Posts

GOP Selling Out on Homosexuality: Carl DeMaio Target of “Tactical Vote”

Speaker Boehner to hold fundraiser Saturday for ‘proud gay” candidate who backs homosexual “marriage” and abortion rights. San Diego Pro-Family Coalition Urges ‘Defensive Tactical Vote’ Against Carl DeMaio, Openly Homosexual Activist Republican Congressional Candidate.

Carl DeMaio (right) with his homosexual love, Johnathan Hale.

Carl DeMaio (right) with his homosexual love, Johnathan Hale.

Folks, the internecine war in the Republican Party between social conservatives and libertarians who want to abandon abortion and homosexuality as major issues in the Party is bubbling to the surface. The following is an open letter signed by some leading Christian pro-life and pro-family advocates in San Diego–most notably pastor Jim Garlow, who led the victorious 2008 campaign for California’s Proposition 8 ballot initiative defending marriage. The letter urges concerned  San Diego Christians to cast a “tactical vote” against openly homosexual Republican congressional candidate Carl DeMaio, who supports homosexuality-based “marriage” and abortion rights. DeMaio’s campaign TV ad declaring himself a “proud gay American” who eschews “divisive social agendas” (even as he embraces them) is below [more analysis follows beneath video]:

All across America, GOP leaders are walking away from or downplaying the Party’s principled pro-family and pro-life platform. Their assumption is that this will help the Party win “moderate” votes and hence elections–a plan that didn’t work out so well for 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney (who, among other dubious stances, came out for open homosexuals in the Boy Scouts). The message from GOP elites in Washington is loud and clear: social issues are a drag on the Party; ignore them to win. But few Republican big shots seem to consider this relevant political question: how many social conservatives will walk away from the GOP or simply not vote–or be far less energized to volunteer for and fund a given GOP campaign–than they would be had a well-rounded social conservative been nominated?

This is precisely what is happening in San Diego. [See this Barbwire story to learn how the San Diego GOP endorsed and favored DeMaio in the Republican primary.]

Speaker of the House John Boehner will be raising funds for DeMaio Saturday. This piece in The Hill newspaper describes the GOP’s posture of backing homosexual candidates:

Last December, Boehner shot down calls for the NRCC [National Republican Congressional Committee] to abandon gay GOP candidates, arguing the party needed to make better inroads with gays, women and minorities following the party’s poor showing in the 2012 election.

Through his various fundraising committees, Boehner has donated the maximum $14,000 to both DeMaio and [openly homosexual GOP Massachusetts congressional candidate Richard] Tisei this cycle, records show. The NRCC also is spending big in those races, pouring $2.3 million to help DeMaio in his bid to unseat freshman Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.). It’s spending another $1 million to prop up Tisei’s campaign against Democratic nominee Seth Moulton, who ousted Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) in the primary.

“Our decisions on the Republican nominees we support will not be based on race, gender or sexual orientation, but will be based on the strength of their candidacy and their ability to defeat Democrats,” NRCC spokesman Ian Prior said.

Morally and spiritually speaking, the GOP’s new openness to homosexuality and abortion tears at the soul of principled Christians who otherwise would be naturally inclined to vote Republican. These are moral Truth voters whose first allegiance is to God–and who are grieved to watch a Party that claims to be “pro-family” and pro-God tolerate–and then champion–candidates espousing social evils like sodomy-based “marriage” and abortion-on-demand. God does not support Republican-backed homosexuality any more than He does the common Democratic variety. Sin is sin.

[See this recent speech by Gov. Mike Huckabee assailing the GOP abandonment of traditional marriage as an issue.]

From FOX News icon Brit Hume prematurely and perhaps wishfully (as a loyal Republican drinking the Kool-aid) declaring this week that the same-sex “marriage” issue is over as a political issue–to Michigan’s Republican Speaker of the House Jase Bolger accepting $50,000 from “gay” activist financier Tim Gill, the GOP’s capitulation on homosexuality is accelerating. AFTAH is non-partisan, so we do not get involved in elections. But we do report trends, and the GOP trend of watering down or abandoning key moral principles–and selling its soul for “gay”-friendly campaign cash–has the very real potential to drive millions of people of faith from the Party. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org; Twitter: @PeterLaBarbera

Open letter reprinted from “Republicans & Independents for Scott Peters“:

Defensive Tactical Voting: Which candidate will do the least harm?

As you prepare to vote: 

Christian conservatives face a moral dilemma in a key San Diego election race.

We know we have a clear choice in voting between the candidates when one of the candidates stands in opposition on issues relevant to the Christian community: life, marriage, religious freedom… Obviously we vote for the candidate who is in-line with biblically based values.

But how should we vote when both candidates share virtually the same views, and stand in opposition to those values?

Some people choose to simply abstain from voting, out of frustration with both candidates.  However, staying at home on Election Day might provide the margin of victory for a candidate who will do far greater damage and harm to society.

Such a race, we believe, calls for a different type of strategy when voting. Rather than sitting out the election, and potentially allowing a candidate who will cause great damage to win an election, we suggest a strategy that we call “Defensive Tactical Voting.”

What is Defensive Tactical Voting? Simply this: voting for a candidate who, while doing some damage to society, will do less damage than the other candidate(s) on the ballot. And who will provide a greater opportunity for defeat in a future election. We are aware of the fact that this strategy cannot always be applied broadly, but only to specific races.

An example of such an election is the 52nd Congressional District in San Diego, CA. Two candidates are running: Incumbent Democrat Scott Peters, and Republican Carl DeMaio.   Both candidates are pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage. Both candidates are liberal and “progressive.” Yet one of these candidates will do far more damage to the moral fabric of our society than the other.

That candidate: the Republican candidate, Carl DeMaio.

Why is Carl DeMaio so damaging as a potential Congressman?

Here are a few reasons:

DeMaio is an avowed LGBTQ activist (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning).

The LGBTQ movement believes in a genderless society, where God’s order of male and female is denied. Their goal is much greater than that. It is to impose their views upon us, with the intent of abolishing our rights to freedom of religious conscience, coercing us to affirm homosexual practice and to forever alter the historic, natural definition of marriage. Allow us to be clear, in court cases all over America, it is now overwhelmingly evident that religious liberty and the radical homosexual agenda can not co-exist. Authentic biblical believers are losing their right to the first amendment expression whenever the homosexual agenda gets its way.

DeMaio has made it very clear that if he were elected, he would cater to the LGBTQ activists. Here is a newspaper interview comment from Carl DeMaio: “When I’m elected mayor, I will be one of the highest ranking LGBT officials in the nation. And the highest ranking Republican LGBT official. While my focus will be on fiscal and economic reform in San Diego, I also recognize the opportunity and obligation to serve as a role model for the LGBT community. We are currently evaluating several organizations and efforts to define the best way for me to serve as a role model.” Gay San Diego, Sept 7, 2012

Carl DeMaio is young, with a charismatic personality. If Carl DeMaio were elected to Congress, those within the GOP who desire to destroy historic one-man, one-woman marriage, and those who desire to destroy life in the womb, would likely attempt to increase DeMaio’s influence and stature within the Republican Party – becoming the poster child for the emerging left wing of the GOP. And as an incumbent, he would be virtually impossible to defeat.

But perhaps of greater danger is the fact that his rise in the Party would contribute greatly to a seismic shift: a loss of basic moral and family values in the Republican Party platform.  DeMaio will actively advocate a platform where foundational moral and family issues would essentially be removed from discussion, looking virtually identical to those planks in the Democrat platform.

Peters wants to change the direction of our country through his Party. DeMaio wants to change the country and his Party entirely. If DeMaio is elected, he will do so. And he will leave us as biblical Christians without a political home.

If you want further proof of DeMaio’s desire to remake the Republican Party, go directly to the San Diego Gay and Lesbian News, which is published by Johnathan Hale, DeMaio’s homosexual partner. (Yes, you read that right, DeMaio’s partner publishes the homosexual news for San Diego.) In this article DeMaio makes his intentions clear.

Please understand that our concerns lie not with Mr. DeMaio’s personal issues with same-sex attraction, but with his activism geared towards changing core values that protect life, the family and religious freedom.

In other words, those who hold to the sanctity of human life, the sanctity of family (meaning a biblical marriage, and two parent, one man-one woman, father and mother families), and the freedom to exercise religious conscience, would no longer have an active voice in American government.

DeMaio is a member of the Republican Party. Carl DeMaio, however, does not endorse the platform of the Republican Party–particularly the pro-life and pro-marriage planks of that platform.

A vote for Democrat Scott Peters will send a message to the Republican Party: “Defend your Party platform and its conservative values, and return to promoting and endorsing candidates who vocally support the entire platform. If you do not, we will keep voting for the opposition, and you will keep loosing elections. ”

Consider this: if you abstain from voting, that is a one vote (-1) difference. However, if you do not vote for DeMaio, but rather vote for Peters, that is a 2 vote (-1, +1) difference.  Your vote for Peters could make all the difference. (Please note that we understand that some will be unable to cast a vote for either candidate, and we are not asking you to violate your conscience before the Lord.)

In the 52nd Congressional District of San Diego, we encourage a vote for Democrat Scott Peters. Why? Not because he stands for our values – he does not.  We are supporting a vote for Scott Peters because he will do less damage to our nation then will his opponent:  Carl DeMaio. And will allow us an opportunity to correct the situarion in two years.

As a sidenote, we would urge fellow Republicans and Independents in Massachusetts and Oregon to vote for the Democrat opponents of the two Republican candidates, who likewise oppose the Republican Platform. They are: Democrat Seth Moulton, rather than Republican Richard Tisei, (MA 6); and Democrat Jeff Merkley of Oregon, rather than US Senate Republican candidate Monica Wehby.

Please join this movement, in order to keep the candidate who could do far more damage, Carl DeMaio, out of Washington. Consider voting for Scott Peters in the November election. While many of us do not align with Scott Peters politically, we align even less, morally and ethically, with Carl DeMaio.

God bless you and your family,

God bless America,

As a growing movement, additional names will be added in the near future.  If you would like your name added to the list below. please email info@RepublicansandIndependentsforScottPeters.com

Kamal Alsawaf
Dean Broyles
Dr . Gary Cass
Chris Clark
Frank Dowse
Dr. Jim Garlow
Pat Hansen
Penny Harrington
Jim Holman
Frank Kacer
Attorney Charles Limandri
Kathryn A. Marler
Timmerie Millington
Mary Moran
Claire Reiss
Allyson Smith
John Waring
Anne Wigdahl Subia
Amy Vance

The persons listed above have signed this letter as individuals, not representing any organization, nor are they working in association with any other organization. They are private citizens who jointly signed this letter when they discovered they shared a common view. You are invited to join them by emailing going to:  info@RepublicansAndIndependentsForScottPeters.com and asking for your name to be added to the list.

RELATED ARTICLE: Huckabee Threatens To Leave GOP Over Gay Marriage, Abortion

Massachusetts: How the GOP tried to destroy Mark Fisher, conservative candidate for Governor

But as Sept. 5 primary nears, Tea Party activists are fighting back! How MassResistance made the difference . . .

Most people assume that the major threat to getting conservatives elected to high office is the liberal Democratic machine. In recent years there’s been another major front in that war: The Republican Party establishment –both state and national. This is fueled by millions of dollars from “progressive Republican” businessmen. And, sadly, it includes many sellout pro-family groups and politicians. [All photos by MassResistance except where noted.]

Fisher at the GOP convention:”I am a full-platform no-excuses-necessary loyal and proud conservative Republican … [Around the country] conservative solutions are the cure for liberal failures … The time has come to tear down that big liberal tent.”

This kind of talk drives the GOP establishment crazy!

But we’ve never seen anything like the Massachusetts Republican Party’s outrageous (and we believe, criminal) efforts to subvert pro-family/Tea Party candidate Mark Fisher’s campaign for governor, which we’ve detailed below.

During Fisher’s speech, former Mass. Governor Bill Weld (sitting, at right), a RINO who voted for Barack Obama, looks up at Mark Fisher and you can tell he’s not happy!

A disturbing national trend explodes in Massachusetts

Ever since the days of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, there’s been a tension between the GOP establishment — who felt they could avoid the Left’s hostile attacke by appeasing them on most “hot-button” issues — and the conservative base who vote on principle. In recent years, this has led to many high-profile battles with Tea Party backed candidates in Republican primaries, which has angered the establishment considerably.

So now we’re seeing the next step: The aggressive purging of conservative candidates for high office before they can get a foothold.

Here in Massachusetts this has turned the State Republican Party into an overtly hostile anti-family institution devoid of political principles that long-time activists no longer recognize. This year Party elites were particularly determined to avoid a primary battle for Governor that could endanger their annointed “moderate” candidate, Charlie Baker.

Fisher’s candidacy for Governor attracts a torrent of GOP hostility

The appearance of Mark Fisher in the Massachusetts governor’s race stymied the Republican establishment. He is not only a fairly solid conservative and wealthy enough to get his campaign off the ground, but he is bright and articulate and can hold his own in any debate. For example, in several head-to-head debates with GOP rival, Charlie Baker, does a much better job in our opinion.

Mark Fisher and Charlie Baker debate at Boston Globe office, which is unquestionably hostile to Fisher.See article and VIDEO of debate here.[Boston Globephoto]

From the very beginning of his campaign, Fisher became Public Enemy #1 to the Republican State Committee and their allies. Their goal was to keep him from being able to run in the primary. And they almost succeeded.

Below is a list of the efforts by the GOP and “pro-family” establishment in Massachusetts over the last year to keep conservative Mark Fisher from being able to run for Governor against the RINO Charlie Baker in the Republican primary. Even most Republicans aren’t aware what’s been going on. That’s why we’re publishing this.

Don’t be surprised if you see these things happen in other states:

A. Prior to the State convention . . .

1. Hostility at his candidacy by “pro-family” Republicans. Late last year when Fisher announced his candidacy, and it became known that he was a pro-family conservative with the means to carry on a serious candidacy, the establishment (including so-called “pro-family” people) began hounding him not to run so Baker would not have a “conservative” challenger. According to newspaper reports this included Karyn Polito (currently running for Lt. Governor), State Rep. Ryan Fattman, and GOP National Committeewoman Chanel Prunier, who also leads the Coalition for Marriage and Family. We know of many other prominent GOP politicians and pro-family “leaders” who also approached Fisher.

2. Turned down by GOP sign company. According to reports, in February Fisher was turned down by a company that regularly makes campaign signs for the GOP because the company was warned  not to do business with Fisher or risk losing other GOP sign business.

B. At the March 22 GOP State Convention . . .

The Mass. GOP state convention filled Agganis Arena at Boston University.

To get on the state ballot, a candidate needed 15% of the delegates to vote for him at the state GOP convention on March 22, 2014. The Mass. GOP made an enormous effort to keep Fisher from getting that amount.

3. Outrageous fee to speak at GOP convention. In order to speak at the GOP State Convention, the Mass GOP raised the “entry fee” for gubernatorial candidates to $25,000, to deter Fisher. Candidates for other statewide offices were charged a fraction of that to speak. Fisher paid it.

4. State Committee emails telling delegates to vote for Baker. The day before the Convention, delegates received “official” looking emails from their state committee representatives telling them that to vote for Charlie Baker – and thus not have a primary by keeping Fisher off the ballot — would be the best thing for the Party.

This “official” email to delegates from their state committeewoman started off with “official” info, but then told them that voting for Baker would be best for the Party.Read it here.

5. The waiting room from hell. State-wide candidates were given nice rooms to prepare for their convention speeches. Mark and his team were given a smelly locker room with benches surrounded by toilets and shower stalls.

Going into the convention Fisher people expected to get 30%. Given that GOP activists who become delegates and actually go to the convention are generally fairly conservative, and seeing who they were on the day of the convention, it was generally believed that Fisher would get at least 30% of the vote. But no one was prepared for the high-pressure campaign that took place that day.

6. Huge pressure on delegates to vote for Baker. Throughout the day, a small army of State Party officials, State Committeemen, GOP State Reps, Town Party Chairmen, GOP candidates for office, and others put on a coordinated effort to strong-arm and harangue delegates not to vote for Fisher –- to either vote for Baker or vote “blank.” We heard about all kinds of interesting threats, mostly involving loss of GOP financial support and/or access to GOP facilities.

On the giant screen GOP national committeewoman Chanel Prunier exhorts the delegates to vote for Charlie Baker.
This delegate told us that during the convention he was pressured by his state committeeman, state committeewoman, State Rep. and even a state pro-family activist to vote for Baker.But he held out and voted for Fisher!

7. GOP won’t release video of Fisher’s convention speech. When his turn came at the convention, Fisher gave a very good speech. The GOP had set up a sophisticated video recording system in the auditorium. But later when Fisher asked for a copy of his speech, the Mass GOP refused to give it to him. Luckily, MassResistance also made a video of his speech, which we’ve allowed his website to use.


VIDEO: Fisher’s convention speech was one of the best we’ve ever seen. The GOP wouldn’t release their video of it, so we let him have OURS!

8. Delegations’ votes are publicly announced, but result is ignored.The vote tally was very public. A GOP official at the podium called out to each of the 40 delegations for their results. Each delegation, using a portable microphone from their area in the auditorium, announced their totals for Baker, Fisher, and “blanks” from their tally sheets which had the names of the delegates and how they voted. The whole thing took about 20 minutes. But at the end, the grand totals were not announced.

9. Convention halts while “re-counting” takes place. The convention immediately stopped and a group of party officials huddled around some tables in front of the stage. At first was not clear what they were doing. Finally, we were told that a “re-counting” of sorts was taking place. This went on for at least half an hour or more.

Right after the public vote. Party officials gathered around a table at the front of the hall for a “re-count.”

10. Baker is declared winner, but actual vote totals still not announced. A few minutes later, Baker was declared the “winner. ” And with a rain of balloons and confetti, and he came up and gave a speech. But what percentage did Baker get? What percentage did Fisher get? It was not announced – only that Baker won.

Even though no vote totals were announced, Charlie Baker was hailed as the “winner” with a sea of confetti. Here Baker (center) is being congratulated by Bill Weld (right).

11. “Re-counting” continues, and “results” finally announced. After Baker’s speech, party officials moved to tables in a back room area and continued their mysterious “re-counting.” After about another two hours, it was announced that Fisher had only received 14.765% of the votes, just missing the 15% requirement. Fisher’s people were not allowed to examine the tally sheets for themselves, however.

The “re-count” group then convened to a back room out of sight. Long after the convention had been gaveled to a close, people continued waiting for the results of the “re-count.”

C. After the convention . . .

12. Mass GOP announces Fisher will not be the ballot. The day after the convention, the Mass GOP announced to the press that Mark Fisher had not received the 15% requirement, and therefore would not be on the ballot. The GOP stood by its “re-count.”

13. Tally sheets still kept hidden.  The Mass GOP continued to refuse to let anyone see the individual delegate vote tally sheets, which apparently added up to the GOP’s new official vote count. Several delegates expressed concern that their votes had been tampered with, miscounted, or that they were “assigned” votes when they hadn’t voted at all.

14. MassResistance video of public vote during convention shows Fisher got his 15%! During the convention, while the delegation votes were being publicly announced, no one had thought to write them down and add them up. But MassResistance videoed the entire process.When we played the video and counted the votes that were announced, we found that Mark Fisher GOT just over 15%, even if you include blank votes. We posted the video and allowed the Fisher campaign to use it, and it was reported in the Boston media. This brought up an additional question: Why were “blank” votes counted in the total, when it was apparently against the rules?


VIDEO: MassResistance video of the roll call vote at the GOP convention revealed that Fisher GOT his 15%! Thus, Fisher’s campaign got new life.

15 Fisher takes the Mass GOP to court.  Why did the public vote count show that Fisher got his 15% but the mysterious “recount” by the GOP showed he didn’t? Why the difference? Obviously, an examination of the tally sheets –- which should have had every delegate’s name and how he voted — would reveal that. But the Mass GOP refused to release them, and they would not give a reason. So the Fisher campaign filed a lawsuitagainst theMass GOP in Suffolk Superior Court in Boston to examine the tally sheets and get on the ballot.

16. Mass GOP caves in and allows Fisher on the ballot. After about three months of preliminary court hearings, the Mass GOP decided to let Fisher on the ballot. But they still refused to release the tally sheets – even to State Committee members – for examination.

17. Court case temporarily crippled Fisher candidacy. Although Fisher won the case, it left his campaign in terrible shape. It cost Fisher’s campaign approximately $100,000 in legal fees. But also, during that 3-month period he was considered “not on the ballot,” so he could not easily raise money, nor could he attract enough volunteers to help get his required 10,000 signatures which were also needed to get on the ballot, so he had to pay professional signature gatherers. And during that time he wasn’t included in candidate forums, etc. so he lost a lot of public visibility. It was a devastating blow that almost sunk him.

18. Fisher campaign not allowed to use Mass GOP campaign resources. The Mass GOP has set up an expensive and elaborate “MassVictory” operation with offices, phone banks, etc. around the state. All GOP candidates are allowed to use those facilities -– except Fisher. They won’t let his campaign use them. It’s outrageous.

19. Fisher not listed on Mass GOP website. The State Party website currently has names and photos of all the statewide candidates on the ballot – except Fisher. The sheer hatred of Fisher by the party establishment takes them to these absurd lengths.

20. Sleazy GOP State Committee votes to keep tally sheets secret.Even after the court case subsided, the Mass GOP executives had even refused to let the 80-member elected State Committee see the tally sheets! So in July, a group of conservative State Committee members petitioned the Chairman to call a meeting so the Committee could vote to release them. The Chairman called the meeting, but it was closed to the public and held in secret. In the closed meeting, the majority of the State Committee voted not to release the tally sheets to anyone, not even to themselves! (What possible reason would there be to keep them secret . . . unless there was some criminal wrongdoing that took place?)

21. Mass GOP lavishly funding Baker, Fisher gets nothing. The Mass GOP is using its resources to raise enormous funds for the Baker campaign, but nothing for the Fisher campaign. This includes, according to the Boston Globe, paying a consulting firm to fundraise for Baker. In fact, we have been told that Republican donors are being told NOT to donate to the Fisher campaign. This has had a disastrous effect on Fisher’s fundraising capabilities.

22. Alleged threats to media by Mass GOP. A radio talk show host told us that members of the media have been threatened by GOP officials if they cover Mark Fisher to any extent, they will be persona non grata by the rest of the GOP during this election cycle.

By far the most troubling aspect of this was how easily virtually every “pro-family” GOP politician sold his soul and fell into line for Baker and against Fisher when pressured by the establishment.

We don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the Mass GOP has become a dishonest, unprincipled cesspool that good people should stay away from — and only donate money to individual candidates.

And then there’s the Frank Addivinola episode

Mark Fisher wasn’t the only pro-family candidate squashed at the convention. Frank Addivinola, a businessman and college professor, was a U.S. Senate candidate. But like Mark Fisher, he was an unabashed pro-family advocate.

Although his campaign had a booth at the convention, through a still unresolved series of events he was not given a chance to speak.

U.S. Senate Candidate Frank Dddivinola (left) at his table at the Mass. GOP convention.

But Addivinola was VERY popular among conservatives across the state and would have easily gotten his 15%. So the Mass GOP didn’t take any chances. When it came time for the nomination of candidates, the Chairman allowed the establishment candidate, Brian Herr, to be nominated, then immediately closed the nominations! So no one could even nominate Addivinola.

Even though Addivinola’s banner (for which he paid them plenty!) was right next to the podium, they pretended that his candidacy didn’t exist.

It was still possible for Addivinola to get on the ballot via signatures, since he was running for a federal office. But once the Party officially considered him a non-candidate and denied him all support, his campaign never recovered from that. Thus, Herr is now unopposed in the primary.

Tea Party groups & others rallying statewide for Fisher as Sept. 9 primary nears

Fisher’s campaign is making a surge!

None of the above adversities have stopped the Fisher campaign or its supporters statewide. Fisher continues to appear everywhere, every day, and has impressed people wherever he goes. This has only ignited Fisher’s people even more.

In mid-August a group of Tea Parties, conservative leaders, and non-establishment pro-family groups, began a furious grassroots push to energize the GOP conservative base of voters to go to the polls on Sept. 5 and vote for Fisher. Will this become another David Brat over Eric Cantor? No one knows. But the energy is there!

This is the flyer that Tea Parties across the state are handing out. You can download a copy here.

This is a favorable primary race because Democrats and independents will be drawn to the highly contested Democratic primary, and many mainstream Republican voters will likely think Baker is a shoo-in and not bother to go to the polls. Even Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe’s (relatively) conservative columnist, who’s a registered Independent, said he’s voting in the Democratic primary — because that’s “where the action is.”

This is a great opportunity for a possble pro-family upset – in a RINO state! If you are a registered voter in Massachusetts, you know what to do on Sept. 9.We’ll see if Massachusetts can do it!

GOPFaith.com launched: But will Republicans truly stand with people of faith?

The Republican Party has launched a new outreach focused on Christians and Evangelicals its “biggest, most reliable voting bloc.”. In the 2012 Presidential election 1 million Christians did not vote in Florida, President Obama won Florida by less than 80,000 votes. Question: Is GOPFaith.com politically compatible with GOProud.org? Some think not.

The new website GOPFaith.com was announced in the below press release on July 4th, 2014. Danita Kilcullen, TEA Party Fort Lauderdale, forwarded the press release and commented on it to TEA Party members. Kilcullen’s comments are all [IN CAPS]:

To increase the voter turnout among evangelicals and seek support from conservative believers, the Republican Party has launched a new initiative to mobilize its “biggest, most reliable voting bloc.”

“This website is designed for faith voters like you,” says GOPfaith.com, which was launched Friday.

GOPFaith.com is built to keep pro-faith voters up to date with how the Republican Party is fighting for religious freedom, learn how to register voters at your place of worship and mobilize them on Election Day,” says Chad Connelly, Faith Engagement Director of the Republican National Committee.

It’s “an online home for all of our efforts, all around the country,” he says in a video posted on the website, which seeks to “build an army of conservative pro-faith activists [THIS EVANGELICAL REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST WILL NOT STAND WITH REPUBLICAN SHERIFFS, COMMISSIONERS, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS, MAYORS, ETC., WHO ENDORSE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND MARCH IN GAY PARADES] to make the difference in the coming elections.”

“This shouldn’t be outreach, this should be who we are – it is who we are,” Connelly tells The Washington Post, describing evangelicals as “are our biggest, most reliable voting bloc.”

Connelly points to surveys that show only a third of the 89 million Americans who identify themselves as evangelical Christians voted in the 2012 election. There are “millions of pro-faith conservatives all across American who are not politically engaged,” the initiative says.

Follow us Get CP eNewsletter ››

It seeks to “identifying 100,000 pro-faith conservatives who will help identify, register, inform and mobilize America’s faith-based community to get them engaged and to vote their values.”

“The GOP’s longtime commitment to traditional values with a platform that doesn’t mind placing those values front and center has made it the natural political home for people of faith,” Connelly wrote in an op-ed in The Christian Post Friday. [REALLY? GOP WITH A TRADITIONAL VALUES PLATFORM? DOES THAT INCLUDE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, OR WILL THE GOP CAVE TO THE NEW HOMOSEXUAL NARRATIVE OF, “WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE STRUCTURE THERE IS A HIGH DIVORCE RATE,” WHICH I AM HEARING FROM ‘REPUBLICAN’ ELECTS WHO PROUDLY MARCH IN HOMOSEXUAL PARADES.]

Up for grabs on the Election Day are 435 U.S. House seats, 36 U.S. Senate seats, 36 governorships, [GOV. SCOTT NEEDS CHRISTIAN SUPPORT FROM PASTORS AND REAL CHRISTIAN REPUBLICANS. ENORMOUS PRESSURE IS BEING PUT UPON HIM BY THE HOMOSEXUAL COMMUNITY TO CAVE TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE] 89 state legislative chambers with over 6,000 seats, and “important pro-life legislation, [TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE PROTECTION?], protecting religious liberties and getting rid of ObamaCare.”

The party is aiming at pastors, Connelly says, adding they shy away from talking about political issues.

Federal law requires that houses of worship must not endorse candidates if they want to retain their tax-exempt status. [ALL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES ARE SUCCINCTLY COVERED IN THE SCRIPTURES. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS REITERATE TO THEIR CONGREGATIONS].

“Let’s overcome that myth of the IRS saying you can’t talk about this from the pulpit,” Connelly says. “Look, if there’s no freedom of speech in the pulpit, there’s no freedom of speech. Now is the time of righteous indignation.”

It’s a time to be the “turn-the-tables-over Jesus” and not the “meek, turn-the-other-cheek Jesus,” he adds.

“Registering to vote and preaching about Biblical values in the pulpit aren’t ‘political talk’ at all. They are imperatives that help ensure that the spiritual values that built our country live on in the political institutions that give us the laws that we live by,” Connelly wrote for the CP.

Evangelicals care about issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, which might be seen as divisive by some Republicans but are still important for the party to maintain the support they receive from the bloc.

“Many Republican leaders are tired of losing, they see some real opportunities to win, and that means they have to fire on all cylinders, if you will. And this is a key constituency,” says John Green, head of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron, according to Religion News Service. “They don’t have to woo them to the party as much as they need to woo them to the polls.”

EDITORS NOTE: An earlier version of this column wrongly attributed the quotes in the press release to Peter Feaman, Florida National Committeeman. That was an error. We apologize to Mr. Feaman for this error in reporting. The revised article properly attributes those comments.

Its R.I.N.O. Season!

Republican campaign poster from 1896 attacking free silver

Tired of Republicans betraying their oath and their constituents? Here is how to solve the problem: time for bold talk. Take away “the lesser of two evils” vote.

Time for a third party?

[youtube]http://youtu.be/uqdGr8p2WmM[/youtube]

Glenn Beck hammers national “toxic political system”

Pitchfork Patriots reports, “Glenn Beck skewered the GOP while delivering the keynote address at a local Texas GOP’s Reagan Day dinner, contending the Republican Party hasn’t demonstrated through action that it actually believes the principles it espouses.”

“He then likened the current situation in Washington, D.C. to the nuclear disaster that occurred decades ago at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Beck offered the solution he said was employed to end that catastrophe as a way to repair our toxic political system,” notes Pitchfork Patriots.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/k9uOtYGLhHo[/youtube]

Pitchfork Patriots writes:

Beck previously warned Republicans that if they embrace establishment politicians such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the party would eventually cease to exist.

“If the GOP wants to not just win, if the GOP expects to survive — if you embrace John McCain and John Boehner it will not happen,” he said. “If you embrace the Mike Lees and the Ted Cruzes, you win big time.”

Read more.

Ronald Reagan was the TEA Party!

Newly re-elected Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) on CNN’s Jake Tapper show stated, “I’m a conservative. I’ve governed as a conservative in this state, and I think that’s led to some people disagreeing with me in our state, because it’s generally a left-of-center, blue state.”

But is Christie truly a conservative?

Republicans, like Christie, often quote Ronald Reagan when speaking about conservatism. In September 2011 Christie spoke at the Reagan Library, his topic was “Real American Exceptionalism“. Christie focused on Ronald Reagan’s stand against striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Christie said, “The air traffic controllers, in violation of their contracts, went on strike.  President Reagan ordered them back to work, making clear that those who refused would be fired. In the end, thousands refused, and thousands were fired. I cite this incident not as a parable of labor relations but as a parable of principle. Ronald Reagan was a man who said what he meant and meant what he said. Those who thought he was bluffing were sadly mistaken.  Reagan’s demand was not an empty political play; it was leadership, pure and simple.”

“We tend to still understand foreign policy as something designed by officials in the State Department and carried out by ambassadors and others overseas. And to some extent it is. But one of the most powerful forms of foreign policy is the example we set. This is where it is instructive to harken back to Ronald Reagan and the PATCO affair. President Reagan’s willingness to articulate a determined stand and then carry it out at home sent the signal that the occupant of the Oval Office was someone who could be predicted to stand by his friends and stand up to his adversaries. If President Reagan would do that at home, leaders around the world realized that he would do it abroad as well.  Principle would not stop at the water’s edge,” noted Christie.

Reagan’s policies were based upon in what has become known as his “three legged stool”. Some call them the “Three Pillars of Conservatism”.

Kevin Price from Renew America writes, “If you know of Ronald Reagan, you are likely to be aware of his ‘three legged stool.’ Reagan developed a success formula to build winning coalitions that was as simple as it was brilliant. A sample of that simplicity and one of the hallmarks of Reagan’s policies was his ‘three legged stool.’ Reagan’s policies were built on three ideas; free enterprise, strong defense, and pro-family social policies. He chose these three because they, of course, reflected his own values, but he also realized that each of these ideas have enormous appeal on their own.”

Reagan was a man of principle, true conservatives are as well. Compromise on matters of principle is foreign to conservatives. Conservatives intuitively know that compromise on principles is the art of losing slowly.

J. Matt Barber from Christian News Today in his column “The Complete Conservative” writes, “I recently attended the Ronald Reagan Centennial Celebration hosted by the Republican Party of Virginia. It was co-sponsored by, among others, the Ronald Reagan Institute for Conservative Leadership. Michael Reagan, the oldest child of the man widely considered our greatest modern president, was the keynote speaker. Mr. Reagan said something that I think concisely sums up the core values shared by the ragtag millions who comprise the Tea Party movement. ‘People often ask me if Ronald Reagan would have supported the Tea Party,” he said. ‘Ronald Reagan was the Tea Party’.”

Speculation about who is the frontrunner for in the 2016 presidential Republican primaries has begun. The media always frames the Republican selection process as a need to run as a conservative in order to win the primary but run as a moderate in order to win the White House. That strategy was unsuccessful for both John McCain and Mitt Romney.

Price wrote, “Today, the common cry from economic conservatives is that they are the only ones with a message that matters to the voting public. After 40 years of Roe vs. Wade, we have two generations who only know a country with abortion on demand, they argue. Secondly, many conservatives have grown suspicious of ‘the military’ leg. They believe that just as the government has gotten suspicious in its domestic spending, it has also lost its bearings when it comes to defense and has found itself being internationalists with muscle. Essentially, ‘the three legged stool’ is being replaced by a pogo stick. A single area of interest and concern — the economy, being the springboard for political success.”

Price concludes, “The reality is the ‘three legged stool’ tripled the reasons why one would vote Republican. If the GOP provides the only means to protect traditional families, Christian conservatives will support it, regardless of the other legs of the stool. I think the same can be [said] of the other parts of a coalition that made the Republican Party very successful. If the stool is dead, the fortunes of the party may be also.”

Has the GOP adopted a “pogo stick” as the only path for political success? If so, losses as far as the eye can see may occur, as they did in Virginia, a state that could have elected the conservative Ken Cuccinelli.

Barry Goldwater wrote, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!”

It not the economy stupid, its the three legged stool!

RELATED COLUMNS: 

Tea party peeved with GOP over governor races, says Ken Cuccinelli was robbed

Christie Sued on His Victory Day

 McConnell Debt Plan: Press Release Conservatism

The Republican Establishment Lost Virginia

Look to Cruz, Not Christie

FL Rep. Grayson: Did you know that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, spoke at Ku Klux Klan rallies?

For a larger view click on the image. Image courtesy of Dave Leventhal.

Florida Representative Alan Grayson (D – FL District 6) invoked the image of a burning cross in a fundraising email. The intent of his email was to discredit the TEA Party of Florida and its affiliates. In using this image of a burning cross perhaps Rep. Grayson does not know nor understand the history of the Ku Klux Klan?

Here are some facts about who really created and supported the Ku Klux Klan.

In 1926, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, New Jersey. Sanger wrote in her biography, “Eventually the lights were switched on, the audience seated itself, and I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak. Never before had I looked into a sea of faces like these. I was sure that if I uttered one word, such as abortion, outside the usual vocabulary of these women they would go off into hysteria. And so my address that night had to be in the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand. In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered. The conversation went on and on, and when we were finally through it was too late to return to New York.”

Sanger was a proponent of Eugenics, the racial cleansing of American society. In Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12, Sanger wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.  The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

According to Wikipedia:

From the mid-1870s on in the Deep South, violence rose. In Mississippi, Louisiana, the Carolinas and Florida especially, the Democratic Party relied on paramilitary “White Line” groups such as the White Camelia to terrorize, intimidate and assassinate African American and white Republicans in an organized drive to regain power. In Mississippi, it was the Red Shirts; in Louisiana, the White League that were paramilitary groups carrying out goals of the Democratic Party to suppress black voting. Insurgents targeted politically active African Americans and unleashed violence in general community intimidation. Grant’s desire to keep Ohio in the Republican aisle and his attorney general’s maneuvering led to a failure to support the Mississippi governor with Federal troops. The campaign of terror worked. In Yazoo County, for instance, with a Negro population of 12,000, only seven votes were cast for Republicans. In 1875, Democrats swept into power in the state legislature.

Once Democrats regained power in Mississippi, Democrats in other states adopted the Mississippi Plan to control the election of 1876, using informal armed militias to assassinate political leaders, hunt down community members, intimidate and turn away voters, effectively suppressing African American suffrage and civil rights. In state after state, Democrats swept back to power.From 1868 to 1876, most years had 50–100 lynchings.

White Democrats passed laws and constitutional amendments making voter registration more complicated, to further exclude black voters from the polls.

Bob Unruh of World Net Daily, in his column “KKK’s 1st targets were Republicans” reports, “The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats. An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.”

“The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White,” which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem,” writes Barton.

It appears Rep. Grayson and Democrats with the help of the IRS are again targeting those who oppose them and big government. Invoking the burning cross is in character especially for those who believe in supremacism.

The below video is the full text of Margaret Sanger’s autobiographical recollections on addressing the Ku Klux Klan: