Records: Soros Fund Execs Funded Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John McCain, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham in 2016

Leave a comment

H/T Breitbarts Big Government.

This revelation does not surprise me in the least.

These people are vile and they are DemocRats in reality.



Employees of a hedge fund founded by the king of the Institutional Left, billionaire and Democratic Party mega-donor George Soros, donated tens of thousands of dollars to top Republicans who fought against President Donald Trump in 2016, donation records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show.

Soros Fund Management, a former hedge fund that serves now as an investment management firm, was founded by progressive billionaire George Soros in 1969. It has risen to become one of the most profitable hedge funds in the industry. Employees of the firm are heavily involved in backing political candidates giving millions upon millions to groups that were supporting failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidency.

But more importantly, perhaps, than the unsurprising giant lump sums of cash funneled into Democratic Party and Clinton coffers is the revelation thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics that employees of the Soros firm—now run by his son Robert Soros—pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of top anti-Trump Republicans over the course of 2016.

In total, executives with the Soros-founded company pushed $36,800 into the coffers of these GOP candidates just this past cycle. That does not include Super PACs or campaign committees, which saw tens of thousands of dollars more. While these numbers for Republicans pale in comparison to the millions upon millions poured into Democratic groups, causes, and candidates, it is significant that Soros executives are making a play inside the GOP. Perhaps even more significant is the type of Republican they aim to prop up: pro-amnesty, pro-open borders on trade, and generally speaking anti-Trump. A pattern emerges when looking at the policies of the Republicans that these Soros Fund Management executives support financially.

The biggest recipient of Soros-connected cash in the GOP was none other than House Speaker Paul Ryan, who repeatedly attempted to undermine Trump over the course of the election. According to the records available online, the Soros firm’s workers gave $10,800 to Ryan. Included in that are two separate May 2, 2016, donations from David Rogers, a then-employee of Soros Fund Management who lives in New York City. Rogers left the Soros Fund Management firm right around that time.

Bloomberg reported in late April 2016, just before these two separate donations to Ryan;

David Rogers and Joshua Donfeld, two portfolio managers at billionaire George Soros’s family office, are leaving the firm over disagreements with its new chief investment officer about the direction of global markets, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Rogers, a protege of Soros’s former chief investment strategist Stan Druckenmiller, managed a portfolio of about $3 billion at the $28 billion Soros Fund Management, said the people, who asked not to be named because the matter is private. Rogers, 38, made his name as a commodities trader, while Donfeld, 40, focuses on stock investing, said the people, adding that both men are expected to leave the family office next month.

Another two separate donations to Ryan came from Donfeld, both on May 2, 2016 and totaling $2,700 each. In total, that adds up to $10,800—between both Rogers and Donfeld, who were working for Soros Fund Management at the time—that they gave to Paul Ryan.

Ryan’s chief spokesman, Brendan Buck, has not responded to a Breitbart News’s inquiry about the donations from the Soros firm’s employees. But Ryan’s support for open borders when it comes to immigration and trade, and his backing of so-called “criminal justice reform” legislation, is in line with Soros’ worldview—and he regularly bashed Trump over the course of the 2016 election.

But he was hardly the only anti-Trump Republican who received cash from Soros Fund Management employees over the course of 2016. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a failed presidential candidate, received $3,500 from the firm’s employees, according to the Center for Responsive Politics data. That includes a $1,500 donation from Soros Fund Management executive Scott Bessent. Bessent has since left the firm to work at a different hedge fund, but “oversaw George Soros’s $30 billion fortune for the last four years” according to an early January 2016 article in Bloomberg. The other two donations to Graham from the firm’s employees—both worth $1,000, with one on March 17, 2015, and the other on July 29, 2015—came from Alexander Cohen, an executive with Soros Fund Management.

Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop argues that since Soros himself didn’t give Graham money that this is not controversial.

“George Soros has never given a penny to Lindsey Graham,” Bishop said in an email. “George Soros Fund Management has never given a penny to Lindsey Graham. These are donations from individuals who are employed by Soros Fund Management.”

Bishop compared this to an employee for Amway or for the Trump Organization making a donation to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign in 2016, something that would mean that employee–not Amway owners like the DeVos family or President Trump or his family–is the one making the donation. But Bishop does not deny that Graham did take a donation from Soros Fund Management employees.

Fellow failed presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) raked in $2,700, while other failed GOP presidential candidates Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also received $2,700 apiece from employees of the Soros firm.

Rubio’s $2,700 donation came from the aforementioned Los Angeles-based Donfeld on Jan. 22, 2016, a few months before, as Bloomberg reported, he and Rogers left the firm. Kasich’s $2,700 donation came from Bessent on Oct. 24, 2015. Bush’s $2,700 donation came on July 24, 2015, from David Murphy of Soros Fund Management. Murphy, according to his LinkedIN page, is a current “portfolio manager” at the firm.

Kasich’s spokesman Chris Schrimpf did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Bush’s spokeswoman Kristy Campbell.

A spokesman for Rubio, Matt Wolking, vociferously defended the senator, calling this story in Breitbart News—without having read it because it wasn’t written until long after he responded to inquiries about this matter—a “fake” story since Rubio didn’t get donations directly from George Soros himself and since hedge funds as companies cannot make donations to federal candidates. Breitbart News never alleged that Rubio did get donations directly from George Soros himself, but was inquiring with Rubio’s staff if the senator had a comment on why he did take donations from an executive at George Soros’s hedge fund. That fact, that Rubio did take cash from a Soros Fund Management executive—and that that fund was founded by George Soros—is not something Wolking, on Rubio’s behalf, challenges. So what his team is doing is creating a straw man argument to falsely claim this story is “fake.”

“This story is a fake,” Wolking told Breitbart News. “Senator Rubio has never received any contribution from George Soros. And he has never received any contribution from the Soros company because, among other things, companies can’t donate to federal candidates.”

But more importantly, a Rubio spokesman did admit that the FEC filing is correct—that Rubio took a $2,700 donation from Donfeld. The Rubio spokesman argues that Donfeld donated “almost exclusively” to GOP candidates over the years—which is mostly true, as Donfeld has given to people like Ryan, Rubio, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), and 2012 GOP Ohio Senate nominee Josh Mandel, among others. But Donfeld, whom the Rubio spokesman points out and as Breitbart News mentioned earlier in this piece, left the Soros firm after making this donation to Rubio, has donated to Democrats like Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), and a failed Democratic congressional candidate in Arizona’s 9th congressional district in 2012, Andrei Cherny.

Anti-Trump Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a failed one-time GOP presidential nominee from 2008, got $2,500 from an executive at the Soros firm, while Boehner—who resigned amid a coup from conservatives—raked in $2,600 from an executive at the Soros firm.

McCain’s $2,500 this cycle came from Donfeld of Soros Fund Management on Sept. 23, 2015. In previous cycles, McCain has taken cash directly from George Soros himself—a $1,000 donation on June 2, 1999—and from others with the firm, including a $1,000 donation from Bessent on March 13, 2000, a $2,300 donation from Soros Fund Management’s Michael Au on Dec. 27, 2007, a $1,000 donation from Duncan Hennes of Soros Fund Management on March 13, 2000, and a $2,300 donation from Soros Fund Management’s Joshua Berkowitz on Jan. 15, 2008. McCain’s spokeswoman, Julie Tarallo, has not responded to multiple requests for comment from Breitbart News.

Boehner’s $2,600 donation this cycle came from Bessent of Soros Fund Management on Feb. 12, 2015. The media relations department at Reynolds American, the tobacco company of which Boehner joined the board after resigning from Congress in 2015, has not responded to a request for comment on his behalf.

Now former Rep. Joe Heck (R-NV), the 2016 Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Nevada who lost his election after he withdrew his endorsement of Trump in the general election, also received $2,500 from an executive at Soros Fund Management, while Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)—a “Never Trump” congressman who voted for a third-party candidate because he refused to support the GOP nominee for president—received $1,000 from an executive at the Soros family firm.

Heck’s $2,500 donation on Sept. 29, 2016, came from Soros Fund Management’s Sender Cohen. According to the Israel on Campus Coalition, another organization for which Sender Cohen serves as director, he is a “Portfolio Manager, the Director of Research and member of the Management Committee at Soros Fund Management.” Heck’s spokesman from the campaign has not responded to a request for comment on Monday.

Curbelo’s $1,000 donation came on June 5, 2015, from Paul Sohn, a former executive with Soros Fund Management. Sohn had already left the firm earlier in the year, as it was reported on CNBC in January 2015 that Sohn had left Soros Fund Management after his involvement in a controversial investment. That is months before he reported on this June 2015 Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing for this Curbelo donation that his employer was Soros Fund Management. A Curbelo spokeswoman has not responded to a request for comment.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), the House GOP conference chairwoman, got $1,000 from an official with Soros Fund Management. She is responsible for unleashing the independent and wildly unsuccessful general election candidate Evan McMullin—whom Trump has called “McMuffin” in jest after his failure—upon the world. McMullin, who turned out to fail fantastically on election day despite media fanfare about his candidacy, was previously a McMorris Rodgers staffer as chief policy director for nearly two years in the House GOP conference before his whimsical bid at the presidency that went nowhere and had essentially zero impact on the race. Rodgers’ $1,000 donation this cycle came from Alexander Cohen of Soros Fund Management on March 13, 2015. A spokesman for McMorris Rodgers has not responded to a request for comment on this matter.

The only few Republicans who received Soros Fund Management cash but did support Trump were Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY), and Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA). Royce received $2,500 from the firm, Johnson and Grassley each received $1,000, and Donovan received $300. Johnson’s $1,000 donation came on April 15, 2016, from Alexander Cohen of Soros Fund Management, as did Grassley’s, which came on Oct. 13, 2015. Donovan’s $300 donation came from Christopher Rich of Soros Fund Management on April 20, 2015. Royce’s $2,500 donation came from Sender Cohen of Soros Fund Management on March 31, 2016. Spokespersons for Johnson, Donovan and Royce have not responded to Breitbart News’s requests for comment. A spokesperson for Grassley did not have a comment.


An Open Letter to Sen. Marco Rubio

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

USA – -( When I read this morning that Marco Rubio had said that Ted Cruz is the only conservative left in the Republican presidential primary race, it reinforced my decision to write Rubio an open letter urging his endorsement of Sen. Cruz.

Rubio didn’t go so far as to endorse Cruz, but he could have said nothing at all. Or he could have said, “We have to beat Donald Trump, and only Ted Cruz has a chance to do so.”

Instead, he specifically said Cruz is the only conservative left in the race, by which he sent a signal that John Kasich is not suitably conservative and that he, Rubio, cares deeply about conservatism. That is significant and gratifying.

Perhaps Rubio didn’t endorse Cruz outright because of the bitterness of their rivalry prior to their unwritten alignment to turn their focus on Trump some weeks ago. Maybe he is concerned that his millions of supporters would be perplexed by a sudden gesture of forgiveness and unity.

But Rubio’s affirmation of Cruz’s conservatism and his inspiring exit speech would be a nice predicate for a full-throated endorsement at some point in the near future.

I remember commenting before one of the debates that I wished that Cruz and Rubio could avoid getting bogged down yet again in a heated, confusing debate over the minutiae of amnesty, Spanish-language interviews and poison-pill legislation. It led to reciprocal charges of lying, increased polarization between Rubio and Cruz supporters, decreased emphasis on other important issues, and — worst of all — a virtual pass for Trump.

I understand that these issues are important and had to be addressed, but the discussions reached diminishing returns early on, and both candidates’ supporters became more entrenched and convinced that the other was being deceitful. It was painful to watch, and I am sure I’m not the only one who just wanted it to go away. By the time Cruz and Rubio had achieved a de facto truce, Trump was well on his way to gobbling up victories, despite his woeful deficiencies and embarrassing debate performances.

If Twitter is any indication, many Rubio supporters remain furious and unforgiving toward Cruz. Many Cruz supporters are outraged that Rubio, in their view, handed Missouri, Illinois and North Carolina to Trump by insisting on staying in the race with the hope of winning his home state of Florida even though the polls indicated he didn’t have a chance.

I’m frankly tired of the selfishness on all sides, placing our own negative desire to vent our emotions ahead of the national interest. It’s time for a truce — an end to the gloating from one side and recriminations from the other — and it’s past time for healing if we are to have any realistic chance of nominating a true conservative to run against Hillary Clinton. We’ve all been angry at times during this race, but it’s time to bury the hatchet and unite.

I would first appeal to my fellow Cruz supporters to acknowledge and applaud Rubio’s wonderful withdrawal speech, in which he eloquently expressed his passionate love for America and for the American idea. You may think he’s naive or worse on the important immigration issue, but I don’t think you can fairly question his genuine patriotism — and his unapologetic love for Jesus Christ and his humble deference to God’s glorious plan for all of us. Remember, he made these comments on the way out.

To Rubio, I would say:

“Sir, thank you for those inspiring words. You fought valiantly and have now withdrawn. Even if some prefer John Kasich to Ted Cruz, Kasich has no path to the nomination, even in a contested convention, and the longer he stays and the more support he receives the greater the chance that Donald Trump will be the nominee. Let’s not pretend that any other conclusion is reasonable. I am convinced you still command a great deal of respect, not just among your supporters but with many others, and if you choose to pursue it, you have a bright political future. I respectfully implore you not just to enthusiastically endorse Ted Cruz but to strongly urge your supporters to do so, as well. Yes, you have great influence over the delegates you earned, but you could have even more influence in initiating the healing process that must occur between your supporters and those of Sen. Cruz, which, I believe, partially preceded your respective candidacies, as the lines began to form during the government shutdown debates. Your leadership in bringing about harmony among conservatives is imperative if we are to nominate a conservative this year, but it is also critical in strengthening the movement against irreversible migration toward nationalist populism. Sen. Rubio, you have already shown that you are not a fair-weather lover of America, so please go further and make a decision to proactively make a difference in the outcome of this election, for this is our last best chance to reverse the galloping expansion of government that is smothering our liberties.”

“And please, don’t just nominally endorse Sen. Cruz; join Carly Fiorina and others and get out on the campaign trail and bring your unique talents to the advancement of the Cruz candidacy. America will thank you — and be forever in your debt.”

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


1 Comment

Hat Tip Firebird@SHES RIGHT. 

I am putting up the comment I made about these videos.

      I say due to the excess water drinking, profuse sweating and lip licking my two cents say it is some form of stimulant.   

WATCH THIS!!!!  He reaches in his pocket and brings out the pill – and pops it in his mouth at 0:19

In case you missed it – here is him popping a pill in the CNN debate on 2/25/16

Op-ed: Fractured GOP’s uniter? Mitt Romney is still in the wings

1 Comment

This is from The Salt Lake Tribune.

I voted for Romney in 2012, I sure as Hell will not vote for him again.

It would not be much of a surprise if the Establishment Republicans try to put in Mitt.

The author of this article is wrong  George Washington was born in 1732 and not 1753.

It was George Washington’s 284th birthday.

Plan B seemed simple enough.

Before George Washington’s 263rd birthday the field of Republican presidential candidates would dwindle down to a precious two — most likely moderates John Kasich and Jeb Bush. Marco Rubio would be the outlier. Donald Trump and his triple comb-over would be but a comic reminder of just how ridiculous things could have become. The mainstream would be firmly in control. Popular vote, not party bosses and brass knuckle dickering, would have shown the door to all the one-trick conservatives and sputtering demagogues.

Instead, the primary in South Carolina leaves the GOP awash in fears that the anti-establishment tsunami sweeping through both parties could carry Trump to the nomination and into the White House.

Such anxieties are premature. The numbers are on plan. Voters are collectively confirming that moderates are the base of the party of Rockefeller and Reagan. The rub is no announced candidate can win the nomination outright, which means the nominee will come by way of negotiation at the party’s convention in July. The process could trigger internecine warfare the likes of which the GOP has not experienced since 1964, when doctrinaire conservatives seized control and propelled the party to its worst defeat ever.

As troubling, none of them can beat Hillary Clinton in November. She is smart, remarkably resilient, and vetted under fire at home and abroad. She has even politely endured the flailing arms and frantic rhetoric of Bernie Sanders.

This is not what Plan B anticipated.

The 2016 election was said to belong to the GOP, never mind the fact that the party has been routinely blowing them since 2008, when Sen. John McCain selected absurd Sarah Palin as his running mate. Trump is this cycle’s Palin. While angry party members and independents love him (like they “Feel The Bern”), the mainstream resists. A recent poll in Utah, the most reliably Republican state in the nation, revealed that a Clinton v. Trump general election would likely be a dead heat. Presciently “Other,” Utah’s faceless third choice, fared just as well.

In Utah, “Other” is a placeholder for their new neighbor Willard Mitt Romney. These dreamers are not alone. In November, a Boston Globe poll claimed Romney would win New Hampshire with 36 percent of the vote were he a candidate, relegating Trump a very distant second place at 14 percent.

Will the Republican muddle persuade Romney (or attract a fresh face like the billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg)? Most likely, party leaders are already turning to the vetted, reasonably well-liked but always coquettish Romney.

Fully aware that some party faithful believe he is too rich, too disingenuous, too good-looking, and too Mormon likely convinced him to avoid running a third time. Yet, he coyly admits that his wife Ann favors it, despite her ongoing struggle with multiple sclerosis. Their five sons are evenly divided — two approve, two oppose and one is undecided.

The record shows that Mitt Romney craves being needed almost as much as he yearns for redemption.  He was the congenial and focused young leader the founders of Bain & Company drafted to right their off-kilter partnership. Later he mounted an impressive attempt to dislodge the iconic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. He rebounded, by rescuing squeaky clean Salt Lake City from the taint of corruption brought on by the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and graft at the highest levels of the International Olympic Committee. Then he rushed home to Boston to be redeemed by the liberal Commonwealth that had rejected him just eight years earlier.

Perhaps his newest neighbors in leafy Cottonwood and his summer friends around Lake Winnipesaukee foresaw another Romney opportunity as they sensed disarray in the party. But at this point, don’t expect him to mount a floor fight at the convention. In 2008, he ducked a battle that would have secured him the vice presidential nomination that, instead, went to Palin.

Favorable polling numbers a year ago almost drew him in. His eyebrows raised again in November when the Boston Globe poll showed him trouncing everyone in New Hampshire. And he’s been thinking about it ever since. His chief fund-raiser Spencer Zwick, whom Mitt regards as a sixth son, has long insisted that Romney would answer a call to unite the party. Begging and pleading could do the trick.

If redeemed, the stage will be arranged as he likes it, and just in time for the authentic moderate Romney to emerge. From the outset, that was Mitt’s Plan A.

Glenn Beck endorses Cruz, tears into Trump

1 Comment

This is from The Hill.

Glenn Beck is a self-aggrandizing shill.

Along with losing his eyesight, he has lost the few active brain cells he had.

If he ever was a Conservative he sure is not one now.

Conservative commentator Glenn Beck on Saturday endorsed Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz for the White House.

Beck compared Cruz to the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, and gave him a compass that belonged to the first one, George Washington.

“I’m taking a very big risk here and gambling on it, but this is how much I believe in Ted Cruz,” Beck said at a Cruz rally in Ankeny, Iowa.

“I’d like you to hold onto that,” he said, passing Cruz the compass, “to make sure your compass is square and you stay true” to your values.

Beck said he had never endorsed a presidential candidate in his 40 years of broadcasting, but he made an exception because of the urgency of the moment.

He said Cruz is the only candidate in the field who can defeat GOP front-runner Donald Trump in the Iowa caucuses.

“I like [Sen.] Marco Rubio – I’ve had real problems with his policies, especially on the NSA – but I like him, he’s a decent man,” Beck said. “Ben Carson – really good, decent, honorable, God-fearing man. I just don’t think he’s ready – I wish he was, but I don’t think he’s ready.

“[Sen.] Rand Paul, strong on the Constitution and a good guy,” he continued. “But I will tell you this – those guys aren’t going to win Iowa. They might win down the road, they’re not going to win Iowa.

“And if Donald Trump wins, it’s going to be a snowball to hell.”

The conservative media magnate took several shots at Trump, comparing him to a progressive in the likeness of President Obama.

“The other guy has said he hasn’t done anything in his life that actually makes him feel like he should ask forgiveness from God,” he said of Trump. “The hubris of that is astonishing, as if for the last eight years we have watched a narcissist in the Oval Office and it has meant nothing to us.”

Beck said Trump owed America an apology for supporting the Wall Street bailout during the financial crisis.

“It’s up to him to ask God’s forgiveness, but I would like to suggest to you that the man owes America an apology, and he should ask conservatives for America for forgiveness for supporting billions of dollars of bailouts, for pulling for the nationalization of our banks,” he said.

He said he even prefers Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” running in the Democratic presidential primary, to Trump.

“Honesty, faith and truth are basic requirements. And quite honestly, I have to tell you, this probably isn’t going to go over very well, that’s why I like Bernie Sanders,” he said. “Bernie Sanders is like, ‘Yep, I’m a socialist.’

“I can actually sit at a table with a man who says, ‘Yes, I’m a socialist, and yes, I don’t like what we are doing, we should be more like Denmark,’ ” he added.

“What we really need in America is enough of these politicians who are telling us what we want to hear, hiding behind fancy language, and actually have a debate between a constitutionalist like Ted Cruz and a socialist like Bernie Sanders.”

Cruz praised Beck as a “fearless and reliable conservative.”

“Glenn has been a relentless fighter for liberty, for limited government, and for restoring the country we all love so much,” he said in a statement released by his campaign after the endorsement.

“His powerful voice and passion played a critical role in my Senate victory and I am now proud to have him in our corner in 2016.”


You Better Listen to What Marco Rubio Is Saying About the Assault on Christianity


This is from Rush

While the left is attacking Christianity, they will not be able to destroy Christianity.

Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.


RUSH: This is the Christian Broadcasting Network, CBN, chief political correspondent David Brody interviewing Marco Rubio late yesterday.  Question:  “Does your deep faith drive public policy decisions on social issues like traditional marriage.”

RUBIO:  We are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech, because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.  So what’s the next step after that?  After they’re done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech and that’s a real and present danger.

RUSH:  Do you think Rubio’s got a point there?  You better. I tell you, you better not sweep this away, folks. You better not think this is a little bit over the top.  He is right on the money.  In fact, I would even go further.  I think mainstream Christianity is the target and has been for I can’t tell you how long.  Before I was born.  Christianity has been the biggest enemy of the American left — well, any left.  Organized religion in general, but Christianity is the number one enemy of these people.

You notice they’ve made friends with militant Islam.  The left will not stand for any criticism of militant Islam, right?  You start drawing cartoons of the prophet, they’re the first to jump on your case, right?  Democrats and the left, they are out condemning any criticism of Islam.  They’ve sidled up.  Why?  Well, Islam has an enemy.  In their mind, their enemy’s Christianity.  So there’s a commonality there.  And I don’t care — folks, maybe this is another one of those things you’re just not supposed to say, but I’m sorry, it’s undeniable.

Okay.  Okay.  Tell me I’m wrong when I say that the left has formed an accord with Islam, tell me I’m wrong.  Militant Islam says you can’t draw pictures of the prophet.  The Democrat Party:  You can’t draw pictures of prophet, you can’t criticize Islam.  And they go out of their way not to.  We can’t call ’em terrorists.  You know the drill.  Christianity, it’s open season.  You can say anything, you can do anything, you can mock anything.  And Christians are just supposed to take it, and the reason we’re supposed to take it is ’cause we’re the majority.  The majority has to understand minorities feel offended, always hit on and ripped apart, so forth. You just gotta take it, part of being the majority.

And that is a relevant fact.  I mean, majorities are hated by the people in the minority.  The problem for us is that the minorities that we’re talking about here, most of them are really tiny, and yet they’re winning.  They’re bullying their way around, it’s incredible.  And Marco Rubio here is right on the money.  Look at Ireland and gay marriage.  What was the final vote there?  Was it 60%?  (interruption)  Over 60% approving.

Now, I have to tell you something.  As best I’ve been able to ascertain, Ireland just didn’t do this on its own.  There was a lot of American money moving the issue. There were a lot of American activists over there pushing the issue.  Nevertheless, they won, they made it happen.  And the pope, I don’t think — somebody correct me if I’m wrong — I don’t think the pope said anything about it.

Let me tell you where is next, then.  Italy is going to be next, by design and on purpose.  Gay marriage forces will target Italy, and by targeting Italy, they will target Rome.  And they’ll also go to Milan; fashion central is already the way paved there.  Maybe a little bit Florence.  Might even mess with Venice, but certainly Rome and the Vatican.  Marco Rubio: Christianity facing a real and present danger in the US due to a growing acceptance for gay marriage.

It’s not just gay marriage by the way.  It goes back to this Gallup poll celebrating the fall of morality, celebrating the fall of conventional morality.  It’s not just gay marriage.  It’s all kinds of things that constitute the fall of age-old morality, which the left has targeted as long as I’ve been around.  So Rubio said, “We’re at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”

You will support it.  And not only will you support it, you will embrace it and you will love it.  It’s their own version of Sharia, if you want to know what Sharia is like.  Just like with Obamacare.  You will participate in Obamacare, and you will like it, and you will promote it, and you will not criticize it.  You will support gay marriage.  You will promote it.  You will love it, and you will accept it.  Anything less and you will be attacked.

Rubio said the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech.  And that’s a real and present danger.  Now, he said earlier this year also in an interview with the Christian Broadcast Network that it’s ridiculous and absurd to believe that there’s a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.  “Fifty-eight percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, according to a Quinnipiac University poll earlier this year.  Fifty-nine percent of Republicans are opposed to it.”  Companion story — (interruption) what is this?  Oh, the pope did weigh in.  Oh, I’m sorry, it’s not the pope.  Well, okay, the pope hasn’t weighed in.

I said something earlier today — I got a note from somebody about this, about the next target area for the militant gay marriage crowd being Italy.  And pope’s gonna have to speak up.  And I stuttered and I stumbled, I thought, “Do I really want to tell ’em what I really think?”  Don’t be surprised if this pope eventually comes out and supports it as part of the global warming agenda.  It’s a different pope here.  He surprises you issue to issue.

Anyway, from the UK Guardian, the headline:  “Vatican Says Ireland Gay Marriage Vote is ‘Defeat for Humanity’ — Vatican diplomat seen as second only to the pope insists Saturday’s referendum result shows ‘the church must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation.’ A senior Vatican official has attacked the legalisation of gay marriage in Ireland. The referendum that overwhelmingly backed marriage equality last weekend was a ‘defeat for humanity,’ he claimed.”

This marriage equality, what is wrong with that?  Do you people on the left really think that whatever number of thousands of years ago some rich, fat, white guy sat around and defined marriage specifically to exclude homosexuals just because he hated ’em and wanted to discriminate against them?  And there has been thus, ever since, a quest for marriage inequality?  Is that what you really think?  Marriage equality?  Marriage has a definition, or it did.  Words mean things.  Marriage is a union of a man and a woman, pure and simple.  That’s what it is.

Now, if you’re gonna allow people of the same sex to get married, you’d better come up with a different term because that’s not what marriage is if words means things.  And words do mean things.  And if you’re gonna change the definition of marriage, then you better be open-minded and permit any change under the umbrella to happen.  If marriage is no longer the marriage of a man and a woman, the union of a man and a woman, then what is it?  “Well, Mr. Limbaugh, marriage is now a union of a man or a woman, or it can be a union of a woman and a woman or a union of a man and a man.”  Oh, okay.

How about this?  How about marriage can be the union of two men and one woman.

“Well, no.”

Well, why not?  You’ve blown the definition up already.  Why can’t it be whatever anybody wants to do, as long as they love somebody.  Words mean things.  Institutions are institutions for a reason.  They’re not designed by a bunch of people who hope to discriminate against people.  The roots of marriage are rooted in decency and goodness and love and child rearing and all of these things that are supposedly to aid society in remaining cohesive and to propagate the race for a whole host of reasons that are important, including bloodlines and everything else.

But once you blow that up, it isn’t marriage.  Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.  Look it up anywhere.  And this whole notion of marriage equality, as though the designers of marriage did so purposely to discriminate?  There wasn’t any discrimination involved here. There wasn’t any hate. It wasn’t as though people devised an institution that specifically and for that reason denied access by others.  It’s not what the purpose of it was.

You know, you people on the left, not everything that happens has had you in the crosshairs.  Frankly, you haven’t been on that many people’s minds through the years.  We haven’t created all these traditions and institutions to exclude you.  It’s always been for other reasons that are far loftier.  They come along and claim that it’s a discriminatory institution rooted in hatred and bigotry and inequality and so forth.

And that’s how you get the young people to support it.  I mean, young people of course embrace the notion of equality and fairness and sameness, and if you go tell these people that just don’t have enough years lived in order to have sufficient experience, if you go portray marriage as something that discriminates, well, they don’t want to be a part of anything that discriminates, ’cause that’s not fair, that’s not nice, and that’s how they’ve done it.

But in the process they’ve blown up the definition of the word, and now it can mean anything anybody wants it to mean if they’re willing to make a cause out of it.  And it’s beginning to happen, predictably so.  I haven’t seen any official — maybe it’s happened and I just missed it — but has there been an official redefinition of the term that now specifies that marriage is either the union of a man and a woman or the union of a man and a man or the union of a woman and a woman?  Has that been codified somewhere?

No, what’s happened is, marriage is not just a union of a man and a woman, and the reason it isn’t is because it’s unfair and it’s discriminatory and it’s unequal.  And all of that is irrelevant to marriage and why it exists and how it came to be and what its purpose is.  But you wouldn’t know that if you’re a young Millennial and you’ve grown up surrounded by never ending assaults on how that’s unfair and that’s discriminatory and that’s inequality and you join the quest to make everything the same, everybody the same, everything equal, and, you know, bye-bye individuality and everything that comes with it.

So, anyway, the Vatican says Ireland gay marriage vote defeat for humanity, but the pope didn’t say it.  It was the biggest diplomat, Vatican diplomat, senior Vatican official.  Cardinal Pietro Parolin: “I was deeply saddened by the result. The church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelisation. I think that you cannot just talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but of a defeat for humanity.”

And up next, after the break, leftists push Italy to follow Ireland on same-sex marriage.  And it’s a direct assault on the Catholic Church, mark my words.  It’s next.


RUSH: Here is the Oxford, the old Oxford English Dictionary, I should say new definition of marriage.  Listen to this.  (laughing) This is pathetic.  Classic, but pathetic.  Definition of marriage in the New Oxford English Dictionary.  Quote, “The condition of being a husband or wife.”  Marriage is now a condition. It’s a disease. It’s an assignment.  It’s “the condition of being husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.  Matrimony.  The term is now sometime used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”

That’s what counts.  That’s the money quote in this stupid definition.  “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  I wonder if you go back and get a dictionary ten years ago, you look at the definition of marriage, I wonder what you’d find, and it wouldn’t have any of this gibberish in it.  “The condition of being a husband or wife.  The relation between persons married to each other.”  That’s what marriage is, the relation between people married to each other?  I didn’t think you could put the word in the definition.

We’re trying to define marriage, so how do you define marriage by using the word “married”?  That doesn’t help anybody to understand it.  And then matrimony.  Matrimony is another acceptable definition of marriage.  That would not help the people in Rio Linda to know what it is.  Nope.  You have to get down to, “The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex.”  How is that even marriage?  Long-term relationships between persons of the same sex?  Why can’t you just take the old definition of marriage that used to be what it was, defining a relationship, matrimony, a man and a woman and just say it’s a same thing for two men or two women?  Why obfuscate, why all this dancing around here?

Source: NRA Didn’t Invite Rand Paul to Annual Convention Because He’s Too Strong on Second Amendment

1 Comment

This is from Freedom OutPost.

I will be following this story and trying to find out if this is true or not.

If it is true, I will let my NRA membership expire.


Now the true colors of the National Rifle Association are beginning to show. The NRA has invited Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, along with Governors Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, all seeking the GOP nomination for president in 2016 to their annual convention. However, Rand Paul and Chris Christie were not invited. Christie wasn’t for obvious reasons, but Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) wasn’t because he’s just too dang strong on the Second Amendment.

The Daily Beast reports that Paul did request to be invited, but was denied:

However, a source with knowledge of Paul’s dealings with the NRA said the claim that he did not request an invitation to the convention was “not true.”

Further, the source said, “Is that really how invitations work?”

Paul has an A-rating from the NRA, but the objective grading of his gun-rights credentials has little to do with the politics of the pro-gun lobby, wherein his involvement with extremist groups tied to his father, former congressman and libertarian-icon Ron Paul, has not won him many friends.

“Sometimes the NRA doesn’t like it when people are bigger defenders of the issue than they are,” the source suggested. “They also don’t like it that he helps other, stronger groups like the Gun Owners of America and the National Association for Gun Rights.”

Paul has been known to work largely with National Association for Gun Rights. In fact, he’s authored numerous fundraising pleas for the organization, many of which this author has been the recipient.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

NAGR President Dudley Brown said Wednesday that Mr. Paul is the only current or likely 2016 candidate affiliated with his organization. Mr. Paul remains a NAGR member, Mr. Brown said, but added that it is unclear if NAGR will continue to use Mr. Paul’s name in fundraising appeals now that he has officially launched a presidential campaign.

The Kentucky senator, Mr. Brown said, is an excellent fundraiser for NAGR.

“It was no secret that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is 93% more pro-gun than the NRA,” Mr. Brown said.

Mr. Brown slammed the NRA as a tool of the Washington insiders Mr. Paul has focused his campaign on opposing.

“I’ve been a gun lobbyist for 22 years and there’s never been a point at which we did not have tension,” he said. “We’re younger, we’re hungrier and we care less about the cocktail parties in Washington, D.C.”

Whose fault is it that GOA and the NAGR are more principled than the NRA?

Speaking of Gun Owners of America, GOA president Larry Pratt told Freedom Outpost that he believed this non-invitation was “payback” for Paul’s endorsements of NAGR.

“I think this does have more to do with the fact that he (Paul) has signed a lot of fundraising letters for NAGR,” Pratt said. “The NRA doesn’t like them. They’ve been kind of nipping at NRA’s heels, so this is payback.”

GOA has received endorsements from Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul. In fact, when one visits GOA’s website, they’ read Paul’s endorsement, “The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington.”

As for Paul, he recently told Dave Weigel, “The interesting thing is that there’s probably no greater advocate for the Second Amendment in Congress than myself. To not be invited, probably, will serve more to cast aspersions on their group than it would on me. Because my record’s pretty clear. It probably looks a little bit petty for them not to invite a major candidate because I raised money for other Second Amendment groups.”

The NRA has a long history of compromising on the Second Amendment.

Both NAGR and GOA have been effective organizations in the fight against more infringement by the federal government against the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms than the NRA, often acting as bumpers to make the NRA not compromise. Evidence of this was in the 2013 defeat of the Manchin-Toomey gun control defeat, as well as the numerous other attacks by socialists in Congress against the Second Amendment in the wake of the Sandy Hook incident.

As for the NRA, the organization was contacted for a statement, but as of the publishing of this article, they have failed to return our call. However, Politico does claim:

The National Rifle Association says the only reason Sen. Rand Paul didn’t get an invitation to its annual convention in Nashville this weekend was its inability to accommodate all the 2016 GOP presidential hopefuls.

Seeing as two of the candidates invited don’t meet the requirements of being natural born citizens, I just don’t buy that excuse.


Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.


At the beginning of 2013, Obama and his Democrat party were in firm control of the nation’s political terrain. Obama had won a convincing reelection by again boosting turnout of his young and minority voter base. Contrary to expectations, the Democrats gained two seats in the Senate, extending their control of the chamber, and made modest gains in the House. The Republicans, after squandered an almost unprecedented opportunity, were have something of an existential crisis. What a difference a year makes.

Not only did 2013 see a resurgence of the Republican party, it provided a number of political surprises throughout the year. The following were the biggest surprises of the year.

5. The Collapse of Marco Rubio

At the beginning of the year, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) seemed the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016. A poll of Iowa Republicans in January showed him with a commanding lead with a crowded field, running ahead of his closest competitor, Rep. Paul Ryan, by over eight points. In December, however, Rubio polled 8th in Iowa, garnering support from just 6% of Republicans in the state. In national polls, he polls around 6th place. It is a breathtaking political collapse.

Rubio’s political fortunes were reversed by a fundamental misreading of the electorate on immigration reform. There is a robust case to be made for reforming our nation’s immigration system. The approach adopted by the Senate and promoted by Rubio, however, is arguably worse than the current system. It provides immediate legalization for 11 million illegal immigrants and effectively does almost nothing to secure the border. Even the modest security provisions in the bill would likely be ignored by the Obama Administration, which has ignored existing Congressional directives related to the border.

Like amnesty legislation in 1986, it provides legalization with a promise of security that will likely never materialize. Also like the deal in 1986, it will likely provide an incentive for even greater illegal immigration in the future. The GOP establishment and its business allies may still approve immigration reform in 2014, but Rubio’s political standing is unlikely to return.

4. The ObamaCare Rollout Disaster

I always expected ObamaCare to ultimately be a failure. I did not anticipate, however, the smoldering wreckage that was its rollout. The government simply had to build a website with no more complexity than Amazon or any other e-commerce site. It also had hundreds of millions of dollars and three years to build it. Even the government didn’t seem incompetent enough to screw that up.

Oh, but it did.

Even more surprising was the very slow response of the Obama Administration to the obvious disaster. Subsequent reports have detailed several warnings to government officials that the website wasn’t ready to launch, wasn’t secure, and wasn’t even accessible. Did no one take these remotely seriously? Did they think unicorns and pixie dust would mask these failures?

In October, in the aftermath of the government shutdown, Democrats led the generic congressional ballot by eight points. In the wake of the ObamaCare rollout disaster, Republicans have gained an unprecedented 13 points and now lead Democrats by 5.

3. The GOP’s War on Its Base

Inexplicably, the Republican party establishment reacted to its defeats in 2012 by declaring war on its base, conservative voters. Party officials and strategists blamed their defeat on the “tea party” and conservatives, who presumably turned off more “moderate” voters. The problem with this narrative is that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, won Independents by five points. Republicans lost because the Democrats did a better job turning out their base voters. For the past two elections, the GOP has given its nomination to the most “moderate” candidate running. It is clearly not a recipe for success.

In the past few years, there have been some candidates with strong tea party backing who in the end were flawed. There have been far more “establishment” candidates who also lost. Todd Aiken won the GOP primary in Missouri because the tea party was divided between two other candidates. Richard Lugar had the edge over eventual nominee Richard Mourdock, until it was revealed that Lugar didn’t have an actual residence in his state. At least make a pretense of representing a state. At least six “establishment” and “electable” Senate candidates, enough to secure a majority, went down to defeat in 2012.

The party and its business allies, however, have vowed to challenge conservatives in primaries next year. The GOP establishment will no doubt be able to raise millions to wage this pyrrhic war, but it is hard to see how it will have the “boots on the ground” to win elections. It may very well spark its own destruction as a national political force.

2. Obama’s Irrelevance

Congress ended its year passing the first budget agreement in five years. Most surprising, though, is that it accomplished this because Obama wasn’t part of the negotiations. The Democrats’ lead negotiator, Sen. Patty Murray, intentionally kept the White House out of the talks.

It was a dramatic turn around for a President who won a solid reelection just a year ago. At the start of 2013, Obama’s approval rating was nearly 60%. By a combination of political miscalculation and detachment, Obama has squandered all the political capital he won through his reelection.

He has made high-profile pushes for gun control, immigration reform, climate change and a higher minimum wage. Progress on these issues is arguably harder now than it was before Obama made them priorities.

In foreign policy, an area where second term presidents generally focus, Obama has led a withdrawal of the US from the world stage. America was a passive observer to the dramatic events in Egypt. Our absence allowed Russia to reassert its influence in the region for the first time in decades. China is expanding its influence throughout the world. Obama drew a line in the sand on Syria and then quickly retreated. His outreach to Iran has angered almost all of our allies. They don’t trust us and our enemies don’t fear us.

1. Obama’s Political Resilience

With his approval ratings at the lowest of his Presidency, it may seem counterintuitive to talk about Obama’s political resilience. Consider, however, what he has withstood this year.

We have learned that the government is engaged in comprehensive surveillance of Americans. The NSA tracks our web activity and even keeps records on every phone call we make. Worse, the Administration has lied about its activities repeatedly. The government even targeted reporters it suspected of working with government whistleblowers.

We also learned that the government was using the IRS to target its political opponents. This targeting went beyond supervision of tax-exempt groups and included audits of major Republican donors. When a cancer patient went public with the news that he was losing his health insurance as a result of ObamaCare, he quickly learned he was being audited by the IRS.

PoliticFact names Obama’s oft repeated promise that people can keep their health insurance the “lie of the year.” Millions of Americans have lost their health insurance as a result of his signature legislative achievement. The cancellation of these policies and problems with the law’s implementation raise the real possibility that fewer Americans will have insurance when ObamaCare takes full effect on January 1st.

I could literally run through a half-dozen more issues, any one of which would cripple most presidencies. That’s even before considering the anemic economic “recovery.” Obama does currently have the lowest approval rating of any 2-term President, at this point, since Richard Nixon. Still, between 40-42% of the public approves of the job he is doing. How is this even possible?

The most surprising thing about 2013 is that Obama has absorbed more negative shocks than almost all modern-day presidents combined and yet is still supported by only a little less than half the public. Even his currently low approval ratings defy gravity.

Something’s got to give next year.


It’s Time to Fire Mitch McConnell

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

It is also time to fire John McCain, Lindsey Graham,

Dan Coats just name a few RINO’s.


Nothing personal, but I… who am I kidding? This is personal – we need to fire Mitch McConnell.

I’m all done saying, “nothing personal” when it comes to ridding the Congress of Republicans who have stabbed conservatives and the people who have trusted them to represent them in the back. How much more personal can you get when the Republican leaders in the Senate are not just enabling the usurping of the Constitution and the resulting destruction of our liberty, but in fact engaging in actions which directly conflict with the best interests of the Republic?

You’re damn right it’s personal and Mitch McConnell has got to go. And not just from leadership – he needs to be primaried and booted from office, put out to pasture and start that lobbying firm he’s been corralling for the past 30 years. Think that’s harsh? Hold on:

Fire Mitch McConnellMitch McConnell just couldn’t help himself at no less a critical moment than the proposal to end the government shutdown he orchestrated with his partner in pork Harry Reid, when he tacked on a nearly $3 billion earmark for a project in Kentucky. I don’t care about any details of this earmark – it wasn’t the time to be slushing money anywhere, Senator. One day McConnell says in public that Harry Reid may be remembered as “the worst leader of the Senate ever,” then cuts a fat-cat deal the next, calling Reid; “my good friend the majority leader.” Then they both lean in for an extended bout of whispering and giggling over screwing the American public so easily.

No doubt you’ll be campaigning for a ban on earmarks soon, Senator – because you’re typical.

You’re the problem. You gotta go. Get.Out.

Mitch McConnell: You’re corrupt, squishy and probably going to lose your seat to a Democrat because the people of Kentucky are on to you: A recent Public Policy Polling survey showed him tied in a hypothetical race against Alison Lundergan Grimes, Kentucky’s Democratic secretary of state, weeks before she announced she was running on July 1. It’s clear what’s needed, folks – a solid conservative to throw this windbag turncoat to the curb before he can even get to the general election.

Remember when the Hollywood actress was rumored to be running against you? A real conservative would not have to do anything to beat a dopey liberal actress in Kentucky – but not you. You had to gather your brain trust and smear political powerhouse Ashley Judd, who was running a mere 4 points behind you in the polls. What?

That’s right – the star of “Monster” was scaring the Shiite out of your RINO behind and your answer to defeating her was: A. Re-assert your well-held conservative principals to rally the base; B. Talk about your record; C. Speak on the importance of the Constitution; or D. Get your aides together and discuss a strategy to paint her as “emotionally unbalanced”?

If you guessed “D” you win a cookie and a free ticket to the “Mitch McConnell’s a Jackass Too! Party” the day after the Kentucky’s 2014 primary election. Ashley Judd was never going to be a senator from Kentucky, Mitch old buddy. I don’t care how much money she raised from Tinsel Village, it was never going to happen. But you’re such an unpopular Senator (some polls say the most unpopular in the nation) that it doesn’t surprise me you’d stoop to demonizing the talented – and may I say – pretty damn hot, Ms. Judd like that.

Do you have any clue the kind of jerk-off you would have been thought of as if she had actually run and you would have run a campaign like that? She’s a rape victim you idiot – what kind of dumbness are you surrounded with? Have you ever had an extended conversation with a female not in your family, under 65? That shiite don’t fly, friendo..

But like I said, it doesn’t surprise me when we take a look at how you’ve abused the conservative Americans who have honored you by sending you to Washington – only to have you collude with Democrats clearly in the act of ruining this nation. They are taking this place apart one tradition at a time and you are not just standing by – you’re helping. How dare you bad mouth Senator Cruz and work behind the scenes to undermine the efforts of patriots like Mike Lee? Oh, you got the endorsement of Marco Rubio, so you’re the Tea Party guy now? No, you’re the guy being endorsed by the Amnesty guy now (don’t tell me how Rubio’s reconsidered his own bill, I’m not buying it).

Have fun with Marco in 2014 running for your metaphoric lives in the primary because that’s exactly what’s going down in Florida and Kentucky: The Senate Conservatives Fund has endorsed Matt Bevin against Mitch McConnell, saying:

“Matt Bevin is a true conservative who will fight to stop the massive spending, bailouts, and debt that are destroying our country.. He is not afraid to stand up to the establishment and he will do what it takes to stop Obamacare.. Mitch McConnell has the support of the entire Washington establishment and he will do anything to hold on to power..”

And with that, I say schmellya later, Mitch – I can’t say it any better than that!




The 10 Rules In The Establishment Republican Handbook

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Hat  tip Broken Patriot.

These ten rules speak for themselves.


1) There is nothing ever worth fighting for except Democrat policies: If you’re going to fight for something, make sure you’re fighting your own base to help the Democrats achieve some policy goal that makes Tea Partiers want to stab themselves in their eyes. This makes you appear reasonable to the mainstream media and the howls of outrage from your base make it more likely that the New York Times will say nice things about you.

2) You must systematically destroy any person, place, or thing that excites conservatives: Nothing good ever comes from conservatives getting excited; so make sure to target anything and anyone that gets them fired up. If it’s a person like Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin, trash him or her publicly or have your aides leak stories to the press if you’re not brave enough to go that far. If it’s a strategy, put it down and undercut it at every opportunity. If it’s a group like the Senate Conservatives Fund or Freedomworks, scorn it and complain that it’s bad for the Republican Party.

3) You’re a winner just by virtue of being an establishment Republican: When Tea Partiers rally behind a candidate who loses, it’s because those guys don’t know what they’re doing. When establishment Republicans rally behind a candidate who loses, then they obviously selected the best candidate and no other candidate could have won. Establishment Republicans have a great formula: Win races, do nothing with that power that will make the media mad at you, which leads to more victories, which leads to doing nothing with that power that will make the media mad at you and so on and so on until the GOP totally dominates. Sure, that strategy may have lost the GOP the last two presidential elections and has produced only 45 senators so far, but it should start working any time now.

4) Trash conservatives, but hold your fire against Democrats: There’s a reason that both John McCain and Mitt Romney fought harder against their Republican primary opponents than they did against Barack Obama. The liberal media applauds you for saying mean things about conservative Republicans, but they hate it when you go after Democrats. If it comes right down to it, it’s better to go down to an honorable defeat than to win and have the media angry at you because you won a bruising race against a Democrat.

5) Communication skills are completely irrelevant: Think of yourself as a placeholder. Your job is to do just enough to keep conservatives from hating your guts so badly that you end up like poor Arlen Specter, while not making the media angry at you. Keep in mind that nothing makes the media angrier than a Republican who’s effective at anything. If you seem too charismatic or clever, liberals will perceive you as a threat who needs to be destroyed. That’s why you’re much better off mumbling boilerplate that people will forget 5 minutes after they’ve heard it.

6 Don’t freak people out by discussing how bad things are really getting: You don’t want to start freaking people out by suggesting the country could be so bankrupt we can’t even afford to borrow the money for our entitlement programs in a decade, do you? What do you think Paul Krugman would say to that? If you start telling the public that the Obama Administration got people killed with Fast and Furious and Benghazi, how do you think the Washington Post will react? Besides, if things really go south, important people like you will be living on an island somewhere; so who cares what happens to the rest of the country?

7) Accept that conservatism can’t win: Your job is not to win battles for conservatism, since that can’t happen. Instead, your job is to stave off inevitable defeat long enough to enjoy the perks of being a career politician before you start making the real money as a lobbyist. The last thing you want to do is go out and actually start trying to move the country to the right. That’s how you get MSNBC talking about you every day and Jesse Jackson calling you a racist.

8) Moderate is always better than conservative: Come on, how could any intelligent person back Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter, Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist, Rand Paul over Trey Grayson, and Ted Cruz over David Dewhurst? Granted, Rubio is coming around, but the rest of those guys have been rocking the boat since they got in the Senate. Why can’t they be more like Charlie Crist, Lincoln Chaffee, and Arlen Specter? Sure, all of those guys left the GOP, but anyone who can make it in either party obviously appeals to a lot of voters.

9) It’s fine to lie to your base: Just tell your supporters what they want to hear to get them to vote you into office and then keep your promises if it’s convenient. Tell them you’ll NEVER support amnesty and then lead the charge on it or say, “Read my lips: no new taxes,” and then push through a massive tax increase. The media loves it when Republicans screw over their own supporters and besides, what are they going to do? Vote for the Democrat?

10) Don’t make the mistake of talking about conservative principles when it matters: When you talk about conservative principles, mention them occasionally, quietly, as if they’re something your base is forcing you to do. Don’t ever make a big deal over it, even if your opponent is taking wildly unpopular liberal positions. Sure, the American public may ferociously oppose partial birth abortion and refusing to deport illegal aliens who’ve committed serious crimes, but if you make an issue of it, the media will think you’re one of THOSE Republicans. You know, the ones that actually believe in things. Better to just mumble some platitudes about your commitment to life and the rule of law as you get back to your talking points about the corporate tax rate.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: