Much has been made about the present divide in the Republican Party. Mississippi is no stranger to the controversy. My U.S. Senate race against Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) in 2014 exposed deep divisions within the party, both state and national.
Incumbent U.S. Senator Thad Cochran had to rely upon thousands of liberal Democrats to win a Republican primary. In so doing, his campaign resorted to dirty, underhanded, and sleazy tactics that have been well-documented.
Not only did his campaign play the “race card” while openly encouraging liberals to cross-over and participate to the GOP primary, he openly campaigned like a Democrat — pushing for more big government, massive federal subsidies, pork-barrel spending, and increased food stamp participation. In what’s perhaps the most conservative state in the republic, he expressly repudiated the Republican platform for the state and country to see.
Though indefensible, it was a victory for the political class, lobbyists, D.C. insiders and corporate elites who see the federal government as little more than a banking institution for the big business special interest lobby. They, along with assorted establishment groupies led by Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), celebrated their pyrrhic victory, justifying their actions by slandering conservatives as somehow radical, extreme or unelectable.
Betrayed again by the D.C. machine, conservative frustration with the party establishment reached a record high. More than a year later, the anger is still very real. Conservatives are convinced the GOP’s leadership has openly abandoned the party’s conservative foundation.
But to fully comprehend why this is happening, we have to understand the background story. Central to the divide is how people, particularly the mainstream press, attempt to define the combatants.
Take my race, for instance. I have been a Republican since 1984, and have never been a member of a TEA Party group. Nevertheless, during my run for U.S. Senate in 2014, most attempted to improperly frame the ongoing GOP fight as TEA Party vs. The GOP Establishment. But nothing could be further from the truth.
What we are seeing, instead, is an ongoing struggle between true conservatives and moderate insiders — who presently control the GOP establishment — within the party structure.
On one side of the debate stands the thoughts of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater (constitutional conservatives). On other side of the “fracture” is the moderate idealism of Nelson Rockefeller and Mitt Romney (establishment insiders).
Constitutional conservatives seeks structural reform, smaller government, constitutional balance and the maximum in individual liberty consistent with social order. The moderate establishment camp lauds the value of compromise, while fighting to preserve the status quo, so long as corporate welfare, favoritism to their donors and the growth of government suits their financial and personal needs.
Perhaps no one has expressed the divide as well as Redstate.com, an online news and opinion website for conservatives. In describing a recent poll for the 2016 GOP nomination for President, it declared: “Jeb Bush and John Kasich are tied. They are also fighting for the same demographic slice: moderate-to-liberal, high income voters. This is not surprising given their message of “hey, that status quo is working pretty good for me.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Ben Carson and Donald Trump are fighting to win the support of Ronald Reagan’s conservative coalition — a union of blue collar libertarians, economic, pro-defense, and social conservatives. Interestingly, these are the very people who have abandoned the establishment because they no longer believe that Republicans adhere to conservative principles.
Put simply, one side distrusts government and policies of centralization; the other simply seeks to control the D.C. machine, even if it means sacrificing principles. Conservatives claim liberty and Constitutional government as our combined end game; the other side desires power at any cost.
Although we’ve lived under the same tent for years, tension between the groups is rising, and some in the establishment camp have resorted to hostile tactics. Both Cruz and Trump, for example, have recently been slandered. And what was done in Mississippi last year was despicable.
Contrary to the attempts to brand conservatives, there is nothing radical or racist about our thoughts, ideals or policies. Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan were voices for our government philosophy, which is rooted in Jeffersonian liberty and the heritage of Western Civilization. It represents a consensus of reason operating within tradition, and it recognizes its origin as the 1787 Constitutional Convention.
Instead of allowing the establishment to define us, please consider the true conscience of a Goldwater/Reagan conservative:
- We believe that political solutions should be sensitive to the whole human being – mind, body and soul – conceding that the problems affecting society are the result of the complexity of human life and therefore cannot be quickly or efficiently rectified by government action, schemes of forced social improvement or similar one-size-fits-all approaches.
- We value self-government, believing that local governments are preferred because they are closest to the people and, therefore, the most responsive. Consistent with this idea, we believe states should retain all powers given to them by the Founders which ensures a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as “laboratories” for democracy — a system where policies are created and tested pursuant to the Constitution’s 10th Amendment. This not only ensures social and fiscal experimentation, but also a balance of power between the central authority and the states, whereby individual liberty is preserved for future generations.
- Refusing to ignore the spiritual side of individuals, we hope to maintain a high moral tone in society, insisting that truths exist and are necessary for people to responsibly self-govern their own affairs. We trust in God, as He is our foundation.
- Our philosophy is characterized by respect for inherited institutions, in which individuals develop character by voluntarily cooperating with others in local associations designed to further the common good without government interference.
- Living within our means is a way of life for us, so we expect our government to do the same. We request the courtesy to earn a living, but do not desire the government to provide for our necessities. Work is always preferred to welfare.
- Before we look for government to save us from every perceived crises, we would rather depend on ourselves, our families and friends. Hero worship is not our norm, as we are not easily charmed by smooth-talking politicians desiring a cult of personality.
- It has been said that governments only expand because they do not trust the independent, free judgments of the people. But we understand that any movement whose main promise is a relief from personal responsibility is immoral in its effect, however lofty its good intentions.
- The acceptance of personal responsibility begins with the admission of a simple truth: government is not our ultimate protector and cannot be all things to all people; liberty is the result of individuals learning to rule themselves.
- We admire complexities, embracing blessed variations and stubborn particularities. Unlike liberalism, it is not our desire to override the wills of people and reform them into one master plan. The establishment seek to use the power of government to dominate others; we do not and would never.
- Since independence is a cornerstone of our philosophy, we believe people and corporations should accept the consequences of their actions, although failure or unhappiness may be the eventual result. Government bailouts offend our notions of justice and fairness.
- The rule of law matters to us; words have meaning. We consider the words and phrases of the Constitution to be sincere, and not subject to whimsical change by the dictates of a federal judge. It has set down for all to see the fundamental American principle that there are certain rights held by every individual which no government and no majority, however powerful, can deny.
- We reject philosophies rooted in collectivism, particularly when coerced by the power of the state. Consequently, we reject racism, sexism and other forms of identity politics. We see men and women as individuals and judge them respectively. We seek to empower the individual and his voluntary associations, not as collective groups, but as an American citizen entitled to dignity and respect.
- We likewise reject any system where the wealthy and well-connected are allowed disproportionate access to our governments. Each American citizen, regardless of wealth or power, should have an equal voice and right to petition the halls of power without the corrupting influences of political favoritism, cronyism and nepotism.
And yet, conservatives do not presume to have all the answers, because they are not ours to give.
The collective knowledge of humanity, driven along by complex experiences good and bad, are far better teachers than any one movement, person or government could ever be. It was President Reagan who reminded us that his strength as a “great communicator” was always rooted in his communication of great things that came from the heart of a remarkable republic – our collective experiences, wisdom, and beliefs in the principles that have guided us for more than two centuries.
Perhaps there is no better description of our camp than an unyielding desire simply to be left alone. America’s greatness is derived from its free citizens, not the coercion of its government.
There is nothing radical about common sense, balanced budgets and the rule of law.
And if you wish to gain our support, be honest with us, then trust us to govern ourselves.
As we embark on an uncertain future, conservatives are confident in our principles and beliefs. But we are tired of politicians and disgusted by the lies and perpetual inaction on the part of so-called Republicans.
After my race against Thad Cochran last year, it took time for me to process the betrayal — not simply to me, but to the Republican platform and conservative ideas to which I had professed by loyalty and dedication. As part of my evaluation, the divide in our party became more apparent than ever before.
But also, my resolve was strengthened.
It became apparent that we conservatives are being targeted for marginalization by many within the party’s leadership.
Consequently, we must change our mindset by developing the spirit of reformers.
What does that mean?
Well, in 1902, William George Jordan published The Power of Truth. In it, he wrote, “Anyone can plant radishes; it takes courage to plant acorns and wait for the oaks. Learn to look not merely at the clouds, but through them to the sun shining behind them. When things look darkest, grasp your weapon firmer and fight harder. There is always more progress than you can perceive through your senses, and it is really only the outcome of the battle that counts.”
“And when it is all over and the victory is yours, and the smoke clears away, and the smell of the powder is dissipated, and you bury the relationships that died because they could not stand the strain, and you nurse back the wounded and faint-hearted who loyally stood by you, even when doubting, then the hard years of fighting will seem but a dream. You will stand brave, heartened, strengthened by the struggle, re-created to a new, better, and stronger life by a noble battle, nobly waged, in a noble cause. And the price will then seem to you . . . nothing.”
Perhaps, instead of conservatives, we are now simply reformers, pilgrims in an unholy land.
In any event, make no mistake, reform is coming.
This is our party. This is our republic. And despite the establishment’s money and power, we will fight to regain our rightful place.
As it was last year, so it is today: Now is the time.
Sadly, the 18 month investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative groups isn’t over, and it may be worse than anyone thought. A federal judge has broken loose more emails that the DOJ had surely hoped would never surface. The picture it reveals isn’t pretty. The documents prove that Lois Lerner met with DOJ’s Election Crimes Division a month before the 2010 elections.
It has to be embarrassing to the DOJ, which may not be the most impartial one to be investigating the IRS. In fact, the DOJ withheld over 800 pages of Lerner documents citing “taxpayer privacy” and “deliberative privilege.” Yet these internal DOJ documents show Ms. Lerner was talking to DOJ officials about prosecuting tax-exempt entities (yes, criminally!) two years before the IRS conceded there was inappropriate targeting.
Ms. Lerner met with top officials from the DOJ’s Election Crimes Branch in October of 2010. Although Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the DOJ (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice, No. 14-cv-01239), the DOJ coughed up dirt only on court order. Even then, the DOJ handed over only two pages of heavily redacted emails.
What’s more, the DOJ withheld 832 pages in their entirety. They revealed that Mr. Obama’s DOJ called an October 8, 2010 meeting with the IRS “concerning 501(c)(4) issues.” On September 30, 2010, the DOJ’s Election Crimes prosecutor emailed Ms. Lerner:
“Hi Lois-It’s been a long time, and you might not remember me, I’ve taken on [REDACTED] duties. I’m looking forward to meeting you, Can we chat in advance? I’m a [REDACTED]”
Ms. Lerner responded on October 2, 2010:
“Sure-that’s a good Idea [sic]. I have a meeting out of the office Monday morning, but will try you when I get back sometime early afternoon. You can try me at 202 283-8848.”
Documents from a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the IRS show that Ms. Lerner asked the DOJ whether tax-exempt entities could be criminally prosecuted. This May 8, 2013 email by Ms. Lerner went to Nikole C. Flax, Chief of Staff to Acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller, who would later be fired by President Obama:
“I got a call today from Richard Pilger Director Elections Crimes Branch at DOJ … He wanted to know who at IRS the DOJ folk s [sic] could talk to about Sen. Whitehouse idea at the hearing that DOJ could piece together false statement cases about applicants who “lied” on their 1024s–saying they weren’t planning on doing political activity, and then turning around and making large visible political expenditures. DOJ is feeling like it needs to respond, but want to talk to the right folks at IRS to see whether there are impediments from our side and what, if any damage this might do to IRS programs. I told him that sounded like we might need several folks from IRS…”
Read more at Forbes.
The fight is on. Conservatives in Texas, off the heels of an election that clobbered the Democrats, (Note that not one statewide Democrat took more than 39% last week), are off and running towards the election by the Texas legislature for the Speaker of the House. Representative Scott Turner is running against current Speaker Republican Joe Straus, who Forbes called “The Harry Reid of Texas“. This week, it got heated to a boiling point.
Monday night, grassroots darling Giovanni Capriglione stunned a group of ardent supporters when he came out in full support of Straus. Boldly stating that “There is no race for Speaker for Scott Turner“, the Representative was faced with deafening silence that quickly turned into an angry crowd. Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth ), Jonathan Stickland (R-Bedford), and representative elect Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington), the other three on a four person panel all disagreed.
In a quote from the meeting that was passed all over social media Tuesday, Stickland rebuked Capriglione. “It is a dangerous place to be if we vote based on what we think will be the outcome.”
Breitbart Texas reported that, “[Rep] Krause spoke up and said he thought Capriglione was wrong about support for Turner. He said, “I think Turner has more support. He’s a unique leader and would make a tremendous speaker of the house.”
Grassroots activists took action during the meeting as well as on social media in the aftermath.
Grassroots activist Michael Smith, who campaigned heavily for Capriglione and brought the question up at the meeting posted, “I am simply beyond words – I feel like I have been run over by a Mack truck with Giovanni’s decision to vote Straus“.
I don’t know where you stand. Two years ago you ran against Joe Straus. I remember it specifically. You ran on pro-life and limited government. But what happened? To vote for Joe Straus undermines everything we are about.
Morgan McComb, another grassroots stalwart in Texas Politics wrote: “I was sitting on the front row, right in front of him when he decided to BETRAY Texas. The people in the room had money and sweat equity in him. They sat polls from sun up to sun down and took money from their social security checks on his promise to not be more of the same. People in the room were crying, some were mad and many like myself could not believe what we were seeing.”
The entire Texas Grassroots spent the day in discussions about making it clear that Rep. Capriglione had severely disappointed them with his major flip-flop. Emails were sent, his FB pages were flooded, his past FB posts showing how he stood concerning Speaker Straus were archived. Any thoughts that the very active Texas Grassroots were relaxing after a great election last week were surely put to rest.
The very active Texas Grassroots took a major offense to Giovanni’s defeatist flip-flop. In the weeks heading toward the vote for Speaker that takes place on the first day of the Texas legislative session in January, it looks to be a heated contest that will take a front seat in a state where elections and politics are very ‘Front Porch’. It will be very interesting to watch it play out.
With the 2014 midterm election only a month away, the outlook for Republicans is favorable as they seek to win the six seats necessary to take control of the Senate. Many key Senate battleground races show just a point or two separating Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have kept things close by leading among women in every battleground Senate race.
Republican candidates have done well strengthening their bases, but the true test is whether they can add enough undecided voters to fully capitalize on President Obama’s growing unpopularity. With 37 days left until the 2014 election, there are at least ten Senate races considered toss-ups by major pollsters.
Conservative Tom Cotton is tied with liberal Senator Mark Pryor according to recent polls. Cotton, a combat veteran, has been making the case against amnesty and for stronger border enforcement while Pryor voted to give illegal immigrants amnesty and Social Security benefits. Pryor is attempting to hide his record while smearing Tom Cotton with false attacks. Pryor has even accused Cotton of supporting the Ebola virus.
Recent polls show that Alaska Republican Dan Sullivan has pulled ahead of Democratic Sen. Mark Begich adding more drama to a race that could decide control of the Senate. Sullivan’s lead may in part be explained by his effective ads slamming Begich for his absenteeism in Congress. President Obama’s dismal approval rating in Alaska (below 35 percent) is also hurting Begich.
Joni Ernst, the Iraq War veteran and little-known conservative Iowa state senator, burst onto the political scene earlier this year with perhaps the most popular TV ad of the political primary season. Bruce Baley is working to repair his image as an out-of-touch Washington insider, a series of early gaffes did not help his cause. Ernst’s conservative views, combined with her interesting personal story and boundless energy, have made her one of this election year¹s most high-profile tea party favorites. She is leading in what has been seen as one of the most competitive Senate races in the country.
The race between incumbent Senator Mark Udall and challenger Representative Cory Gardner devolving into a dead heat. As both candidates shell out money hand over fist, things are getting dirty.
Udall has voted for virtually every major Obama domestic initiative, including the president’s economic stimulus package and, of course, Obamacare. The senator voted against a Democratic plan to block the Keystone XL oil pipeline but also opposed Republican efforts calling for its completion. And while he opposed a ban on assault weapons, calling it too broad, he instead backed a Democratic plan to limit high-capacity ammunition clips.
Cory Gardner has a record that reflects his desire to rein in out-of-control spending and build consensus on issues where he can find common ground with his colleagues.
Republican Scott Brown is in a dead heat with Democrat Jeanne Shaheen in his bid to unseat her from the U.S. Senate, according to a new poll by CNN. Brown, the former senator from Massachusetts, moved to New Hampshire to run in a more friendly environment. Sen. Shaheen is hurt by New Hampshire residents’ opinion of Barack Obama. The President only has a 38% approval rating among New Hampshire adults; Brown has capitalized on this throughout the campaign.
Incumbent Sen. Landrieu began with a significant lead before the two candidates switched positions at the start of 2014. The race has since been very close. Due to the complexity of Louisiana’s election system, this race may not be decided until December. There are nine candidates — Republicans, Democrats, and a Libertarian — on the ballot this November, and if no candidate crosses the 50% threshold, the race moves into a December runoff between the top two contenders.
A recent court ruling lead to the removal of the Democratic candidate from the ballot, clearing the way for a showdown between Sen. Pat Roberts and independent Greg Orman. Taking out the incumbent senator is difficult in since Kansas is a solid red state, but so far Orman has shown he could do it. If Roberts is going to win, he needs to define Orman as a de facto Democrat.
The Democratic incumbent North Carolina senator continues to lead her Republican challenger, Thomas R. “Thom” Tillis, who has been able to survive the ad blitz and keep the race stable at an average of 4% difference. Sen. Rand Paul decided to head for North Carolina this week and campaign for Tillis. Sen. Paul previously supported Greg Brannon, the tea party opponent in the primary for Thom Tillis.
Democrats have identified Michelle Nunn as perhaps their best opportunity to pick up a seat and frustrate the GOP’s push for a Senate majority. However, the race is moving away from Nunn, as people tune in and Georgia reverts to its fundamentals. She has been hurt by fallout from an unintended leak of a campaign plan that detailed her strategy and discussed her potential weaknesses.
U.S. Rep. Gary Peters and former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Lands are battling for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring Democrat Carl Levin. With only 37 days until the election, recent polls are showing Land is gaining momentum, as she was previously down by six to nine points earlier this summer. These recent polls are encouraging considering Land has gotten non-stop bad press and liberal Super-Pacs have spent millions trashing her.
As a conservative grassroots guy, I realize this may not sit well with many of my fellow activists, but we actually need Mitch McConnell to win in 2014. Yes, I really said that. The Republican Senator from Kentucky and Senate Minority Leader is up against a primary challenger in Matt Bevin, a Louisville businessman and Senate Candidate. If he makes it past this primary, which he is likely going to, he would then go on to face Democratic challenger and Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes. Kentucky is where one of the most anticipated Senate races of 2014 will occur. Negative campaign ads and political battles have begun in the Bluegrass State, but now people must start to see the bigger picture.
First, many people have often considered and labeled Mitch McConnell a “RINO” (Republican-In-Name-Only) because they think he hasn’t done enough to stop the Obama agenda. They claim he often sides with the Democratic Party. They look at him being this guy who has lost his edge or only interested in himself. Allow me to address some of these concerns and explain why we need Mitch McConnell.
Senator McConnell has been the most conservative Senate Minority Leader we’ve ever had. His opponents claim that his 30 years in Congress is too much and this has caused him to stop caring about the people. I say this gives us someone with 30 years of experience in one particular field and understands extensively how the political process works. Many of us are extremely passionate and very much involved with politics, but at times we may not fully be aware of the why and why-nots of a person’s voting mentality in any given situation. When a business is dealt with two potential employee candidates with very similar backgrounds, but one has much more experience, we usually understand the reasons behind the hiring decision. It’s about experience on so many levels though, not just charisma or likeability, but having the comprehension skills and thorough understanding of an entire process. In this case, the political process and comprehending the end result from a certain piece of legislation or a specific action. Mitch McConnell gets this. He has been there and fought for Republicans every step of the way. Something the media has failed to tell you. He has fought for Kentuckians and fought for jobs. He has been a thorn in President Obama’s side that quite frankly, we need for many different reasons.
McConnell’s primary challenger Matt Bevin attended the Campbell County Jim Bunning GOP Picnic in Kentucky a couple of weeks ago and I was able to have an extensive discussion with him. We spoke in length about many different topics and I was able to get a clear picture of who he was as a person. He is a great communicator, family man, informed, and passionate about wanting to persuade Kentuckians to vote for him over Senator McConnell. I thoroughly enjoyed speaking with him and he’s a guy you’d definitely want to sit and have a beer with no doubt, but he failed to differentiate himself from McConnell. He mentioned that he wasn’t looking to make politics a career choice, but he did say that McConnell could not defeat Alison Grimes. He was very confident about that. He believed that he was the better choice and would work hard over the next nine months to convince myself and others why we should vote for him. He just didn’t convince me how he is different or that he could stand any chance against Grimes and her Democratic Army of Obama friends. I went on and explained to him that we as a Republican Party needed to look at the bigger picture and what’s truly at stake, which is control of the US Senate. We need to win the Senate and we have a great opportunity to do so, but we need to get behind Mitch McConnell to help make that happen. He humbly disagreed.
Listen up fellow grassroots activists, pride is a wonderful thing and a much needed quality to have, but at times it can cloud our judgment. Sending a message by how you vote is a way to get things done indeed, but being able to take a step back and comprehend the process of everything can really put things into perspective. A perspective that can lead to a winning formula if understood properly. Let’s face it, we have lost recently and there are some major issues that need addressed, but we must have control of the House and Senate to take care of them. What I am saying is that we need to vote for Mitch McConnell in 2014 for many reasons, but we also need to realize the importance of controlling the House and Senate. This will have huge implications on what can get accomplished and will start to make things clearer on why previous decisions were made. Mitch McConnell is the best choice to beat Alison Grimes and our focus should be to win the United States Senate.
This brings me to why many people may be holding off on supporting McConnell at the moment, which is his refusal to sign onto the letter drafted by Senator Mike Lee (R – Utah) and Rep. Mark Meadows (R – NC) to defund Obamacare through a continuing resolution. Several Republican Senators have signed it, which states they refuse to fund any part of Obamacare. This is an issue that McConnell must get behind. He has to make a stand and do something before it’s too late. He has been one of the biggest and strongest supporters of repealing Obamacare, so now he needs to back that up and defund this mess with his fellow Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul. This is a crucial moment for McConnell because many see this as our last chance to do something about the ACA. On October 1st, 2013 millions of Americans will be enrolled in the Obamacare exchanges. Government funding through the Continuing Resolution (CR) will expire on September 30th. We can do something about this law before it’s too late, but it will take action. We need leadership and we need for McConnell to show his by getting behind this effort from Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Mark Meadows. Kentuckians are counting on him. Americans are counting on him.
Mitch McConnell has been on the front lines from the very beginning and all throughout the entire process of this Obamacare madness. He has openly supported the repeal of it from day one and still feels the same way, but he also understands the consequences that will come from trying to defund it. The media and President Obama will continue placing the blame on Republicans for wanting to shut down the government even though we know that won’t actually be accurate. This bill is different because unlike all of the other “imaginary” repeal bills, the Senate must pick up this one because it has funding attached to it. They will see that this bill includes funding for the entire government, except for Obamacare, which can be done. If President Obama and Harry Reid decide not to fund the government at that point, then that will be on them and not Republicans.
Mitch McConnell has also received criticism for obstructing the Congressional process in the eyes of Democrats and laying down for Obama in the eyes of some Republicans. It can’t go both ways. When you are against something enough and realize how bad it will be for the country, then you fight tooth and nail to stop it. Something he needs to do with the defunding Obamacare mess. When you’re in the fight, you also comprehend how to reach your goals by looking at the overall picture due to your current options. McConnell has navigated through the tangling webs of political power as he has battled it out with Harry Reid and Democrats, but has shown bi-partisanship when necessary. He has also fought extremely hard to stop many of the President’s horrible policy ideas. He has been a leader in Kentucky and the US Senate for decades. We need his courage, strength, and experience to stand against the Obama machine because without his stances on issues, we would be much worse off right about now.
McConnell has stood against much of what the Obama Administration has presented because it simply has made no sense for America. This is why some people think he has been an obstructionist. We should recognize his tenacity and backbone to actually stand up against the Obama agenda on many occasions. He has used his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow down Obama’s destruction and actually help defeat certain aspects of it. This has been very difficult with Democrats controlling both the Senate and the White House. There is a strong reason why the President and the Democrats have been focused on going after McConnell in 2014 more so than John McCain or Lindsey Graham. Simply put, he is their biggest threat. Yes, he is the Republican Party leader, but rest assured they know how much he has stood in their way of “moving forward”. The Kentucky Senator doesn’t get the credit he rightfully deserves. He is a calculating tactician who is politically savvy enough to hold the fort down until control is again in the hands of Republicans.
Simply put, we cannot allow for Harry Reid to control the Senate any longer and we certainly cannot afford to give President Obama any more power in his last two crucial years. He does not want to be a lame-duck President, which is why he’s campaigning so hard to get his Democratic stooges elected in 2014. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen. It’s no secret he unconstitutionally delayed the employer mandate and many other parts of Obamacare until after the mid-term elections. If the law were as great as he’s always claimed it to be, he’d want it implemented right away for everyone. We know that this is definitely not the case. He did it for a specific reason. He knows just as his union supporters know that Obamacare is a jobs killer. His message is simple, to blame the Republican Party for obstructing and not getting anything done. We know he has not and will not accept any responsibilities for his failures, but let us be responsible and do what we must in order to control the House and Senate. Take a look at the bigger picture and you’ll see that we need Mitch McConnell. Rand Paul sees this. Kentuckians must see this. We’ll just see if he listens and changes his tune about defunding Obamacare, which will certainly play a key role in the 2014 elections. So yes we need Mitch, but Mitch really needs us.
On this week’s episode of Knockout Podcast, we discuss several issues ranging from the different conservative leaders and activists within our movement. Also discussed are some of the key Black leaders who are proving to be very inspirational and other topics that advocate for true conservative values and principles.
On Wednesday, President Barack Obama made a shocking announcement, naming United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice as his next national security adviser. Is this an arrogant and defiant act giving that GOP leaders can do absolutely nothing to stop it? Why, you ask? Because this appointment does not require Senate confirmation. With the number of federal scandals President Obama currently has himself wrapped up in, I suppose this is the only way he can poke his finger in the eye of congressional Republicans.
We know by now that Obama will get his way one way or another. There is simply no ethical line he will not cross to reach his own political goals and fulfill his own self-righteous agendas, and that’s plain disturbing to me. Promoting Susan Rice to such an elite position in the midst of all these other scandals, is a very bold move. It certainly seems bizarre to me after Republicans blocked Rice‘s bid to lead the State Department after claiming she misled the public about the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya. Well, this is just a slap in the face to Republicans, igniting a fight Obama really doesn’t need right now, but doesn’t seem to care about. After all, it was Susan Rice who went on four talk shows with false talking points about Benghazi, then those talking points were altered dozens of times before “kind of” being released to the American people.
Republicans are still upset that the Obama administration intentionally omitted any reference to terrorism in Rice‘s original Benghazi talking points. They should be. We all should be. Nine months later, we still haven’t been told who even created those original talking points and/or who sent Rice on the TV/Talk Show rounds pushing these known lies. It’s incredibly absurd that this woman gets promoted to national security adviser, considering at least one of these two things has to be true, she’s either completely incompetent or an absolute liar. Maybe she’s both, but Rice certainly doesn’t deserve to hold such a prestigious position with access to the most sensitive information important to our country’s defense. It’s a very scary thought.
“It demonstrates a tin ear on the genuine concerns on the tragedy of Benghazi.” said Matt Schlapp, former President George W. Bush‘s political director. “When you take somebody who was at the center of the public relations strategy around Benghazi and give her a promotion, it seems to indicate you haven’t learned any lessons.”
If there is one positive, this move by Obama will certainly give Republicans a reason to re-focus on the mishandling of the Benghazi terrorist attack at a time when attention on the attack has faded just a bit. After the attention of the media has been focused on the IRS targeting conservative groups and the Justice Department secretly spying on journalists, Republicans and the media can finally shift back to the cover-up of Benghazi and holding the Obama administration responsible for the deaths of four Americans, including the ambassador. Well, the least they could do is give a response. A consistent one.
If you thought the arrest, prosecution and conviction of Dr. Kermit Gosnell was the end of this type of ongoing behavior and activity, think again. The practices and conditions of Gosnell‘s Philadelphia abortion mill have caused even abortion activists and “pro-choice” media to condemn Gosnell as a “monster” and a criminal, both of which he is. However, the biggest players in the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation, have admitted to knowing about Gosnell‘s practices and the manner in which abortions were being performed and did nothing to stop it. They did not complain, nor did they report Gosnell to authorities at any point. In fact, up until his arrest, Gosnell performed multiple abortions at the Atlantic Women’s Medical Services in Wilmington, Delaware, a facility that is a member of the National Abortion Federation (NAF) and inspected and certified by the NAF. Many of the illegal late-term abortions Gosnell performed began at the NAF Delaware “clinic” and were then transferred to his Philadelphia location for completion.
On May 13, a jury (that included nine jurors who reportedly identified themselves as “pro-choice”) pronounced Gosnell guilty of three counts of first-degree murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter, as well 21 counts of performing illegal late-term abortions, and more than 200 other lesser charges.
Abortionist Kermit Gosnell‘s murder trial will force many people to grapple with the fact that our abortion laws and policies have established arbitrary and irrational criteria that provide for the wholesale killing of an entire class of live human beings based simply on age and location. The real issue, which the abortion promoters and their media accomplices have been eager to obscure, is the crime of abortion itself.
“Dr. Gosnell is only the front man, and the real trial has only just begun. The defendant is the abortion license in America,” says Robert P. George, a Princeton law professor and pro-life advocate. After the Gosnell trial, says George, “it will no longer be possible to pretend that abortion and infanticide are radically different acts or practices.” Rep. Chris Smith (R–N.J.), co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, said that “not much” difference exists between Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” and abortion clinics around the country. “Some abortionists may have cleaner sheets than Gosnell, and better sterilized equipment and better trained accomplices, but what they do, what Gosnell did, kill babies and hurt women is the same,” Rep. Smith said in a May 13 statement.
Some 55 million babies have been killed through abortion since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalizing it 40 years ago.
We undoubtedly will now hear from other abortionists like Planned Parenthood how Gosnell is the exception and that he is not an accurate representative of the abortion industry. The highly paid pro-abortion public relations professionals will tell us how Gosnell proves that we need greater access for women to safe abortion.
But Gosnell is the exemplar of those in the industry who place no value on any human being prior to birth, or clearly after birth. He is not the exception, every abortion kills a human being, period.
Regulating abortion mills or the act of abortion will not solve this terror against the innocent. Abortion is a filthy business, and shiny clean abortion chambers do nothing to change the grievous crime to the most innocent form of life.
Abortion cannot be regulated. It simply must be eliminated.
Over the past week, Attorney General Eric Holder has appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to answer mounting questions about the Obama administration’s widespread surveillance of journalists with ties to the Associated Press. In the largest and most corrupt attack on free press and basic first amendment rights arguably in history, the Justice Department seized phone records of reporters and editors in at least three AP offices as well as its office in the House of Representatives. However, Holder claimed absolute ignorance of the entire investigation when called upon, even failing to recall when or how to dismiss himself.
Last week, the Justice Department confirmed that it was in fact Holder who personally approved the intrusive and abusive search of Fox News correspondent James Rosen‘s e-mail and phone records in yet another story involving leaked classified information. In a 2010 application for a search warrant, the Obama administration named Rosen as “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” to the leaking of classified materials. The Justice Department even went as far to investigate Rosen‘s parents’ telephone number, and Holder was right there to attempt to justify every attack. How many lies can one person tell, one administration tell themselves and America before enough is enough? This administration is tripping over one scandal and landing on another, literally! America deserves better.
At this point, not only has Eric Holder lost all credibility as Attorney General, he has made sure his legacy left behind will certainly be ignoble. Over the course of these current hearings, Holder has adopted the embarrassing mantra of “I have no knowledge” and ” I had no involvement” throughout the questioning. When Holder was not reciting his name, rank and serial number, he was busy implicating his own aide, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, making him the scapegoat. These liberals sure know how to pass the buck and avoid all responsibility like the plague. This is a page straight from the Obama playbook, throwing your buddies under the bus, as Holder himself is feeling the weight of that bus right now.
Holder was so busy denying allegations and responsibilities for these current scandals, he began denying known facts about older scandals such as the “Fast and Furious” gun operation. Does he realize millions of Americans already know the answers to these questions and he looks like the Donkey that represents his party? The fact is, Attorney General Holder has done very little, if anything, during his tenure to protect civil liberties or freedom of the press. In fact, Holder has spearheaded a comprehensive erosion of privacy rights, press freedom and due process while holding office. Sure, this ignoble legacy will be left at the feet of Eric Holder personally, but don’t be mistaken, all this was made possible by Democrats who would do nothing but stare at the floor whenever the Obama administration was accused of constitutional abuses.
President Obama responded to the outcry over the AP and Fox scandals by calling for an investigation by, Eric Holder? This response was the ultimate proof that these are ultimately Obama‘s scandals despite his best efforts to deflect them via yet another scapegoat. Scandal after scandal, followed by lie after lie. There is no doubt in my mind, personal opinion aside, this is by far the most corrupt and malicious administration to ever step foot in the White House.
There are many political issues that dominate the mass media airwaves these days. But are they the correct issues? The media drastically influences how most citizens vote, especially young or first time voters who often times just don’t get the facts. Currently, we’re dealing with a complete mess of cover-ups from our nation’s Capital ranging from the ongoing Benghazi hearings to the IRS specifically targeting conservative groups in an effort to hinder Republican voter turn-outs. However, Fox News seems to be the only network with any integrity and willing to tackle these issues on a daily basis. This behavior of avoiding the tough issues by the other major networks is extremely appalling to me, especially after watching these same networks absolutely slam President George W. Bush for far less over and over again during his tenure. It simply just doesn’t add up and I continue to ask myself, why does Barack Obama continue to get a free pass? Well, let’s take a closer look at conservatives versus liberals, the true meaning and core beliefs of each party without media biased.
Obviously, Republican conservatives will generally take one stance on political issues while Democratic liberals will take the opposite one. One of the most popular issues is taxes and the constant debate of whether to raise or lower taxes of individuals, major corporations and LLC’s. This is one battle that you can be sure will never end as we conservatives do not believe in raising taxes. In fact, it is our conservative belief that lowering taxes directly helps stimulate the economy simply by putting more money in your pocket to spend. Liberals actually believe that raising taxes will somehow improve the “average American’s life”. For a numbers guy like myself, I not only know this to be untrue, I find it completely laughable.
Government‘s general involvement in the day-to-day lives of American citizens is another hot button issue at the moment. As United States citizens, we’ve never been more intruded on by the government than we currently are in every way, shape and form. We can’t go to an Airport, Wal-Mart, a Shopping Mall, a School Building, a Hospital or even drive through a toll booth without being filmed today. It really doesn’t matter where you go, it can’t be avoided. The next time you’re withdrawing twenty bucks from an ATM or grabbing a sandwich at a McDonald’s, smile because you’re on camera. Although many of these places may be privately owned and operated, don’t let that fool you, the government will still have direct and immediate access to that footage promptly after they stomp their feet. Basically, conservatives believe that the government should step back and keep involvement in peoples’ lives to an absolute minimum. Liberals believe that government should actually guide the people by way of more laws and regulations.
One of the biggest political issues that the two parties have opposite viewpoints on is the “right to keep and bear arms“. I refuse to use their term “gun control”, because creating new laws on an inanimate object does not address the real issue, the person holding that gun! When a person drinks and drives, then kills an innocent by-stander, do we blame the vehicle? Absolutely not. The driver is held accountable for his or her actions and the vehicle is never discussed as a “weapon” even though it did deliver the fatal blow. So why is it so drastically different when it comes to firearms? Simply because it’s part of the Bill of Rights and liberals need something to challenge? We have to remember that the Bill of Rights was not designed to protect us from each other, but to protect us from government tyranny. The second amendment gives us the great right to keep and bear arms and liberals are simply going to have to learn to live with that.
The last major issue I’d like to discuss is that of Entitlements. This may be the biggest political issue we face today largely due to the economic crisis our country has been facing for many years now. These funding programs are meant to aid low-income families or individuals and liberals seem to think the answer to this mounting problem is actually increasing federal funding for these government assisted programs. Obviously, conservatives believe there should be less government spending across the board and specifically on programs such as these. I understand that everyone needs a little help once in a while, but what we’re seeing now is an epidemic and a serious problem. What i’m talking about is generation-to-generation entitlement expectancy. When a mother gives birth to a child and is completely reliant on the government, then 18 years later when that same child becomes an adult, the mother is still on the same exact government assistance program, that is a problem. What other life does that child know? What motivation does that child have to work hard for a living when they have watched their mother do nothing for 18 years except walk to the mailbox? What kind of example is that to set as a mother? These are tough questions and it may sound harsh, but it’s reality people. Unless we wake up as a nation and elect the right officials, we will keep flushing our tax-dollars down the federal spending toilet.
Although we’re struggling day-by-day just to get through this nightmare that is the Barack Obama experiment, the future of our great country does have a positive outlook. Many young, vibrant Patriotic Republicans have given us reason to look forward to a better tomorrow. As United States citizens, we all deserve a better country than the one we are living in today. We deserve a country with limited Government, less spending and flourishing employment. I understand 2016 is still many years away, however conservatives throughout cannot help but look ahead to potential Presidential Candidates. So let’s take a look shall we?
Let’s first start with Ted Cruz, which personally is my favorite at this point. Cruz is currently a Senator from the state of Texas. Cruz was Solicitor General of Texas from 2003-2008, the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas, the youngest Solicitor General in the United States and held the longest tenure in Texas history. Senator Cruz served as Domestic Policy Adviser to President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. Cruz is endorsed by both the Tea Party movement and the Republican Liberty Caucus. This combination makes Cruz a very viable candidate for the party as well as terrifying Democrats to the point all they can do is ridicule this fine Senator. Ted Cruz is a no-nonsense Constitutionalist Conservative who will stand up for our rights, we the people.
Rand Paul is a Senator from the state of Kentucky and the son of former congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Rand Paul founded Kentucky Taxpayers United, of which he is still chairman. As a supporter of the Tea Party movement, Paul has been vocal in advocating term limits, a balanced budget amendment and the Read the Bills Act, in addition to widespread reduction of federal spending and taxation. Paul may be most famous for leading an epic filibuster to block voting on the nomination of John Brennan as the Director of the CIA, questioning Barack Obama and his administration’s use of drones within the United States. Paul held the floor for 12 hours and 52 minutes.
Marco Rubio is a Senator from the state of Florida who previously served as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives from 2007-2009. Rubio, who is the son of Cuban immigrants, has been widely criticized for his position on immigration reform and his reform proposal in January 2013. However, Rubio was still selected to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama‘s 2013 State of the Union Address.
Chris Christie is Governor of New Jersey, a position he has held since 2010 and the first Republican to win that seat in 12 years. President George W. Bush appointed Christie as the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey in 2002 where he served until 2008. Christie has been surrounded by political controversy during his tenure, most notably criticizing Congress for delaying federal funding for Hurricane Sandy Relief.
Mike Lee is a Senator from the state of Utah. Lee‘s father Rex was founding Dean of BYU’s Law School and former Solicitor General of the United States during the Reagan Administration. Senator Lee had been a constitutional lawyer leading up to his Senate victory in 2010.
As we all know, Presidential candidates do not run alone on the ticket. For every Batman, there is a Robin. It is essential that the nominee choose wisely when making a decision for a running mate. It’s highly unlikely that two of these fine men I have mentioned will run together as we saw in 2012 when Mitt Romney chose Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan when many thought he would choose Marco Rubio. With that said, I would simply like to recognize a couple of very passionate and Patriotic Republicans who could potentially fill that position.
Trey Gowdy is a United States Representative for South Carolina‘s 4th congressional district, a position he has held since 2011. Before his election to Congress, Gowdy was Solicitor District Attorney for the State’s Seventh Judicial Circuit. From 1994-2000, Gowdy was a federal prosecutor with the United States Attorney’s office in South Carolina. Gowdy has developed a reputation as a tough questioner and frequently speaks on the floor of the House on issues ranging from Fast and Furious to the Benghazi hearings.
Marsha Blackburn is a United States Representative for Tennessee‘s 7th congressional district, serving since 2003. Blackburn first won elected office in 1998, when she was elected to the Tennessee State Senate. She lead efforts to prevent the passage of additional state income tax and for this was referred to as a hero in her home state. Unlike most female Representatives, Blackburn prefers to be called “Congressman Blackburn“. She also served as a senior adviser to Mitt Romney on his 2012 presidential campaign. Blackburn is highly intelligent, very confident and extremely well spoken. She is a total rock star and a true Patriot in my opinion. I know it’s pretty far-fetched, but I would like nothing more than a Cruz-Blackburn ticket in 2016. We are three and half years away and everyone has their favorites, but I don’t think America would regret having these two Patriots represent us when it’s all said and done.
The EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, has drastically reduced it’s previous estimates of much heat-trapping gas leaks actually occur during natural gas production and delivery. This announcement has certainly sparked debate with liberals and environmentalists who have always maintained this method of extracting natural gas to be dangerous as it previously boosted their “global warming” argument.
Methane is the main component of natural gas, but it’s just one of many greenhouse gases that affect the atmosphere. This is exactly why more oil and gas companies are becoming more optimistic about the future of fracking and ensuring the production and delivery of such gases be done as safely as possible. The new EPA data shows there are existing technologies that can be deployed to drastically reduce methane leaks from wells, pipelines and other facilities during production and delivery.
The scope of the EPA‘s recent revision was vast. In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the EPA now shows much tighter air pollution control through it’s instituted policies. From 1990 through 2010, EPA studies showed an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions, or more than 850 million metric tons overall during that span. That number reflects about a 20% higher reduction than previous estimates suggested from independent studies.
These EPA revisions came on the heels of a recent industry boom that has seen natural gas production grow by nearly 40% since 1990. The industry has flourished in recent years due to the expansion of drilling in previously untapped areas by the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Fracking is a process which injects sand, water and chemicals deep into the surface to break apart rock and free the gas agents trapped inside.
Since power plants that burn natural gas emit only about half the amount of greenhouse gases of those that burn coal, most say that the gas drilling boom has only boosted the United States to become the only major industrialized country to significantly reduce greenhouse emissions. The new EPA figures show natural gas operations continue to be the leading source of methane emissions in the U.S. at about 145 million metric tons in 2011. The next largest source was enteric fermentation, which is a fancy scientific term for belches and farts of livestock. Yes, you heard that right, in 2011 if you took all the livestock in the U.S. and added up all their belches and farts, that contributed 137 million metric tons of methane emissions in just that one year. If these emissions are the real concern, then why are we not seeing an all out assault on cattle or hog farms? Why aren’t these same groups demanding we all become vegetarians to reduce emissions? I’ll tell you why, because it doesn’t fit into their political agenda and they also want to eat meat! The fact is, the EPA estimates that all the sources of methane emissions combined still only account for about 9% of greenhouse gases. So, for all you Global Warming Conspiracy Theorists, stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
The argument in Ohio over the availability of health care coverage to more low-income residents rages on. This debate has been fuming with Ohio’s residents for some time as many of the states citizens live at or slightly above the poverty line. However, Medicaid expansion still remains on unstable ground in Ohio at this time. Those who would benefit the most from widening this taxpayer-funded health insurance program are single adults with no children. That’s just one obvious flaw if Medicaid‘s true objective is to provide quality health care to those who really need it.
Most supporters of this expansion will tell you that, too many people without health insurance have to rely on free clinics and Emergency Rooms for their ailments. Well, isn’t that what those resources are there for? Why should a taxpayer have to pick up the check for another’s quality health care while also paying their own premiums? That is Socialism to the core.
Expanding Medicaid is the backbone of Barack Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act, i.e. Obama Care, but the very idea is being met with heavy resistance in the Ohio legislature to put it lightly. The state estimated an additional 366,000 Ohio residents would be eligible for coverage by expanding Medicaid beginning in 2014, while the program already provides health care for 20% of the entire state.
On the plus side, Ohio law-makers want to propose their own Medicaid plan that would not include adding more individuals to the state’s Medicaid rolls. One of these likely proposals involves using federal dollars to purchase private insurance for low-income residents. Privatizing insurance may not be popular with liberals or the mass media, but it is the most effective and efficient method to care for patients while at the same time creating competition, growth and revenue. As we all know, our economy could sure use that shot in the arm! From what we know now, the only thing that’s certain at this point, is that Medicaid expansion in Ohio will not be in the two-year budget discussion.