Tag Archives: Conservatives

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge July 6th

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 29th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Taylor is back in Texas and loving it. Tonight he’s joined by Ashley Sewell (@TXTrendyChick) to talk the sport that is Texas politics, the abortion bills, Wendy Davis and David Murphy from the Texas Rangers.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor June 15th 2013

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 15th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Big, big week this week and we talk to Jackie Bodnar from FreedomWorks about it. Is Edward Snowden a hero, traitor or both? Is the US lying about what the NSA program goes? Are the companies allegedly tied to it doing the same thing?

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

 

 

 


Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor June 8th

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 8th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Matt K Lewis from the Daily Caller and The Week talks with Taylor about his article on reforming conservatism. Also Taylor and Liz talk NSA and whatever else comes to mind.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor – June 1st 2013

sncl_logocdnWhen:Saturday, June 1st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radio

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: NJ Libertarian from Free Radical Network stops by to talk his latest column on trolling and sharing in Taylor’s dislike of Jon Stewart. Also, expect talk on pop culture, music and probably geekdom and politics.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

CSCOPE is out of Texas schools

-Marlith- (CC)

-Marlith- (CC)


CSCOPE is officially stopping from distributing lesson plans in Texas, according to a report from the Houston Chronicle.

The state’s regional Education Service Centers will no longer issue lesson plans – and will forbid their use after Aug. 31 – for a popular online curriculum system that became a lightning rod for conservatives who criticized it as anti-American, legislators announced Monday.

The move is expected to leave school districts across the state, including some in the greater Houston area, scrambling to replace CSCOPE, as the program is called, before the start of next school year. Districts that lack the staff or budget to design their own curriculum tend to rely on it.

The CSCOPE plans are in use at 877 districts, or 78 percent of school districts in Texas, said Kyle Wargo, the executive director of Regional Service Center 17 in Lubbock.

“Since we are a small district, we don’t have the resources to hire specialized people in that area,” said Somerset Independent School District Superintendent Saul Hinojosa, who credits CSCOPE with helping the district raise its test scores.

However, while Hinojosa claims CSCOPE helped to increase test scores, that does not necessarily mean that it helps students learn. Debates over the efficacy of standardized tests as a metric to determine how well students learn continue to rage, and in Texas, there are at least some teachers that believe that the end of CSCOPE will mean a better learning environment for their students.

KLTV.com reports that many teachers despised CSCOPE’s rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to education. After seven years of CSCOPE, those teachers are thrilled to be set free from the tyranny of the ready-made lesson plan.

Bill Martin, director of the Tyler Sylvan Learning Center, said the end of CSCOPE means teachers “get control back over their classroom again.”

“They get to use lesson plans that they feel are best suited for their class and their students in their class,” Martin told KLTV.com.

Martin added that he doesn’t know “a single teacher that likes CSCOPE. Not a single teacher.”

If reports that parent requests to see CSCOPE materials were met with demands to pay exorbitant fees were true, the end of this program should also mean a return to school districts obeying Texas laws, requiring that parents be given course information and learning materials on request. Of course, to conservatives, this means the end of students being taught to compare Boston Tea Party Activists to terrorists.

What Obama’s “Bulworth” Comment Shows About Us

bulworthtaylor
Almost forgotten within the whirlwind of last week’s columns and news stories covering the Obama Administration’s scandals was a piece from The New York Times discussing the “onset of woes” he’s had to deal with. Various aides told The Times on, and off, the record how the President is doing all he can to make sure his second term agenda gets accomplished. They also mentioned how Obama is frustrated and “exasperated “with Washington, something which isn’t new to anyone who’s watched one of his news conferences.

The most telling comment in the piece is how Obama has talked about “going Bulworth” and just saying what he actually thinks. This is a reference to the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry film about a California senator who decides to tell everyone what he believes, no matter the consequences. The New York Post has taken it to mean Obama wants to come out and admit he’s a socialist, which the Bulworth character is. This could be true, but it also reveals a problem with our political system.

Politicians have a problem with being 100-percent honest. Big surprise, but a David Axelrod quote following the Bulworth revelation is even more telling. Axelrod told The Times, “But the reality is that while you want to be truthful, you want to be straightforward, you also want to be practical about whatever you’re saying.”

 

It’s not that politicians can’t tell the truth, it’s that they don’t think the public wants to know the truth.

 

The sad part is…they’re probably right.

 

More people would rather be told that things are “going to be okay,” instead of hearing the horrific reality of the situation.

 

The 2012 election is a perfect example of this. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan were vilified for discussing the nation’s $16-trillion in debt. Columnists like Paul Krugman claimed the nation’s debt isn’t an issue, while Obama told David Letterman “we don’t have to worry about it short term.” Letterman asked only one follow up but that shouldn’t be surprising. He’s not Jake Tapper.

 

When Romney spoke his mind in the “infamous” 47-percent quote, he was said to “not represent all Americans” and to have “written off half the nation.” Obama, again, told Letterman about how he wanted to represent the “entire country,” but didn’t talk the substance of Romney’s quote, why he may have said it or the context.

Guaranteed: more people saw Obama make those comments than any of Romney’s speeches on the debt.

 

However, it’s not just Romney who was vilified. Ron Paul was called a “dangerous man” for some of his positions. A look at the jokes the late night talk show hosts said about Paul, shows they saw him more as a “crazy uncle” and not a real candidate. Now, Paul is a horrible messenger from time to time (see his Chris Kyle tweet and his September 11th comment) but he’s at least willing to speak his mind and tell the truth. Something refreshing in politics.

 

As much as people claim to want the truth, the reality is much different. The truth hurts and people prefer “flowers and sunshine” to reality. There’s a difference between pointing out problems and solutions, and just telling people it will be okay. This is why politicians use double-speak and seem distance. A majority of people don’t want reality.

 

There is a way for conservatives and libertarians to break through this. Outreach. Real outreach, not the failed attempt of Project ORCA by Romney’s team during 2012. Get out in the community and be with people. See what they experience. Explain to them how freedom and liberty is important and show them how it can make their lives better. Support what Deneen Borelli and Wayne Dupree are doing in the Black community and what “True the Vote” is trying to do with the Hispanic community. Talk to friends. Engage them.

 

 

And keep politicians accountable. It’s not always pragmatic to change one’s mind. Sometimes it’s simply political. Get them to explain why they do what they do. Get them to tell the truth.

 

 

It’s the only way to prove Axelrod and his ilk wrong.

 

And to make sure Bulworth isn’t “just” a movie but reality.


 

If There Was Ever a Golden Opportunity

The recent “scandals” plaguing the Obama Administration serve to illustrate that nothing lasts forever. The honeymoon with the mainstream media has ended after a record run and their steamroller approach to Washington politics has hit a “bump in the road,” and one they cannot circumvent. This moment in time presents some golden opportunities for those of us who identify it as one of vulnerability for those who quest to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” But in every golden opportunity exists some danger. And while we of the constitutional and conservative bent never cease to protest this truth, it is a truth nevertheless. We could be winning a baseball game by 15 runs in the bottom of the ninth inning and find a way to lose by 3.

While all the so-called “Republican strategists” and conservative pundits debate the depth of the Obama Administration’s “evil deeds,” and while everyone in the conservative blogosphere is screeching “impeachment” at the top of their cyber-lungs, we who possess level heads; who deal in facts and realism instead of emotion and appearance, understand that the probability of impeachment is next to zero. This is because for all the misdeeds and ethical lapses of this administration; with the very serious issues they have exploited for political gain –  including those that took place at the expense of American lives and the sanctity of constitutional rights, “high crimes and misdemeanors” have not been executed by Mr. Obama, personally, that anyone can prove.

Additionally, there are two reasons why impeachment would never result in the removal of President Obama from office.

First, we have a Democrat majority in the US Senate. And while impeachment happens in the US House of Representatives, the trial conducted due to impeachment is held in the Senate, presided over by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. In the end, anyone who believes that a Democrat controlled Senate would vote to convict, thus executing Mr. Obama’s removal from office, is smoking something that is now legal in Colorado.

Second, the Republican establishment and elected leadership would never agree to move on impeachment for fear of losing a messaging battle with the Progressive machine that would leave them with the scarlet letter of “racist” around their organizational neck. Moving on the impeachment of Mr. Obama on charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors” would energize the Progressive base, motivate the race-baiter activists and give the Progressive-sympathetic mainstream media a reason to re-champion Mr. Obama, thus destroying any advantage the GOP may have thought they gleaned from the Obama-induced “scandals.”

And while there are some in this administration that very well should don orange jumpsuits for a period of time, the responsibility of prosecuting these people to conviction is predicated one of two events.

There can be an appointment of a special prosecutor – which requires an appointment of one by…wait for it…US Attorney General Eric Holder. With Mr. Holder’s contempt for Congress and anything not Progressive or “social justice,” and with his track record of biased prosecutions and non-prosecutions, pigs will fly before we see a special prosecutor appointed by Mr. Holder.

Then there is the option of the Department of Justice taking up the prosecution. Again, this would require action on behalf of Attorney General Holder. And again, because he would be – in at least one if not two of the “scandals” – implicated as a “wrong-doer,” well, pigs…wings…you get the picture.

I know, it sounds as if conservatives can’t win for losing. But that’s not the case. There are two opportunities that could not only seal Mr. Obama’s fate, but that could save the United States from one-hundred-plus years of Progressive incremental victories.

First, in light of the fact that the IRS is at the center of a scandal of mammoth proportions, a scandal that reeks of Progressive and/or Chicago-Progressive thug politics, the forces that champion comprehensive and radical tax reform could combine forces to affect true and real reforms in the tax code in either a flat tax, with absolutely no deductions, loopholes or exceptions; or a consumption tax. Either could completely replace the existing Progressive tax code (have you figured out why they call it that yet?) and literally neuter the IRS completely. Truly, it would be just desserts for an agency that has moved from the honest collection of taxes under a dysfunctional and politically charged tax code to a tyrant agency that routinely attacks the innocent, striking fear into the hearts of the law abiding.

But second, and frankly I believe more important, is the opportunity to spotlight the Progressive Movement for the tyrannical, oligarchical elitist, Fabian socialists that they really are; to educate the no- and low-information voters – in real time and with “in-the-news” issues that directly affect them – on how the Progressives actually despise the masses, even as they say they champion the worker (if they really champion the worker how come their signature achievement in Mr. Obama’s tenure – Obamacare – is set to raise the taxes on union health insurance plans in 2018 by 40%?).

If, by the grace of God Almighty, conservatives can dispose of the egos and join in an effort to communicate, if establishment Republicans can lose their penchant for “know-it-all,” “my-way” inside-the-beltway arrogance to provide the national apparatus by which to communicate, and if the TEA Parties can enjoin cohesively with both of the aforementioned to move the message; to educate; to inform the no- and low-information voters, in a non-aggressive and non-inflammatory way – if conservatives of all stripes can craft and move a message that defines the Progressive Movement for exactly who they are and exactly what their goal is for our country, then we have an opportunity to send their movement into a thousand years of darkness.

Imagine.

Of course, to do this would require conservatives to – at least for the moment – work together, something the “too-many-chiefs-and-not-enough-Indians” Conservative Movement does very poorly.

So, Conservatives of all stripes, establishment Republicans and TEA Partiers, it’s the bottom of the ninth and the score is tied. We’re at bat, their pitcher is tired and they have exhausted their bullpen.

How about it?…

Kagan ’09: ‘There is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage’

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane.  It’s 2009, and Elena Kagan is answering questions during her confirmation hearing for the position of Solicitor General within the Obama administration. According to William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, who posted this piece on March 25, this is what she had to say about gay marriage:

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

 a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

Since gay marriage has been thrusted into the political limelight again, Jacobson has resurrected his posts about Kagan from three years ago.  Now, when Jacobson posted about Kagan’s remarks, he was criticized by some conservatives, including Hot Air’s Allahpundit, over the semantics.  National Review’sMaggie Gallagher went a bit further, and called Jacobson’s post “shameful.”  Thankfully, Gallagher’s colleague at National Review, Ed Whelan, provided Jacobson with her letter to then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pennsylvania) at the time to clarify the issue.

In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:

Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:

I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.

When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of additional interest is that when the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 18 Harvard Law School professors signed onto an amicus [i.e., friend of the court] brief supporting that ruling. But not Kagan.

Now, it’s Justice Kagan, and I wonder if she still thinks that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”  Then again, she could just hop on the bandwagon like everyone else.   Sorry Politico, but this is the real ‘gotcha‘ story.

(H/T Legal Insurrection)

Elena Kagan March 18, 2009 Letter to Arlen Specter

When Did Success Become Anathema to Feminists?

We live in a two income household nation, and the days of men being the sole breadwinners are dying.  Women are the majority of wage earners, and if the trends continue, they’ll become the main income earners by 2030.  So, women have made massive strides in the socio-economic landscape, and that’s a good thing.  However, when it comes to successful women, feminists can’t stand them.

It seems idiotic.  Feminists have long clamored that there aren’t enough women in Congress, corporate board rooms, sports, etc., but seem perfectly content with cannibalizing their own when one manages to make it to the top.

Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, and Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer are the newest victims of feminist wrath.  It’s because they go against the norm.  Hanna Rosin aptly noted that Mayer’s critics “believe in collective action,” and anyone that deviates from what the feminist establishment thinks is punished.  Hence, why conservative women are vilified without mercy, despite that fact that some have attained positions of power within male-dominated fields, particularly in politics.  In the world of media, feminist antipathy is no different.

Katie Roiphe of Slate wrote last week that:

The main critiques of Sandberg and Mayer boil down to the fact that they are “not like us.” And yet, it is precisely because they are not like us that we should admire them, or at least be pleased, abstractly, about their existence on earth.

It also seems like a feminist mistake to expect women entrepreneurs to create little utopias instead of running extremely successful businesses. Mayer was attacked recently for her decision not to allow employees to work at home. She is a woman, this line of thinking goes, how could she think women should have to work away outside of their houses, away from their children? But why should Marissa Mayer have some special responsibility to nurture her employees with a cozy, consummately flexible work environment just because she is a woman? Isn’t her responsibility to run a company according to her individual vision? If we want powerful female entrepreneurs shouldn’t we allow them to pursue entrepreneurial power?

The strange idea that women who are successful must represent all women, or somehow be like all women, is both totally absurd and completely prevalent. How could someone in the position of Sandberg or Mayer live exactly like most women in America? Mayer attracted criticism for taking too short a maternity leave and for saying her baby is easy, because women with any sort of success or advantage are supposed to be self-deprecating. They are supposed to complain or evoke the terribleness of their lives, so that other women will not be threatened, to diffuse the powerful and frightening competitive instinct. This is an expectation most of us pick up in middle school, but the fact that it persists and lives on in the blogosphere and newspaper columns among grownup critics and pundits is shameful.

Roiphe cited Anna Holmes of the New Yorker, who took Maureen Dowd and Jodi Kantor of the New York Times to task for taking Sandberg’s quote (“I always thought I would run a social movement”) out of context to make her look “arrogant.”

The original, quite reasonable quote was: “I always thought I would run a social movement, which meant basically work at a nonprofit. I never thought I’d work in the corporate sector.” But even if she had said the sentence, as a standalone aspiration, why should out-scale over the top ambition in a woman be considered arrogant or unappealing? Why is there so much resentment and mockery aimed at women with grand visions?

Hanna Rosin, also of Slate, noted how Mayer doesn’t consider herself a feminist, and thinks women of that mold are “militant,” with “a chip on their shoulder.”  Gasp!  It’s a duel between the individualist, independent-thinking woman and the collective tyrants of the secret circle.  Sandberg has stated that women themselves may be the problem when it comes to advancing in the workplace, as Norah O’Donnell reported on 60 Minutes. Rosin used Sandberg’s new book to convey this point.

… [the] tension between the individual and the collective is at the heart of the debate over Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg’s “lean in” idea. Sandberg is publishing a book of advice to young women executives at the same time as she launches a “consciousness raising” movement complete with specific instructions on how to run lean-in circles. But that kind of collective action feels at odds with the advice in the book. In the book, out next week, Sandberg tells women how to negotiate for higher salaries and promotions, how to nurture their own ambition, how to behave at work if they want to advance. It is all excellent advice, but it’s not the stuff of a consciousness-raising movement. It’s advice for this age of meritocracy, when feminist success largely means professional advancement, one woman at a time. What happens if you’re up against another woman for a promotion? In Sandberg’s world, you go for it.

Hence, why – ironically – independent women, like Mayer and Sandberg, are anathema to the feminist establishment.  They aren’t thinking like a feminist. They’re thinking about their careers, and their own interests.  Men do the same thing.  In fact, anyone who wants to get ahead will do the same thing.  As Robert Frost once said, “I do not want to live in a homogenous society, I want the cream to rise.”

This problem that feminists have with women succeeding relates to their movement as a whole.  It’s a common criticism that the third – and current – wave of feminism lacks a clear vision for the 21st century. What issues, if there are any, are left for women to campaign on that haven’t already been addressed.  There’s nothing new in the arsenal.  All that is left is what needs to be built on, and that isn’t necessarily a compelling call to arms.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner wrote in her book the F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy – Women, Politics, and the Futurethat the third wave is lost in the wilderness.

The lack of a cohesive movement is the crisis of the third wave.” Or as one of the young women she interviewed remarks, “In a nutshell, my problem with the third wave is that I think we’re a whiny bunch of elitists who think we’re so smart, but we’re not doing anything but power knitting. The lack of a political movement is huge, yet we feel so smug.”

What seems to frighten feminists about Sandberg and Mayer – and Rosin and Roiphe write this as well – is that feminism really didn’t help them rise to the top.  Furthermore, Rosin wrote that the crowd that Sandberg is trying to attract, of which Mayer is also a member, really don’t see much feminism has to offer in terms of advancing their careers.

Roiphe added:

the word feminist is of little use to us now, but if we are interested in female power then we should let our powerful women pursue power, without harassing them with our distaste for that pursuit. We should not expect them to be warmer, fuzzier, more nurturing than their male counterparts because to do so is to impose sexist expectations.

Could the feminist bashing of successful women be a manifestation of that frustration?  Is the “not being needed” angst driving this madness?  If so, the feminist establishment has a mindset of “these ladies have to go,” and hopefully the next crop will be more palatable to the cause. That’s one way to destroy a movement.  It’s something conservatives should’ve considered when they excluded GOProud at CPAC this year.

Either way, I say let women be women.  Better yet, let them be “American” – or “capitalist” – in their economic pursuits, which is grounded in being more aggressive, more competent, and more productive than your competition.  If a woman rises to the top, so be it.  She should be congratulated. We’re a meritocracy, and everyone should get a boost from the increased competition.  As for feminists, I suggest they go moan in a corner someplace else.  I want the economy to roar back –with men and women alike – and feminism isn’t helping anyone.

If Trump Comes to CPAC, So Should Chris Christie

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) begins this week, and New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie wasn’t invited. His antics towards House Republicans, his bashing of the NRA, and his unofficial endorsement of Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo made sure that wouldn’t happen.  Christie said that he agreed with Cuomo, one of the most liberal governors in the country, on “98% of the issues.”  Yeah, he’s no conservative, but neither is Donald Trump.

Trump has given millions to Democratic candidates, and his invitation to speak at CPAC places the American Conservative Union in an untenable position concerning its decision to exclude Gov. Christie and gay conservative groups, like GOProud, from sponsoring the conference.  Frankly, I was for GOProud sponsoring the event.  Their platform is very much aligned with  the Tea Party, and they support states’ rights in deciding the issue of marriage, which is the valid constitutional avenue in addressing this issue.  However, back to the Donald.

In retrospect, Trump’s short reign over the GOP field in 2011 should’ve been an ominous sign of our defeat the following year.  A clown led in the beginning, and a clown clinched the nomination in the end.  Trump’s ties to the Democratic Party were well documented in the Washington Post, where they reported that he:

 …made more than $1.3 million in donations over the years to candidates nationwide, with 54 percent of the money going to Democrats, according to a Washington Post analysis of state and federal disclosure records.

Recipients include Senate Majority LeaderHarry M. Reid (Nev.), former Pennsylvania governor Edward G. Rendell, and Rahm Emanuel, a former aide to President Obama who received $50,000 from Trump during his recent run to become Chicago’s mayor, records show. Many of the contributions have been concentrated in New York, Florida and other states where Trump has substantial real estate and casino interests.

[…]

The Democratic recipients of Trump’s donations make up what looks like a Republican enemies list, including former senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and the late liberal lion Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.).

The biggest recipient of all has been the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee of New York,which has taken in more than $125,000 from Trump and his companies. Overall, Trump has given nearly $600,000 to New York state campaigns, with more than two-thirds going to Democrats.

I understand he’s protecting his business interests, but don’t put on a show and act like you’re entering the GOP tent to save it from collapsing.  His excuse for contributing to Democrats is that they’re the only game in town.

“Everyone’s Democratic,” he [Trump] told Fox News in an interview about his potential [2012] candidacy. “So  what am I going to do — contribute to Republicans? One thing: I’m not stupid. Am I going to contribute to Republicans for my whole life when they get heat when they run against some Democrat and the most they can get is 1 percent of the vote?”

If you believe in the Republican Party – and more importantly conservatism – then you do contribute to get that “1 percent of the vote.”  It’s called integrity, Mr. Trump.  The ACU’s decision to allow this unprincipled charlatan to speak is puzzling, frustrating, and hypocritical.  Who on their PR team thought that inviting this man would be a good morale boost for conservatives?  It just shows you the numerous obstacles the conservative movement needs to address, with one of them being selecting better speakers for conferences.  And that’s just on the surface.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »