandoned him and I was illustrating something there.  We ended up raising money for Carl McCall because, here’s the Democrat Party, this guy’s a black guy who wanted to run for governor of New York, and the Democrat Party threw him overboard, and they supposedly are the ones championing black people, and they threw him on the ash heap.  So we raised a little money for him here to try to defend him.

Now okay, you mentioned Clinton.  Why did the Democrats go to the mat defending the Clintons knowing his character and background? It’s precisely because of his character and his background that they do it.  It’s because Clinton has a track record of beating us every time he opens his mouth, and that’s why they love him.  They love Clinton’s ideology.  Now, we don’t have enough data here to track the left defending Obama because they haven’t done anything but that.  I explained that earlier.  But I’m just… looking for the word here.  Not “surprised.”  Although that fits.  It’s just every Republican who has entered the fray defending Christie has to put a caveat out there “if he’s telling the truth.”

Now, if there were a fervent ideological foundation, if there was a substantive reason of believing in Governor Christie, then whether he lied wouldn’t matter.  They’d be out there defending him left and right just to make sure the Democrats don’t get away with this.  And I’ll admit that was part of the reason that I jumped into Clarence Thomas.  There was no way they were gonna get away with this if I had the ability to have a little bit of something to do with it.  There’s no way.  I wasn’t gonna sit there and put up with this.  I’d done enough to find out he was a fine man and know this was a witch hunt. They were out to seek and destroy.  It had happened with Bork.  It was intelligence guided by experience, and it took not one shred of risk on my part to do it.

And it’s not just Governor Christie.  You note the Republicans, any one of their brood comes under assault, and they throw ‘em overboard.  Satisfy the sharks and try to make the sharks go away, satisfy their hunger and their appetite so maybe they’ll go away and forget about it.  Sarah Palin, throw her overboard, get rid of her.  Any number of people, Scooter Libby, throw him over, get rid of him.  You name it.


RUSH: Here is Mark in Grand Rapids, Michigan, great to have you on the program.  Hi.

CALLER:  Hi, Rush.  How are you doing?

RUSH:  Just fine, sir.  Thank you.

CALLER:  Listen, thanks for that retrospective on Clarence Thomas.

RUSH: I appreciate that.  Thank you, sir.

CALLER:  Yeah, that was just terrific.  Listen, a question: If Christie is cleared of the bridge incident, can we expect the New York Times to endorse him as the next Republican candidate for president?

RUSH:  (laughing)  Interesting thought.  But will he ever be cleared, or will there always be a lingering doubt about it? I’m talking about as far as the way the media reports this.

CALLER:  Yeah, the never-ending story, huh?

RUSH:  Yeah.  How can they ever really prove that he didn’t know?  They can’t read people’s emails.

CALLER:  They have a great opportunity here.  They have a great opportunity to pair this in parallel to John McCain and what they did to essentially help select our candidate for president.  I don’t consider myself a Republican any longer, I consider myself a staunch conservative, and so I really thank you-for-creating what I consider the greatest radio program in broadcasting history to try to basically resurrect our principles of liberty and free market capitalism.  I do so much appreciate listening to you every day, and knowing what kind of an effort you must put for us in order do this every day.

RUSH:  Wow.  I really appreciate that.  I can’t thank you enough.  That’s a great birthday present.  I really do appreciate that.  As for Christie, don’t forget, they are afraid of him.  You and I may think they’re crazy, but they’ve got two polls (and they live and die by these things) that show Christie as the only Republican beating Hillary. So they are palpably frightened by the guy.

Part 3–2013 In Review: Anticipation For Future Elections Could Give GOP Nasty Side Effects

Leave a comment

This is from the Liberty Alliance.


As we enter 2014, Zo reminds all Republicans out there not to get too excited for 2016, especially without knowing who our alternative is going to be. He warns that, if it’s Chris Christie, the side effects might be worse than the problem.

More at

Read the rest of this Liberty Alliance article here:

Christie: ‘Responsible’ GOP Leaders Would Work Out Spending Bill

Leave a comment

This is from Newsmax.

Chris Krispy Kreme Christie needs to shut his pie hole.

Then do Conservatives a favor and put a “D” behind his name so he

will be in the party that he belongs in.

In reality what has he doe for New Jersey?

The answer is not a whole lot as taxes have increased more than decreased.

Also there is no way in Hell I would vote for Christie in the presidential primary.

If he gets the nomination I will set out the general election or write in Ronald Reagan.


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Thursday “responsible Republican leaders” would not allow the government to shut down.

“That, by definition, is a failure. You’ve gotta work it out,” Christie, a Republican, said in a segment set to air Sunday on “CBS This Morning,” Politico reported.

Christie didn’t name any GOP politicians, but his remarks came the day after Texas Sen. Ted Cruz finished a 21-hour speech on the Senate floor advocating for the defunding of Obamacare. Both he and Cruz are seen as possible GOP contenders in the 2016 presidential race.

“I think there’s got to be a solution other than that,” Christie said in the CBS episode, reported. “I don’t think we should be doing that.”
“I think it’s always irresponsible if you’re running the government to be advocating for shutting it down,” Christie said.

Congress must vote on a federal government spending plan by Tuesday or the U.S. government will shut down.

The disagreement over a funding bill has focused on President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which begins enrollment Oct. 1. House Republicans pushed through a provision in the temporary spending plan to defund Obamacare.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he’d strip the defunding language before bringing the continuing resolution to a vote in the Senate, producing clean legislation amenable to the Democratic majority — which would then be sent back to the House for final passage, just days before the deadline, Politico reported.

But House Republican leaders said they’ll reject the temporary spending plan the Senate is expected to pass to keep the government operating through Nov. 15.

Christie noted in the interview he doesn’t hear “responsible Republican leaders advocating for a shutdown of the government” — a swipe at the tea party conservative wing of the GOP.

And Christie has publicly clashed with Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

Yet Christie said he thinks lawmakers will come to an agreement to avoid a shutdown.

“I’m confident they will,” Christie said. “Because I don’t think anybody wants to go down that road.”

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!



Leave a comment

This is from Human Events.

The truth is Chris Christie is not a RINO but an undocumented DemocRat.

Christie is seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2016

by the establishment Republicans.

While vetoing on bill and conditionally vetoed two other bills.

Sounds like to me that Christie was to pull a fast one on New Jersey voters.


New Jersey gun rights advocates have mixed reactions to Gov. Christopher J. Christie’s decision to veto only parts of gun-control legislation this week.

“We hope this is an indication by the governor that he is open to a more reasoned discussion regarding the individual right of New Jersey citizens to possess firearms wherever they have a right to be,” said Frank Jack Fiamingo, president and founder of New Jersey Second Amendment Society, a recreational club that promotes the free exercise of our Second Amendment rights.

“Public officials from mayors to assembly members are exploiting a terrible tragedy involving children to distract people’s attention away from their own incompetency,” he said.

In reaction to the fatal mass-shooting in Dec. 14, 2012 at a grade school in Newtown Conn., New Jersey lawmakers introduced 13 consolidated gun control bills to the governor, after seven months of heated discourse at the state’s capitol in Trenton.

On Aug. 8 Christie signed 10 of the 13 bills; Aug. 16 he vetoed a ban on .50 caliber firearms and conditionally vetoed the two remaining bills. A “conditional veto” means that the legislation is dead, unless the legislature reconvenes to resurrect it through amendments that meet strict conditions imposed by the governor.

Despite the fact that NJ2AS members are pleased that the governor essentially vetoed the most offensive bills, Fiamingo said they feel very strongly that none of these bills deserved the governor’s consideration in the first place.

There are many obstacles contained in the law that renders our Second Amendment rights obsolete, he said.  “In order to obtain a carry permit, for instance, New Jersey citizens must prove a justifiable need which is interpreted as an immediate threat, and nearly impossible to obtain.”

“Simple possession is even illegal in New Jersey,” he said.

Statistics show that the majority of gun crimes in the garden state occur in cities and are committed by gang members, drug dealers, and career criminals, he said. “Public officials have done nothing to address the real problems facing our cities; criminals will continue to break the law.”

Mental health records are not confidential anymore, said Fiamingo. “No longer is it the case that a person is adjudicated as mentally ill by a court of law; any individual, a nurse, a psychologist, or a mental health counselor can prevent you from exercising your Second Amendment rights.”

The provision is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, he said. “Medical health care professionals, who are not doctors, are now free to share with authorities the mental health records of anyone.”

He said personally he would probably support Christie in his last run for governor next year given the options. “Left between Christie and his democrat opponent state Sen. Barbara Buono, her standpoint on Second Amendment rights is decidedly worse.”

In a survey conducted by Quinnipiac University released last week, Christie leads Buono 58 percent to 30 percent.

“After seven months of battle over misguided legislation that will not stop another crime or prevent another tragedy, we are grateful that Governor Christie has finally ended the discussion on the worst of the bills by tossing them onto the scrap heap where they belong,”  said Scott L. Bach, executive director and official spokesperson of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, an official National Rifle Association state affiliate.

The attorney and former member of law enforcement said the three bills that the governor essentially vetoed were the most concerning.

“These vetoes put gun-banning politicians on notice that exploiting tragedy to advance an agenda against legal gun owners, instead of punishing violent criminals, will not be entertained.

“New Jersey already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation,” he said.

Anthony P. Colandro, master instructor and owner at Gun For Hire the largest firearms instruction school in New Jersey, said, “He threw us gun owners a few bones, but did pass some bills we opposed.”

Politics not safety are the governor’s motives, said the education and training committee member of the NRA. “Christie has his eye focused on the 2016 presidential election.”

At this point, he said he will not support Christie for re-election.  “I understand the need to be politically-moderate in New Jersey, but he really should switch to the Democrat party.”

Many gun owners are not pleased with the governor’s decision-making, he said. “The vast majority of our customers are thoroughly disgusted with Christie’s lack of support for the firearm community.”

Colandro, who is a board member of ANJRPC and NY2AS, said the governor should keep in mind that gun owners will take their disapproval to the voting booth. “Remember we are all law-abiding citizens and almost all of us are registered to vote.”



No more free lunch for the children of cheating public employees

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

One more example og the greed and the you owe me

mentality of public sector unions.

Sadly these people will not face any major consequences.

I promise you most other people would be paying restitution

and facing possible jail time.

TRENTON, N.J. – More than 100 New Jersey public employees are in hot water, and could lose their jobs, after a state investigation revealed they lied about their income to arrange free or reduced priced lunches for their children.

Lunch-bagThe Office of the State Comptroller found rampant fraud in 15 school districts involving 109 public employees or their relatives. The public employees, which included six current or former elected school board members, underreported their income by an estimated $13 million through a three year review period to game the National School Lunch Program for free or reduced meals, the Daily Recordreports.

“The investigation was focused on public employees because we were concerned about the ability of public employees to use their knowledge of the specific workings of the program and how it’s structured to obtain benefits for which they do not qualify,” Comptroller Matthew Boxer said Wednesday, according to the news site.

“What we found were people who worked for the government, lying to the government about how much the government is paying them, all to benefit from a program designed to help those in need.”

The National School Lunch Program spends about $11 billion a year to subsidize lunches for low income families, with eligibility for the program set at about $30,000 for a family of four to receive free lunch for their children, and a $41,000 maximum for reduced-priced lunches, the Daily Record reports.

The state of New Jersey received about $212 million in reimbursements from the National School Lunch Program for students last year, and the state’s taxpayers contributed an additional $5.5 million. The Comptroller’s investigation targeted 15 school districts: Long Branch, Toms River, Linden, Pennsauken, Winslow Township, Bayonne, Egg Harbor Township, Essex County Vocational, Millville, Newark, Paterson, Pemberton Township, Pleasantville, Trenton, and Union City.

“In mandated district self reviews of 3 percent of potentially ‘error-prone’ applications, in Long Branch 71 percent of those families did not fully qualify for reduced or free lunches. Toms River had 49 percent,” the news site reports. “The worst rate of false information: Trenton’s 95 percent. State investigators said there is no way to know if the discrepancy rate is the same for the entire applicant pools.”

The Comptroller told the news site that one case involved a supervisor at a state agency who underreported his or her household income by $97,500 a year, while another state agency supervisor underreported by $62,600 and said the mistake was due to her husband locking his pay stubs in his car.

In total there were a total of 109 cases referred to the state Attorney General’s Office for prosecution. We certainly hope those public employees lose their jobs, at the very least.

Gov. Chris Christie seems to see things the same way.

“Every public employee who lied about their income in order to get a free lunch to which they were not entitled should be fired and prosecuted,” Michael Drewniak, Christie’s spokesman, told the Daily Record. “Moreover, the state must revisit how it dispenses aid to school districts and ensure funding levels are based upon true need and performance-based standards, rather than a formula based on fraud, corruption and waste.”

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: