“This is our challenge; and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for.  We must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory.”  Ronald Reagan at 1976 GOP Convention after his defeat

“The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means….” p.29, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

“Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana (or less diplomatically but more bluntly phrased:  “Stupid is as stupid does.”  Forrest Gump)

**

Fascinating difference between the tactics of the anti-establishment candidates running in the GOP primary this past Tuesday and their challengers.  And, nothing different in the past, including the usual complaint that “the machine” and “the money” beat us.  Did some of these folks just wake up this year?  Are they incapable of learning anything from history?

First, I will summarize: some of my candidates won, some lost, and in some cases I saw mixed results in Pennsylvania this past Tuesday.  I have no complaints and happily endorse every GOP candidate who won their primary even against my favored candidates.  More later.  On now, to the good, the bad and the stupid.

When Ronald Reagan lost in 1976, he ended his brief and extemporaneous remarks televised on national TV with the clarion call “There is no substitute for victory.”

Well now.  How can a loser call for victory?  What did he mean as he echoed the phrase we’d heard from him in defeat, that “the cause goes on”?

Now you watch, because the Media Matters or Daily KOS folk who are assigned to RED STATE are most likely going to go crazy about this but here it is:

Reagan said that even in defeat we must fight on, that each primary and election is but a single war in an ongoing battle between right and wrong, good and evil, the light and the dark. 

Reagan meant that you and I and those who yearn for a RED STATE America must never be dispirited by a loss in a single battle.  We must never, ever think the lesson is, give up.

How we can go on to victory can be seen by what Reagan did in 1976.

In defeat, Reagan went out and campaigned for the candidates who were closest to his philosophy around the United States and who had won their primary and were then the official candidates for U.S. Senator and for Congressman.

In the next 2 years Ronald Reagan spoke out on a variety of issues and helped some of those who shared his views win primary elections and general elections.

Ronald Reagan’s followers saw the fundraising appeals he sent out, heard his call to arms and they followed him into more battles in the future.  Some we won, some we lost, but our army held together during the weeks, months and years following that defeat in Kansas City, 1976.  It was a byproduct of those efforts – not the goal or purpose – that Ronald Reagan’s army held together well enough that they were able to help him win the GOP nomination for President and the Presidency four years later.

Today, some of our best conservative leaders in Pennsylvania – like Andy Shaw to name one – were defeated.  I hope and I pray that this is but their start as conservative leaders and that his narrow loss to “Planned Parenthood’s favorite Pennsylvania GOP State Senator” was but a single battle in the long war that will continue against the liberal left.

I hope that we will see Rick Santorum, Andy Shaw and others who carried our banner into battle this past year, carry on by supporting the candidates who speak for our values, speak out for what we believe in, make a difference, build our army and go forward to block the liberal left and win for the values voter, conservative right in the future.

I pray that we won’t see another Christine O’Donnell, who terribly disappointed so many of us not because she lost, not because the leftwing and their “water carriers” within our midst defamed her, but because when she was knocked down she stayed down, she never used her name recognition and her giant mailing list to build our cause and to help other candidates and other organizations but faded away so that today she is only useful as an example of what “not” to do after you lose.

Just as happened two years ago there were some victories and some losses – some good people lost once again.

So much for “the good.”  And now, the bad:

I quoted Saul Alinsky because I saw some candidates who very much reminded me of that quote.

Foremost, among the users of the tactics of Saul Alinsky in the GOP primary in Pennsylvania this past Tuesday is losing candidate Steve Welch, whose TV ads kept repeating what a great conservative he is and how his closest competitor is a liberal.

I was far from convinced and thankfully, so were PA GOP voters who nominated Tom Smith, who echoed and reeked of “traditional values” in both how he spoke and in what he spoke.  Unlike Sam Rohrer he has no long history of supporting conservative causes (which is why I voted for Sam Rohrer for the third time – once for Governor as a write in last time, and before that in the GOP primary for Governor).

Unlike Sam Rohrer, the official candidate of the GOP State Central Committee (you know – the people who told us Arlen Specter was their ideal as a U.S. Senator), candidate Steve Welch, had money and he used it to try to win the GOP nomination.

I will happily vote for the man who defeated both the liberal/opportunist Steve Welch and my candidate Sam Rohrer, the GOP nominee for U.S. Senator Tom Smith and strongly recommend him, unpersuaded by those who say his past a Democrat should disqualify him.  I note that some said that about former Democrat Ronald Reagan also, when he ran for Governor of California.

But other candidates in the GOP primary this past Tuesday here in Pennsylvania besides Steve Welch reminded me of Saul Alinsky as well.

Without naming names I will give a very specific example, one that should be conclusive to all except Ron Paul supporters who would privately concede that I am correct but never, ever here publicly.

The Ron Paul organization learned a lesson from past campaigns.  Since I do not agree with them on foreign policy and most especially do not agree that “there’s no difference between the GOP and the Democrats” and I do not like their smear tactics against conservatives (everybody can’t be a “neocon” you fools!!) I’d easily go along with calling their candidates “the bad” to return to the title of today’s article and the second third of today’s message.

Any dedicated Ron Paul “organizer” knows that most traditional values and mainstream conservative voters would be very reluctant to ever vote for a Ron Paul candidate for Delegate or Alternate Delegate to the Republican National Nominating Convention in 2012.

Pennsylvania, like many other states, has a separate “beauty contest” to see who you favor for President – Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul.

The Presidential primary “beauty” contest results showed Ron Paul getting clobbered with 13.2% of GOP votes versus Romney’s 58%.  Even the candidate who had withdrawn the week prior, Rick Santorum, beat Ron Paul with 18.3% of the vote.

So how can you elect GOP Convention Delegates for Ron Paul for President, if only 1 out of 8 voters like your candidate?  How can you get a majority of voters in any Congressional District to elect your slate of four candidates in each congressional district?

Study Saul Alinsky.  His basic message to the far left when he wrote his book, dedicated to that other revolutionary group of an earlier age who like the Ron Paul “organizers” also cannot stand “the establishment” and also sees no difference between the GOP and the Democrats, was simply this:

Lie.  And demonize your opponent, always making it personal.

Put more softly, Alinsky urged, don’t reveal your true colors.  Deny everything, and blend in with society, while constantly attacking “the establishment” and always making it personal.

Most people are either stupid or gullible so you will get away with it.  This is the teaching of Saul Alinsky (not my view so do not misquote me) – and there are some who participate in GOP primary elections who would deny it, would attack anyone (such as the undersigned) who reports the truth: they proudly use the tactics of Saul Alinsky, including deception and misdirection, to get votes and support from conservatives who if they knew the truth, would NEVER vote for such candidates.

Of course, just like any Alinskyite, they would bitterly DENY that they are lying even when you caught them red handed using these tactics of deception and misdirection.  They would also use the Alinsky tactic of demonizing whoever wrote that about them (watch – if any of theirs are reading this you will see, you will recognize them by their fruit).

In the 4th congressional district of Pennsylvania, some of the Ron Paul candidates won election as GOP National Convention delegates or alternatives, running such a campaign of deception and misdirection, while carefully and purposely hiding their true colors.

Those who voted for these Ron Paul “revolutionaries” would be shocked to know their true colors.  Why?  Because here is what I read about them:

On their facebook pages, NOTHING about Ron Paul except for ONE of their eight candidates, ONE.

That’s right.  Of eight candidates running pledged to Ron Paul – four as Delegate and four as Alternate, only ONE of those four I could find a facebook page that indicated their strong support for Ron Paul.

Apparently, he didn’t get the Saul Alinsky memo, or else, he is “rebelling” against the rebels.  Whatever.  7 out of 8 Ron Paul candidates carefully HID their association with and their dedication to Ron Paul or saw fit not to have a Facebook page which happened to mention this.

And that one Facebook page out of the eight, will of course, not be read by MOST of those Christian-conservative activists who voted this past Tuesday, nor by most GOP primary voters, because it is the Ron Paul forces, like their brethren of the radical left, who employ social media, while Christian conservatives mostly continue to slumber on, either without any social media at all or only checking their Facebook page every week or so.

But Saul Alinsky would tell you to use misdirection not simply evasion.

So listen to what I read for some of their candidates – the Ron Paul candidates – at the Christian PAC website, Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation.  This is the questionnaire that ACTION of PA York Chapter circulated to each candidate, and then put their answers on their website as a voter guide:

Note that only ONE candidate of the full slate of eight Ron Paul candidates (which you can only find by looking for the official Ron Paul website by the way), mentioned her support for Ron Paul in this questionnaire.  And only ONE candidate of these eight (not her) mentioned Ron Paul on their Facebook page.

This is the triumph of Saul Alinsky “deception and misdirection” if ever we will see it.

The response from Christian conservatives OUGHT to be and I hope will be: there is power in those tactics of the dark side, which can only be banished with MORE light.  Here is the truth, albeit after the fact- here is what they really wrote, and notice for yourself that only ONE of them says a word about Ron Paul.

This is the response to the questionnaire which was then posted on the website of Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation, of several of the Ron Paul candidates (their words):

*

ACTION OF PA’S 2012 VOTER GUIDE – DELEGATE TO THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL / CONVENTION 4th DISTRICT 

* (candidate 1, name withheld)

I am a wife, mother, Registered Nurse and relentless pro-life activist. I know God’s laws

are above all others. The life issue is the most important one for me and the reason I am running for delegate.

Uncommitted — want most pro-life candidate elected

* (candidate 2, name withheld)

I am running for alternate delegate because I was solicited by my friends and neighbors in Pennsylvania to represent the interests of conserving the principles of our country’s founding.

Undeclared

* (candidate 3, name withheld)

I am running as a delegate because I want to make sure the Republican nominee maintains a Constitutional platform of limited government and conservative principles.

Mitt Romney, but will respect the vote of Pennsylvanians

* (candidate 4, name withhold – the only one to mention Ron Paul)

I want to represent Congressman Paul and do what I can to assist in his endeavor, as I believe he is one of the few truly honest statesmen left standing.  

Ron Paul

*

(the candidates for alternate delegate were not listed at ACTION of PA webpage so I had to go to a Ron Paul page to get their names, and look for their facebook page to see – that out of EIGHT candidates for alternate delegate or delegate only ONE mentioned Ron Paul there)

Now, I am sure the lawyers in our midst will say that this is not an example of lying (with the ONE exception immediately above, out of eight candidates).  And since my namesake was a lawyer, in fact as some may have forgotten the lawyer most responsible for the bill of rights, I will defend myself by saying your assertion is at best, arguable, and at worst, disingenuous.

Claiming to rebut my calling these candidates “liars” is a strawman argument because I did not call them liars.  I said they are using misdirection and/or deception.  I did not call anyone a liar, although clearly one could make such an argument.

And people have been arguing about “the ends justify the means” long before Saul Alinsky’s quote which I cited at the start of today’s offering.  Hence, a Paul supporter who either quotes Alinsky or uses words to that effect while denying the link, might offer this:

“I truly do believe what I wrote, so I am not lying.”

So I will repeat: I did not say it is a lie, because I acknowledge someone who uses misdirection and deception can argue he is not a liar.  Any lawyer can help you understand why (a) these are not lies and (b) why so many non-lawyers hate lawyers.

Just to give you one example: “Your honor, my client’s position is that he did not lie, but the person saying that is using smear tactics and is a hypocritical Christian.”

Notice, the lawyer can say this even if he knows that his client is a damned liar and even if he knows that the person who wrote that about his client is a Saint (which I am of course, NOT saying that I am).  The lawyer would point out that he (a) did not say it is true, and (b) did not say it is his belief.

This shows why people detest lawyers.  It also should illustrate how someone who supported Ron Paul for President would happily use the tactics of Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky would cheerfully echo Marxist doctrine in teaching you that what is morally right is what produces victory, and what is morally wrong is that which will not help you win.

And that means, the practitioner of these tactics, is using exactly the same tactics on values voters and on Christians, that the liberal left uses.  Same tactics, same target, same purpose: defeat us and take power.

And that brings me to the final part of today’s offering: The stupid.

Now I want to start out by apologizing to any dear Reader who thinks I am calling you stupid.  All of us are in some area, uniformed.  I am hoping that those who did not know what I am about to share will not take insult but will be informed and guided for the future.

You are only STUPID in my view, when you keep repeating the behavior that never works, keep repeating the behavior that never gets you a good result.  Others have said that such behavior is insane but I think it is actually a slight bit more charitable to ask you, isn’t that STUPID?

I was sad that Sam Rohrer didn’t win last time.  But if you don’t work to raise money and build an organization you will get the same result this time, that you got last time.  There are plenty of candidates across America who did the same thing and who should have known better.

Better campaign organization, including building lists of supporters and doing the necessary fundraising, are not tasks that happen happen by themselves.  This is hard work and also requires some knowledge (see my previous article).

Fundraising is the least popular, least enjoyable part of a campaign, according to both winners and losers.  Yet it is one of the things which when done properly and in advance, separates the winners from the losers, especially so in primary elections.

And in fact, money begets money – so the more you raise early, the more you will then thereafter, raise.

Speaking out on the issues of concern to conservatives and finding who your friends and allies are in advance, is not something that happens on its own, nor something which you can ignore for a few years then suddenly do a “make up” in the final 6 months before voters cast their ballot.

You’ve either been there in those battles, or else, you have not.

If you were there, you either were speaking out for our conservative beliefs or you were not.  If you did that, then you either reached out and made new friends, or you did not.

And if you did all of this and failed to keep a list of your new friends you simply cannot make up for that failure in the last six months.

By way of comparison, I remind you of the career of two people: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both schooled in the tactics of the very Saul Alinsky whose name appears so prominently in my offering today.  Hillary did a paper on Alinsky and was offered a job as an Instructor on graduation, and Obama actually accepted and was both an Instructor at the Alinsky Institute in Chicago, and then a “community organizer.”

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama used issues, made lists, learned and did fundraising and then put it all together in a well planned campaign.  Unlike so many of my conservative friends who did not do so well this past Tuesday.

Which is why I am dwelling on this topic in my offering of 2 days ago (read HERE) and again today.

All too often we have candidates who think that by being a great speaker or by being right on “the issues” they can simple coast to victory in a primary because “God” will make it so, and “the people” will “rise up.”

Silly goose.  That is like opening up a lemonade stand in your backyard behind a tree and a fence where no one will see you, instead of on the front sidewalk where there is traffic.

God does in fact, help those who help themselves.  God does in fact, prefer you and I to be better organized, and to start thinking about this further in advance.

A campaign that has no money and has no volunteers is usually the one that also had no business plan (see previous article on this topic, which I rather inartfully called the “Conservative Primary Losers Checklist” but which is more correctly the “Winner’s Checklist to Win Next time”).

The anti-establishment radical left always makes the claim that we conservatives have the money and the corporations and they have “the people.”  Their answer is to “speak truth to power” (they claim) and to use their “people power” advantage to overcome the monied interests, throw them (us) all out, and take over.

This is a many decades old strategy of the Marxist left, popularized by Saul Alinsky and very often quoted and used by some Tea Party, 912 and “patriot” newcomers who so often don’t even realize that they are so exactly parroting the leftwing.  It is also a line routinely used by Ron Paul supporters.

In fact, it is why I end today’s article with this third segment entitled “the stupid.”  Because if you fall for this “we are the people that’s why we have no money/organization” silliness then you are echoing the left and you deserve to be fooled and to lose.

The finalists in the closing week of the U.S. Senate race and the U.S. Congressional race are not the “purist conservatives” who kept arguing that they were fighting the guys who “had the money.”  That convinced no one because those using it were very obviously seen by most everyone as simply making excuses for their own lousy performance.

No, the finalists in the 4th district were Chris Reilly and Scott Perry who did the work to raise the money and who then had TV commercials, direct mail and nice literature to go along with the volunteers they were able to recruit.  The finalist in the U.S. Senate race wasn’t Sam Rohrer but the two who were on TV and who also sent out voter mail and nice literature.

You cannot overcome the money and GOP establishment advantages of a Steve Walsh simply by making a great speech/performance at the PA Leadership Conference and winning their straw poll by a huge margin, sadly.  Sorry Sam Rohrer.  I don’t like it, but that is the truth.

If each time we conservatives lose we simply complain “money/the establishment beat us again” and then go home, the less conservative candidate always wins the primary and then of course, the general election.

Money also buys nicer cars, nicer homes, nicer clothes and better healthcare.  And people who are better organized and have a business plan very often, are the ones who have more money.

So we are supposed to sit the general election out also, since you cannot beat “the money” and “the establishment” candidates, or throw our vote away on a third party candidate in a close race to see who will control the U.S. Senate or Congress or State House?

And then, next time around we simply repeat the same thing again, and get the same result again in the primary?

Wrong.  Why not begin organizing right now?  Why not make a commitment right now to stay active and build our cause?

The “establishment” candidates can and are beaten but only when we are better organized and start much earlier, whether it is we who want to support winners or the candidates themselves – we are all in this together so Dear Reader, don’t be blaming everything on the candidate.  What will YOU bring to the “table” next time, to help your candidate organize better?

If you ran for office or if you supported a candidate for office who lost, why not look around and find one or more conservative/values voters type organizations you can support and stick with them?  Why not become one of that group’s leaders?  Why not start well in advance to build our cause?

I counted over a dozen mainstream conservative and values voter type groups at the recent Pennsylvania Leadership Conference and hundreds at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Why not look at how one builds lists, how one impacts public policy questions, how one can recruit others to join you?

How about doing what Ronald Reagan said: go out of here, and despite a defeat, tell others about our cause so that next time, there are more of us, and along the path to that future victory, we can put up more of a fight on the issues we care about, and do a much better job of influencing public policy debate?

So, like other conservatives, I have some disappointments during this year’s primary season.  Here in Pennsylvania, for Governor, the candidate I supported, Sam Rohrer, lost as he did last time.

Rohrer lost by a very, very large margin, as he did in his run for Governor.  He lost while the winner raised more money, recruited more volunteers and spoke a conservative message with their voice amplified by those dollars and those volunteers.  He didn’t raise the money last time and he didn’t raise the money this time.

My candidate for President, Rick Santorum, also lost, even as he earned more votes and won more states than any other challenger to the “establishment” candidate since Ronald Reagan (and WOW do the liberals hate it when you say that!!).

Another candidate I supported to topple Planned Parenthood’s favorite GOP State Senator in Pennsylvania, conservativee Andy Shaw running against Pat Vance, also lost, having been outspent by a wide margin.

My first choice for the GOP nominee for Congress, lost by a large margin (Chris Reilly).  At least he ran a competitive race as far as organization, money and volunteers, and his commercials featuring Senator Pat Toomey (actually an independent group) were fabulous.

On the other hand, three of my four choices – who I endorsed in this space in advance for GOP Delegate to the GOP convention won (pledged to Rick Santorum: G. Edwin Matthias and Marilyn S. Gillispie and to Newt Gingrich, PA-LC co-founder Charlie Gerow, despite his still not wanting to be my Facebook friend).

I thank Chris Reilly, Rick Santorum, Sam Rohrer and Andy Shaw, and all of those who ran for office this year using principles and issues as their engine, even in defeat.  Thank you, God bless you and your families and all of those who worked for you or gave donations to you, for the sacrifice you made to hoist up what Ronald Reagan called “the banner of no pale pastels but of bold and vibrant colors.”

But now is not the time, in defeat, to walk off the battlefield.  It is the time Reagan urged us to stick with it.

So I proudly say:

I will support Mitt Romney for President because the speeches I have heard from him, especially this past week, are what I want to hear from my TV, my radio, on the internet and in newspapers for the next four years, not more of Obama and his minions.

I proudly support Tom Smith for U.S. Senator because foremost, he will vote to throw Harry Reid out as Senate Majority Leader, and will vote for most of the measures that add up to a conservative platform.

And I will proudly support State Representative Scott Perry to win the Congressional race because he will help keep Nancy Pelosi out and has a strong record of championing conservative values and views.

Yes, I know that you can say something critical about each of these choices – and I most certainly HAVE during the past 9 weeks, in many of the 102,360 words offered here on RED STATE, in 46 articles averaging 2,225 words each).

But the primaries are – for me here in Pennsylvania – over and done with, the battle lines are drawn and I see what is on my left – the forces of Obama, and who is carrying my flag into this battle.

So without reservation: I’m for Mitt Romney for President, Tom Smith for U.S. Senator, Scott Perry for U.S. Congress, and for the reelection of State Representative Seth Grove.

Does that make me a “straight line Republican” voter?  Hold on there friend.

I wrote in Sam Rohrer for Governor last general election and if I lived in his district it would take a mighty powerful argument (which I’ve not heard) to convince me to vote in the general election for Planned Parenthood’s favorite GOP State Senator, Pat Vance instead of writing in the awesome Andy Shaw, who failed by just 300 votes in his bid to topple her.

Things are so much simpler in my district, where State Rep. Seth Grove, a past “Statesman of the Year” of Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation (ACTION of PA) in York County, ran against the same candidate as last time and increased his victory margin from 72% to this year’s 82%.

The challenger echoed the same material circulated by the libertarian and/or anti-GOP group which uses Glenn Beck’s name, which is anti-establishment, they are all the same thing, topple the bad guys and power to the people and oh, we have no money but we have the truth.

Good going – the incumbent increased his margin by 10 points over last time when he was challenged by the same person using the same arguments and no issue that I ever heard or read about where I agree with him and not with the incumbent.

How about, lets you and I who are mainstream conservatives, get out there now, and make sure our side wins this year 2012, so we can then push hard to enact the conservative agenda in the months and years after the election is over?  Won’t we have a much more favorable hearing with most of those who won the GOP primaries, rather than knocking on the door of a liberal Democratic President, Senators, Congressmen and state legislators?

As Reagan said in 1976 in defeat, and I will quote it again to conclude: “This is our challenge; and this is why here in this hall tonight, better than we have ever done before, we have got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we have ever been, but we carry the message they are waiting for.  We must go forth from here united, determined that what a great general said a few years ago is true: There is no substitute for victory.”

*

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

So you lost the election and you will not be running as the Republican nominee for state legislator or Congressman or Senator.  God bless you for trying but, all is not lost now that you have this handy dandy “Conservative Losers Checklist.”

Whether you supported a losing conservative candidate or you were the loser in today’s primary I have here the checklist you should save so you can start anew – right now – to plan to do better next time.

1. First, make your own copy of this and add to it or subtract from it as you wish.

2. My first suggestion is to cross out the headline I used today and rename this “Next Campaign Checklist” or better yet, “Building on Success for the Future.”

3. Start now.  Get it out of your head that you have a lot of time.  You do not.  That may very well be the reason you lost this time around – you thought you had more time to organize your campaign.

4. Learn the phrase “business plan” right now.  You can google that.  You can buy books about this.  You will need a business plan because a campaign is not any different than a successful business plan where you are hoping to attract investors and purchasers.

5. Work for victory right now.  There must be somebody running for office right now where you can help.  Get an official campaign position if you can – even if it is just as a volunteer, and even if it is unofficial.  You have a mailing list, and some credibility as a recent candidate so, your putting out news releases and campaigning and asking people to support what you are doing should not be a surprise.  Build your lists.

6.  Pick a cause and preferably a group and become very expert at that.  Narrow your focus.  It is way too broad to say you are the expert on the conservative cause.  An example is Pat Henry, who focuses on issues from a Christian conservative focus and on Pennsylvania.  Build your lists of supporters who will support you on this focused topic.

7. Learn the technology of campaigns.  Most never do.  Study other campaigns by donating to them and making notes and keeping a file.  Learn the social media tools that the left is doing better than us conservatives on, such as Facebook, twitter, email, texting, blogs as well as the reliable and time tested direct mail, newsletters, phone.

8.  To have future support, GIVE present support to the candidates, causes and groups that appeal to you the most.  Become an invaluable part of several of these causes, be consistent, be valuable.

9. Use all of the technology – especially the free technology – to keep up your communications with your list of supporters and build your list larger.

10.  Either create a not-for-profit or a non-profit group to push your public policy positions or became a leader of one where you will be able to use the list of people you recruit if you run for office again in the future, or if you support a candidate.  Note that Ronald Reagan – an example I have cited before – lost twice running for President but built a list and then used it to help other candidates and causes – often signing the fund appeals for those groups and candidates.

11. Create a confidential business plan for your future campaign that combines the elements I am describing here.

12. Learn a lot more right away, than you know right now, by attending seminar of groups like the Leadership Institute and American Majority, which teach the technology that you need to help others’ groups and campaigns win, and practice ON THEM what you are learning and hope to use yourself in the future.

13. Keep a copy of every direct mail and internet campaign piece or ad that you see, noting what you like or do not like.

14. Send many $15 donations to many different campaigns and save the fund appeals – especially doing this by internet but don’t neglect some by mail.  Use a different address or suite number or apartment number to differentiate which group or candidate you donated to so that you can see who they let use their mailing list.  Study and save everything.  Learn.

15. Stop thinking about what YOU like and START thinking like a businessman instead of a narcissist.  It isn’t about YOU.  It is about your potential supporters of the future.  What do THEY like, what do THEY support, how do you speak to them in mail, email, facebook?  Learn from what others are doing especially when you see that the same fund appeal hits you on several different lists you are now on (after you donate $15 to 10 different groups) and especially if the same fund appeal keeps hitting you a month later… I do not care if you do not like that appeal – if you are seeing it a lot then you know that is likely the winning appeal that is being used again and again.

17. Become an expert on how to be an internet activist and share what you learn with others so that they emulate you and stay in contact with you.

18. Build your lists.  And did I mention, build them larger, and larger?

19. Have a fan or group page on facebook.  The way to build it is to put good material on your page that makes people want to “like” your page.  See points above – it isn’t about YOU it is about what THEY are interested in.

20. Don’t be confused about lists.  All lists are not equal.  A list of people who “like” your facebook page is nowhere near as valuable as a list of people who donated to your campaign or donated to your cause.  A list that is a year old and hasn’t donated to anything is nowhere near as valuable as a list of people who just donated to something because YOU asked them to, in the last 3 months.  Recency is key.  A year old list is trash.

21. If you ran for office and are disappointed I don’t blame you but if you are now going dormant then you aren’t the one I wrote this for.  The people I want to motivate and provide a little bit of guidance to are the ones who supported a good conservative in this GOP primary, but lost, and are going to stick around and continue because you know this is but one battle in the war, and we need you.

22. If you ran a campaign based on issues this is for you.  You didn’t really lose.  You just raised our issues, had a chance to explain them, and can now go forward with your issues by supporting those candidates and those causes and groups which support your issue.  If you ran a negative campaign that just bellyached about “the establishment” and whined about the “powers that be” and what you don’t like about somebody, then excuse me.  You read this far in error.  This isn’t for you.  Hit delete or exit or eject.  Goodbye.

23. If you ran a campaign based on the issues congratulations, it was a great first step to increasing your influence in the public policy process.  Now become more expert on several issues that will enable you to speak out.  Praise the conservative groups you like, naming them and helping them.  Build your IOU’s.  Be generous in your praise.

24.  Be certain that you are a subscriber to Human Events, RED STATE online, The Washington Times National Weekly Edition and have “liked” a whole bunch of conservative cause pages/groups on Facebook.  Spend a little time every day learning, and commenting on what comes your way – which will be plenty if you do what I am suggesting.  There are other publications, both “print” and online but those are the minimums I suggest to you.

25. Attend local and national events to support your favorite causes, especially the ones that have multiple co-sponsors such as Pennsylvania Leadership Conference and the Conservative Political Action Conference, to name two examples.  The literature booths alone are worth the price of admission.  Plan to spend a lot of time at those literature booths.

26.  Always remember that ISSUES are the mothers milk of politics, not money.  You will have money and volunteers if people perceive that you are speaking for them on some issues they care about, are expert on those issues, are active and a leader who they can help to influence public policy.  There was one candidate for U.S. Senator on the ballot today who I heard was at CPAC.   The report I got was that he was in the literature booth area, just intercepting people that went walking by.  One of my sources specifically suggested to him that he should visit some of the tables to learn better the issues that conservatives care about.  His ads were bland and general, just like his speeches and conversation with him.  To learn more about our issues go to the organizations which are speaking out on those issues.  This is pretty basic but most candidates don’t seem able to understand this.  Become an expert on what people are concerned about so that they perceive you are part of the solution, not just someone trying to grab their volunteer time, their donation, their vote.  Become an instrument for people who are concerned.

27. Stay active.  Instead of just complaining – as some self-appointed conservative leaders often do – be a force out there regularly aiming to influence legislators and building public support for our causes.

Add to this list of course but I hope this is a good start for those who lost today, or supported someone who lost today, primary day in Pennsylvania.

Before I wrap this up I will tell you about someone who has done little or none of the above.  Her name is Christine O’Donnell.

Christine ran a couple times for U.S. Senator in Delaware.  In her last go-round she had strong supportive comments made about her by some of the major conservative talk show hosts (Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to name two), which boosted her underdog candidacy and helped her win the GOP nomination.

Alas, the State GOP had already filed a lawsuit against her complaining that TEA party groups had supported her (if you are not a PAC you are vulnerable to such a charge if you do “express advocacy,” ie. such as York 912 Patriots repeatedly saying that Todd Platts should be defeated, for example.).

I have no comment on the merits of the case against Christine but I can tell you this.  She was the official nominee of the GOP in Delaware while the State GOP was suing her, in a 7 weeks campaign following the primary.

Christine O’Donnell had already been the underdog when she defeated the more liberal Republican.  Strike One.  Then, strike 2, she had the lawsuit headlined during her brief campaign.  Strike 3, a number of Republicans, including Karl Rove, said he thought she was a weak candidate.  Fourth, she made a few novice mistakes which the media and the anti-family values crowd within the GOP made a big deal out of during her 7 weeks long campaign.

In other words, she turned her underdog candidacy into a route.

But the golden lining in that cloud is that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity were so upset with what was being done to her – a champion of conservative issues – that they issued a loud and clear call to their own fans to help her.   The day after her upset victory over the establishment favored Republican Congressman she had a half million in donations – in one day.  She brought in millions of dollars in a short time.

Although she lost, as did Ronald Reagan in 1976 and as did Rick Santorum this year, she had a list, just as they did.  Oh it is true she’d done little to nothing to build the list – it came to her as a result of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity’s call to help her.  But she had a mailing list.

Two years later, unlike the Reagan of 1976, Christine has had no success in raising money for a new group – which I believe she didn’t even start until the list was already half a year or more old (which is TOO OLD to be called an active supporter list at that point).  She has not raised a lot of money with her big list, for any candidate for office, any cause, any group, nor built her own group.

And worse, she is now locked in a lawsuit brought against her by one of her strongest supporters, a former campaign manager from a previous campaign who had done legal work for her.

Christine O’Donnell was a loser who could have been a winner, could have been a major influence for our cause.  But instead she never put together a game plan for the future, never asked for support for her game plan, never created any business plan (or if she did it is certainly a closely guarded secret) and is now largely irrelevant.

I know of nobody who has purchased her book, let alone read it, published over a year after her losing race.  I am very sad about all of this because like many Christian-conservative activists, I was strongly rooting for her to win and when she lost, was hoping she would use her newfound fame to emerge as a major leader for our cause.  She didn’t, she hasn’t and it appears her opportunity is totally lost now – her mailing list is well over 18 months old.

My friend, if you ran and lost, or supported someone who ran and lost, please, don’t be a Christine O’Donnell.  Make your plans now to continue helping our cause – knowing that this was but one battle in a long war, and knowing that we need you.

Many of those active in the political process have never run for office but can nevertheless, by learning more about the process, help someone who is running now or will run later.  Others who run and lose, may end up running and winning in the future.

If you are a conservative a sure hope that you won’t take your loss personally.  Your lack of money and experience are problems that you can resolve by learning more, instead of by complaining.  Those who complain never win votes and never get donations by their complaints.

Complaints by Newt Gingrich didn’t help him overcome Mitt Romney’s money advantage going into the Florida primary election.

I will appreciate any comments that will add to your “ideas file” but the single most important thing you can do is start thinking of a “business plan” you can create right now – for yourself most of all but as you refine it, edit it, add details to flesh it out, you will also need to show it to those you hope will make a significant investment in your campaign by donating and by spending time on your campaign.

The core of your campaign are your supporters built by your stance on issues.

They are of two types – the donor and the activist.  Rarely is the same person, both of these.  You need to learn how to stay in touch with them, so that if you have the opportunity to run for office or to help someone run, you have a list to bring with you.

I know some of what I have written here may be abhorrent to you and that I will be attacked by those who think of “the cause” as something totally unrelated to a business.  But they are wrong.

A campaign like a non-profit group can and should be run in a businesslike way if you want to win, or if you want to influence public policy.  And your “business plan” is a series of lists – this checklist, lists of supporters, lists of donors, lists of friends.

And did I mention the list?  The List.  The checklist.  The list of supporters. The “to do” list.   Dream, think and believe: lists.  And keep your lists current by using them regularly – lists go stale, lists don’t work any more a half year later and most especially a year later.

Don’t be a Christine.

Don’t waste the enormous asset you have right now – your credibility from having run the race and built a list and some credibility, even in defeat.  Harness your recourse for our cause, for a favored candidate or group, NOW while your list is hot, while the new campaign is getting ready to go into gear.

Today is primary day in Pennsylvania, a day that some will win and some will lose.  I pray that those who are my conservative friends will not lose but will begin anew the work where we never have enough leaders who do the essentials.

Learn the issues and support the groups and show leadership with issues groups.  Learn the technology, the “how to” of campaigns and technology.  Build your lists.

While my favorite training source is The Leadership Institute, I also very much like the offerings of American Majority.  Learning from one or both of them, a business plan, and steady effort to provide leadership for our cause and building your own list, is work that you should begin now, today.

So do not rest too long if today is the day you lost – you have supporters who are watching you, and your bouncing right back from your loss today is the single greatest first step you can undertake to show them you are the leader they are glad they have supported and will go on supporting in the future.  Or else you will be forgotten, irrelevant, another Christine, in just a few more months.

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

Tomorrow is primary day in Pennsylvania.  Some of my conservative friends are voting their conscience.  Some are voting to choose the GOP nominee.  And sometimes, people are trying hard to do both.  Herein, a word on conscience, a very misunderstood word, and on the sometimes apparent conflict between conscience and reality.  And another word (after my first column on this subject Friday) on how I will vote tomorrow and why.

I toured the Battleship North Carolina this past weekend in Wilmington, North Carolina.  The size of the ship and most especially the size and weight of the ordinance fired from her mighty sixteen inch guns are indeed, most impressive.

But what many who tour this ship forget is that America did not win World War II because of the rightness of our cause, the size of the North Carolina and her powerful sixteen inch guns, the quality and number of weapons and men we deployed in the conflict.

America also won World War II because we had allies who fought with us.

Without those allies- and that includes the evil Soviet Union – America would most certainly have lost and Nazi Germany and the Axis Powers would have most likely won.  What shape would this planet be in, had America’s leaders not compromised their principles at that time, to ally with other countries that we had differences with?

I hope you will see where I am leading with that point.  If we vote for the perfect candidate instead of the candidate who has the best chance to win the nomination AND who we find closest to our views, then most often, we are going to do the same thing as if we had not voted: we will have no influence in choosing the GOP nominee.

And if we have forfeited our choice of who the GOP nominee is going to be, then we are faced AGAIN with that same choice in the general election.  That is, we can again, throw our vote away by voting for a candidate with no hope of winning, instead of choosing between two candidates in a close race, which one better represents our views.

A few years ago, facing a similar situation, someone I admire very much wrote about this very subject.  Chuck Muth said if you lived in a state where your vote could make the difference in who won that presidential primary, then compromise and vote for the more conservative choice against the more liberal.

But if you lived in a state where in that matchup, the more liberal candidate was going to win by a wide margin, then your vote won’t help decide that outcome so, why not go ahead and vote your conscience and choose the candidate who is THE VERY CLOSEST to your conservative views, and never mind that he might finish with 2% of the vote.

I rather like Chuck Muth’s formula for the thinking conservative voter in a GOP primary and highly recommend it in PA and anywhere, and everywhere, and all the time.  It is exactly the reason that I voted for Sam Rohrer for Governor on a write in vote – knowing that the more liberal GOP candidate Corbett was going to win without my help and block a Democrat win and a total disaster for Pennsylvania.

We do sometimes need to compromise and fight the next battle, NEXT time, the future battle, IN THE FUTURE.

It is better than America won World War II and deal with the Soviet Union, LATER.

It is better that we helped the Afghans kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan and deal with that one part of the coalition which did the least but hated America the most, the Taliban – LATER.

In both the case of the Soviet Union and the Taliban we did a really LOUSY job of “dealing with them later” and should have done the work EARLIER when it was cheaper, easier and less expensive.

But that doesn’t change the principle here: we should compromise and vote to make a difference when we can, and when we cannot, then we thinking conservatives should vote our conscience without any compromise.

And then, there’s what Morton Blackwell, founder of the Leadership Institute, called the “Sir Galahad Principle.”  It is the formula for us conservatives to lose more often than we win.

Very simply and in my own words, the Sir Galahad Principle says: if your heart is pure and you love God so you think you and your candidate will always win, WAKE UP.  It isn’t true!!!  You must also out-organize your opponent including raise more money than you are doing now, recruit more volunteers, and do all of the things which help determine who wins and who loses an election.

Too often, I see Sir Galahad in many of those running for office and in those casting their ballots, thinking that our cause is right and so that should be enough.

Just a few days ago I exchanged views with one lovely lady who exactly told me that – she believed God would prevail and her candidate would win.

I would never be upset with such a person but would only pray that they come to an understanding: God decided your candidate would not have money or volunteers because of the way that they ran their campaign.

Put another way: God created us with free will, and the ability to choose our own path.  While He is a God of mercy, He is also a God of justice who very often simply allows us to choose and then to be stuck with the consequence of what we chose.

If a candidate doesn’t have money or volunteers perhaps it is because people who volunteer to help in campaigns and who donate, didn’t buy what he was selling?

Perhaps the candidate without money and volunteers, is facing the consequence of how he or his campiagn management, organized their campaign?

And the corollary to this is: perhaps the candidate who has more money and more volunteers, has them because God willed it that way – the one who put more work and talent forward, got more results?

Perhaps God really meant for us to read the story of the talents and remember that what we are is God’s gift to us but what we become – and that includes the results of a political campaign – is our gift back to God?

So, God is already in this mix.  He gave us free will.  He gave us His promise in the story of the talents that our effort and talent does indeed produce results and we will be rewarded on those results.

Now it is up to you and me and it is no use blaming everything on God.  He has a plan, He has a purpose and tomorrow is your turn to look at your choices and to decide.

God does not choose everything for us, because He left us with free will.  We have a choice, and that choice includes the choice of what is wrong, as well as what is right.

So it isn’t enough to think you have found Sir Galahad and now you will vote for them in a GOP primary.

Doing that very often, simply leaves to OTHERS the choice of your GOP nominee.

And, if you follow that same logic you will then have to do a WRITE IN VOTE in the general election and AGAIN leave to everyone else, to choose who your Congressman will be.

But doesn’t that send a message, you may be thinking?

Sure it does.

It sends a message to other people how to win the primary and the general election.

It sends a message that Christian conservatives will throw their vote away and not be a factor, and not need to be taken seriously.

It sends a message that when elected officials talk to conservative and Christian cause leaders they are dealing with leaders who cannot deliver the goods and so do not need to be taken seriously.

I am very serious about issues such as The Women’s Right to Know legislation which is stalled in the Pennsylvania legislature because 40 Republicans withdrew their sponsorship after it had been changed in committee from the original proposal.

I do not care how they work it out – the GOP controls the State House of Representatives, the State Senate and the Governor’s Mansion.

The GOP majority has no excuse.  Pennsylvania should have a law the same as 23 other states do, which requires Planned Parenthood to slow down  just a moment and before you rush that expectant mother into that abortion, you must first show her the ultra sound image of her baby.

Planned Parenthood and their abortion-mill supporters cannot stand the idea that a few women out of every hundred may see that ultra sound image of their own flesh and blood baby and say “I’m not going to kill my baby today!”  The rush-to-abort crowd is scared that a few babies will be allowed to live and so, they went all out to defeat The Women’s Right to Know Bill.

There are many issues at stake and which are part of the debate but this is one which many of us regard as a “core” issue that alone may decide our vote.

And there’s two candidates here in south central PA with the same 12% of the vote favoring them, about the same amount of money raised (about $200,000 ea.), the same generally good conservative credentials and they both want my vote tomorrow in the GOP primary.

But one of them told Father Sam Houser and Pastor Ken Gibson, looking them straight in the eye two weeks ago in Father Houser’s Church conference room, “I’m 100% pro-life.”  And that candidate then said in a candidate survey from ACTION of PA (Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation) that he is NOT in favor of making abortion illegal.  Two days from his meeting with the two men of the cloth, that one candidate listed the conditions under which he favored abortion.

So while there are many good things to say about State Rep. Scott Perry, one cannot truthfully say “he is 100% pro-life.”

If you want to do any message sending I can tell you that tomorrow you can hire Rep. Scott Perry as your messenger and send him back to the GOP leadership of the House of Representatives with the message: we’d better get results with HR 1070 or an acceptable alternative because these Christian-conservatives are going to vote us out if we don’t.

I do respect people who will vote for Ted Waga for Congress, as I said before.  But Ted Waga is an example of the Sir Galahad principle.  His less than $5,000 raised for this race simply cannot complete with the $200,000 raised by the two frontrunners and his 2% standing in the polls isn’t going to catapult him at the last moment into a serious alternative to Scott Perry.

I have heard people say – including Ted Waga himself – that “money should not decide the issue.”

This view goes further sometimes – and belligerently says “you cannot buy the election.”

One of the people who I didn’t mention as having influenced me to endorse Chris Reilly had his name come up anyway – Scott Wagner of Penn Waste.  His name is in the York Daily Record as being one of the larger donors to Chris Reilly.  I didn’t want to be sidetracked but this is an important point.

A successful businessman knows about the Sir Galahad principle.  Ask Scott Wagner.

There are in fact, three things you need for business success.  You need capital.  You need labor.  And you need the entrepreneur with the idea and with the management ability to put it all together.

If you are a Marxist of course you only think you need the labor.  And, Marxists really hate “the rich” and they will send to the Gulag, all of the entrepreneurs.

So if you want to run for office you need a credible business plan to show the same thing you would need to show a businessman to get him to invest in your business.  You need to show a plan for attracting and using capital, labor (volunteers) and your ideas into a winning venture.  Or else he will decline to invest.

Now, if you say your idea ALONE should get him interested in investing in your venture you are either a Marxist or a very seriously under-educated freedom advocate.

Those who just want to attack the people who are better organized and better funded by saying “money should not buy elections” are attacking the entire idea of capital in a free society.  They just haven’t got a clue.

That is a very popular view over at Occupy Wall Street and among the radical left.  It was and is the primary argument used to defend ObamaCare – money should not decide who gets healthcare.

That is also the argument that socialists always use to promote revolution – overthrow the establishment and the “monied interests.”

How much money and how many volunteers we have is mostly a product of what our issues are and how well organized we are – including how far in advance we begin organizing.  If we have a favorite candidate without money and volunteers then we’d best learn a lesson out of that for next time, and stop blaming it on God.

If you want to run for office and you want to approach Scott Wagner or any other “high dollar donor” to get a large check, you need to show that you are going to speak out on the issues they care about, in a way that will persuade and attract converts, that you have some capital and a good plan to attract more capital and more volunteers, and that you are well organized.

And if you have never organized your own business, political campaign or your own non-profit or political venture you are going to have a real difficult time persuading someone who HAS done any of these things successfully, that you are a good bet to invest his time, or his money, or his good name, or all of these, in your campaign.

That’s why I said this past Friday morning that I am voting for York County Commissioner, conservative, 100% right-to-life candidate Chris Reilly for the 4th Congressional district GOP nomination and hope you will too.  I’m with Scott Wagner, Pastor Ken Gibson and other thoughtful Christian-conservatives who want to be sure we get the best possible candidate we can for this open seat, and that we send someone against the Democrat nominee who has the best chance to win, and someone who will go to Washington, DC and be taken seriously fighting for our issues.

And, if I were a campaign advisor to Scott Perry, that is what I would fear the most – that Christian conservatives would all follow the lead of Pastor Ken Gibson of ACTION of PA and vote for Chris Reilly.

If I were an adviser to Scott Perry I would be hoping that Christian conservatives would instead vote “your conscience” for Ted Waga.  Every vote for Ted Waga is a vote that might have gone to Chris Reilly and thereby defeated Scott Perry.

So, if you see primary results where Scott Perry is the winner by a few percentage points, and you voted for Ted Waga, you have your conscience and Scott Perry will have the victory, and I will be voting along with most other conservatives here in south central PA for Scott Perry in the general election.

I sure hope enough people understand that INFORMED conscience is different than simply voting your conscience.

On the other hand, I’m voting for Rick Santorum because, to put it plainly, WHY THE HECK NOT – nobody else is stepping forward to show they have a shot at beating Mitt Romney in the PA primary so I’m voting my conscience and for Sir Galahad.  Just as I most likely would have voted for Ted Waga if Scott Perry was the clear frontrunner with no chance of being overtaken by a more conservative, more pro-life alternative.

I’m voting for Sam Rohrer for U.S. Senate but for the reasons I stipulated in detail on Friday, the very much more liberal Steve Welch is so awful in my mind, that ANY of the other candidates who appear to have a better chance of defeating him tomorrow, could attract my vote to switch to them.  And if I learn about that in time I will post a last minute message here, and if not I’ll simply vote for Sam Rohrer.

Another of those TERRIBLE choices as a Republican is Planned Parenthood’s favorite GOP State Senator in Pennsylvania, Pat Vance.  This one’s a very easy choice.  If you claim to be a conservative and you are voting for her then you are either very misinformed or you are outright lying about being a conservative.  Andy Shaw is the only choice you have in that primary for State Senate and I only wish that I lived in his district so that I could get a double vote: two for the price of one – yes for Andy Shaw and NO to Pat Vance.

And for State House of delegates I said I will vote for Seth Grove who is not only a hard working conservative but who has no challenger who has ever articulated any conservative philosophy for me to read, but has instead echoed the “anti-establishment” complaints employed by the radical left for the past few dozen years and by Occupy Wall Street more recently.

“Vote your conscience” sounds great but is a half truth.  It is the justification of murderers and baby-killers at abortion mills.  It was the justification of those who supported Adolf Hitler’s campaign to exterminate Jews and those who support the modern day Holocaust against Israel.

“Vote your conscience” is only complete when you have an informed conscience – the ability to use the gift our God created us with, a mind capable of discerning right from wrong, capable of determining the consequences of our action.

I hope my friends who vote in Pennsylvania will consider my advice today and vote to make a difference tomorrow, anywhere that they can by having their actions decided by an informed conscience.  And I hope that my words and thoughts prayerfully offered up here will help advise you in that process.  God bless you, God bless America and my friends outside Pennsylvania, please pray for the best outcome possible tomorrow, and those who champion our views, those who have helped them, whether they win or they lose tomorrow, will stay in the war, because tomorrow is but one battle among many to come.

To quote from this past Friday’s article, “So I’m voting for Rick Santorum for President.  Either Sam Rohrer for Senator or any other candidate who can stop Steve Welch according to the latest polls 10 minutes before I cast my vote for the GOP nominee for U.S. Senator on Tuesday.  For Chris Reilly for Congress.  I wish I could vote for Andy Shaw for State Senator in the district further away near Harrisburg.  And for Rep. Seth Grove.”

http://www.redstate.com/hanoverhenry/2012/04/19/why-im-voting-for-santorum-still-in-pa-chris-reilly-for-congress-this-tues-in-pa/

*

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

Don’t you just love it when you have several candidates in a primary all telling you that they are “The” true conservative?  Doesn’t it get more fascinating when they tell you why the OTHER fellow is not?

What is always amusing to me in such situations is when the candidate(s) who have the least chance of winning, the least number of volunteers and the least amount of money, are usually the ones telling you that you should never, ever compromise but should only vote for “principle.”

Amusing, since most often, it is precisely because they are the least likely candidate to earn a conservatives’ vote which is precisely WHY they have the least amount of donations, volunteers and support.

So, without reviewing those “principled” candidates who never had a chance but who are running for office either to push a particular point of view regardless of how little support that view has within the GOP or within the broader constituency of a general election, let me share my conclusions about this coming Tuesday’s GOP primary vote – noting that I reserve the right to change my mind about any (or all) of these.

I will vote for Rick Santorum because he has articulated my views as a Christian-conservative and has a track record that more closely matches his words than any other option I have next Tuesday.

While I have written about this more extensively in the past than I will do now, I must say that I respect Newt Gingrich’s choice to stay in the race, and I respect those who will vote for him on Tuesday.  If I thought there was any chance at all that he could defeat Mitt Romney on Tuesday then I’d have committed my vote for him as I did going into the South Carolina and Florida primaries when I said I’d have voted for him AT THAT TIME, if I lived there.

I have also noted that I own many of his books and CD’s, have been a longstanding admirer of his as well as a critic who has objected to some of those occasions when Newt Gingrich did not hew to the conservative line.

About Mitt Romney I have noted in the past that liberals, leftists and their allies within our ranks, argue the old George Wallace line, “not a dime’s worth of difference” between Mitt, Newt and Rick.  They’d have been saying that too, if Cain or Bachmann were in the finalist group.

To leftists, Obama is too moderate and all the Republicans (except Ron Paul who they often admire) are all too conservative, and all the same thing.  This is the only thing that in a way, I agree with them on – that is, I’d love for ANY of these three final conservative choices to replace Obama in the White House.

Both Newt and Rick are a more clear cut conservative alternative than Romney.  Neither looks like they have a chance of winning against Romney.

But I still have my vote, and it goes to Rick Santorum on Tuesday here in Pennsylvania.

For U.S. Senator it got a little bit more complex and not a perfect situation.

I’ll vote for Sam Rohrer, the overwhelming choice in the straw poll of conservatives at the PA Leadership Conference recently.  I have two reservations.

My first reservation about Sam is that he sounds like a liberal when it comes to foreign policy.  “Bring the boys home” was a fine mantra for the leftist candidate for President in 1972, George McGovern.

Demanding that every move a President makes should be approved by the Senate, will warm the hearts of all the leftists who aren’t ever going to vote for a conservative but, why should that excite the rest of us who vote in GOP primaries?

Sam Rohrer has two major problems for me, the first of which is that he sounds like a leftist when he speaks of foreign policy.

If President Ronald Reagan had to get permission first before sending fighter jets to surround and force to the ground the Abu Nidal terrorist gang escaping by airliner from the site of their crime we’d still be waiting for approval instead of celebrating their capture.

Perhaps Sam would have objected – as did the left – when President Reagan followed the advice of counter-terrorism director and National Security Agency staffer, Lt. Col. Oliver North, and sent fighter jets from one direction and fuel tankers from another for the long range sortie that captured the gang after they were forced down near Italy.

Perhaps today most do not recall that a wheelchair bound American, Leon Klinghoffer, was executed in front of his wife on the Greek cruise ship Achille Lauro.

Perhaps the Senate would have had a “short” debate, perhaps just a few weeks, and in the end approved the no-longer secret plan drawn up by Colonel North and approved by Ronald Reagan himself to go after what the FBI at the time called “the most dangerous terrorist gang in the world.”  Sure.  When pigs fly.

In the end, perhaps over the objection of Sam Rohrer and others who are part of our conservative cause today, then President Ronald Reagan said “you can run but you cannot hide” after the terrorists had been brought to justice.

And who lived through that period and can ever forget the allies of Fidel Castro who seized power in the island-nation of Grenada and were building an airstrip for a new fighter base for MIG-21 jets to be stationed just off America’s southern coast?

After another Oliver North plan was approved by Ronald Reagan and executed with success, the American hostages held captive by the Cuban trained and led revolutionaries in Grenada were freed and returned to America to kiss the ground as they came off the plane exclaiming for the live TV cameras “God bless America.”  There weren’t many dry eyed Americans that day.

And the liberal-left’s reaction was to demand the impeachment of President Reagan for not first getting U.S. Senate permission in advance – never mind stealth, secrecy and surprise in attacking the enemies of America.

The liberal left has always said the same thing – they don’t want American power ever used abroad, they always want the President to get permission first.

And until recently, conservatives have said that the Constitution is very clear that we have but one Commander in Chief, and if the Senate or House doesn’t like what he is doing they have the power to rein him in at any time they want, so put up, or shut up.

But this is one issue where reasonable conservatives take exception with Sam Rohrer.

The second exception I would take with Rohrer is simply this: he has a lousy track record of recruiting, organizing and creating a volunteer base and a base of conservative donors.

You cannot overcome the GOP regular machine – large sized donations and many donors, and many volunteers – with a small army of donors and volunteers.  You simply cannot be competitive, and those who support you are often just throwing away their time and their money if you don’t plan and recruit and build your own army.

I fear that once again, just as when he ran for Governor, the favorite of conservatives and despite my complaints, the favorite of the undersigned, has failed us on recruiting and building his own army.

No one else has emerged who speaks for me on as many issues as does Sam Rohrer in this U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania so reluctantly but without any further hesitation I’m voting for him, once again, as I voted for him for Governor in the past – both in the primary and as a write in November.

We have in Steve Welch a smooth talking product of the GOP party machine who will blow with the wind and very expertly say whatever is popular this week and in front of whichever audience he happens to be speaking at the moment.

Welch told one attendee at the candidate forum of Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation (ACTION of PA) this past December that he’d not mentioned anything about his faith because he never speaks of his faith.

I reported here in recently how Steve Welch completely dodged the question about what he would do to defend against the Obama Administration’s recent assaults on religious liberty.

Welch instead defied the debate organizers at the PA Leadership Conference to tell us about his favorite American success story – his own – after they’d specifically said please answer the question we asked, not tell us about yourself which is in the literature they had given the attendees.

That was the debate after which the straw poll was announced showing a decisive win for Sam Rohrer at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference.

One of his opponents is running TV commercials to let us know that Steve Welch voted for Barack Obama just four years ago.

Well now.  I’d normally go along with a conservative friend of mine at ACTION of PA who asked, “but isn’t that what we want – Obama voters to come over to our side?”

It isn’t that which I would object to.  It is the opportunist I see that causes me the problem.

Steve Welch told people at the Dec. candidate forum that he was so upset with the Republicans a few years back that he defected from their ranks but today realized it was a mistake.

Let me ask you dear reader: have you ever heard of a conservative who was so mad at the Republican Party that he quit that party, changed his registration?

Sure we’ve all heard such stories.

But wait… have you ever heard of a conservative so upset with the Republicans for not being conservative enough, who changed his registration from Republican to Democrat and then voted for Barack Obama for President?

And lest there be any doubt about this, have you ever heard any explanation from Steve Welch about what issues had him so angry that he left the GOP?

Have you ever heard Steve Welch explain why, if the GOP wasn’t conservative enough for him – which is what he implies (but doesn’t state) – why would he then vote for the more liberal-leftist Barack Obama?

Did Steve Welch foolishly believe that former Saul Alinsky, radical-leftist Barack Obama was the more conservative choice versus Senator McCain and Sarah Palin?

What should we deduce from his mealy-mouthed explanation today, that he was so mad at the Republicans that he defected and left the GOP?

I’ll tell you what I conclude: the smooth talking Steve Welch isn’t telling us the whole story.  I believe he was a victim of the old “George Bush Derangement Syndrome” where the mere mention of the Bush name makes a leftist jump up and down in anger, totally out of control.

And of course, if anybody had any doubt about Steve Welch I trust you will recall that the same Republican Party State Central Committee that told us Arlen Specter was their ideal for a U.S. Senator – just before he thumbed his nose at them and switched to Democrat to help push through passage of ObamaCare – also more recently endorsed Steve Welch.

So if you liked Arlen Specter you’ll just love Steve Welch.  The PA GOP machine says so.

What possible reason in the world would a conservative want Steve Welch as your U.S. Senate nominee against a more conservative-sounding Democrat like Bob Casey?  Is this a joke?

I don’t think any of us should hold against each other differences in who we’d prefer for the GOP nominee for President but anybody who says he is a conservative and who supports Welsh is going to have serious credibility problems in the future among the rank and file of our movement, including the undersigned.

I’ll vote for Sam Rohrer but if on Tuesday I see a poll that shows ANY of the other candidates has the better chance to defeat Steve Welch and that Sam is out of reach of winning I will switch my vote to stop Steve Welch and not even blink or think twice about it.

In the 4th Congressional District we have an open seat with the pending retirement of 6-term Rep. Todd Platts.  We also have had the city of Harrisburg added to the congressional district and the loss of some Republican precincts.  That means a very red district has become a bit more of a battleground than in the past, and it is an open seat and hence more vulnerable.

So let me remind my RED STATE minded friends what that means: in the 4th district the issue is whether or not Nancy Pelosi gets this congressional seat to help put her back in power.  It isn’t just about the issues being battled out but also about that important question that is of serious concerne to many conservatives and to the undersigned.

We’ve had a number of debates in the district, which I have reported on.

One candidate who appears to the undersigned to be the most consistent conservative is Ted Waga.  Sadly, he has so little financial support that as of the final days before the end of this campaign he has yet to file a financial report with the Federal Election Commission – meaning less than $5,000.  He also scores less than 2 percent of the vote in the recently undertaken poll reported in the York Daily Record.

Some of the people who are pushing Ted Waga have been big critics of the GOP machine and of Rep. Todd Platts.   The complaint back at them is that they have no idea of how legislation is passed and the work done to get legislators to support what you want passed.  They don’t lobby as much as complain after the loss of a vote, is the complaint I’ve heard.

While Ted Waga cannot and should not be held responsible for what his supporters say, it is a fair assessment at this late hour that the fellow who appears to be the most consistent conservative in the race has no money, no army of campaign workers and poll standings that show he is not anywhere close to the front of the pack.  So while I like Ted Waga and I would happily consider voting for him, there’s another issue at stake in this race.

I’ve reported how 40 GOP state legislators withdrew their signature from the “Women’s Right to Know” legislation, and one of those 40 is State Rep. Scott Perry.

I believe Scott Perry is a good man, would make a great GOP nominee and a great U.S. Congressman.  I would happily vote for him if he were the GOP nominee.

But I’m with Ann Bunn, Father Houser and Pastor Ken Gibson (Chairman of ACTION of PA) who have all been reported in this column saying (to quote Ann Bunn again), “I will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate.”

The two front runners with 12% of the GOP vote, according to the York Daily Record commissioned poll, are State Representative Scott Perry and York County Commissioner Chris Reilly.

The two candidates who have raised the MOST money by a very wide margin, are again: Chris Reilly and Scott Perry.

The two candidates who on issue after issue appear to be the most conservative in general are Chris Reilly and Scott Perry – but both are behind Ted Waga in my view, on this one important analytic.  But both Reilly and Perry have a background of having won elections and having served in office, and have both delivered results they promised.

But the one candidate who had disappointed me the most in the past month has been Scott Perry because of his withdrawal of sponsorship of HB 1077, the Women’s Right to Know legislation, and his failure to come out swinging in support of the ideal.

For those who did not read my previous reports on this battle, Planned Parenthood in PA has fought proposed legislation which would force them to show an expectant mother who comes to them for an abortion, the ultra sound image that they admit to taking in 99% of all cases they do an abortion.

HB 1077 is similar to legislation in 23 other states requiring them to offer this option.  The bill is stalled and facing defeat in the GOP controlled state legislature after Scott Perry and other legislators withdrew their sponsorship.

Worse, Scott Perry said he is NOT in favor of making abortion illegal.

Worse still, Scott Perry has a list of conditions under which he says abortion would be OK.

Shall we make a list of conditions under which we’d say premeditated murder would be OK as well?

Should we propose a law that the conscience of the murderer will decide when murder is OK and legal?

It is an unsupportable position that Scott Perry has taken on this, even as he looked Father Sam Houser and Pastor Ken Gibson in the eye and told them point blank last Wednesday in the St. Patrick Catholic Church conference room, “I’m 100% pro-life.”  He isn’t, according to his own words a few days later in the ACTION of PA debate (last Friday night, see my earlier report).

So while I appreciate much about his background and his championing of many other conservative issues, for me in a primary this is a make or break issue and it is conclusive for me and other Christian-conservatives.

Three endorsements which influenced me in favor of Chris Reilly are: (1) York County ACTION Chairman, Pastor Ken Gibson, (2) US Senator Pat Toomey (what a GREAT TV commecial!), (3) Steve Johnson (my FB friend, ACTION of PA York County Board member & past candidate for state office),

I’ll vote for Chris Reilly for U.S. Congress because he has the best chance of winning, appears to be very much aware that the right to life is not subject to a laundry list of exceptions, has a good track record as a fiscal conservative, is a former “Statesman of the Year” of ACTION of PA.

Chris Reilly has the best chance to win the GOP primary, has a proven track record as a County Commissioner and the support of a number of conservative Christians who I admire and respect.

No legislator at the recent Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation got a more enthusiastic reception to his remarks than State Rep. Seth Grove.  Despite his being challenged by someone who has been identified as a “Tea Party” conservative I’ve actually never once read of any serious policy disagreement between the challenger versus the GOP in general or the incumbent Seth Grove in particular.

Instead, I have read what I call Occupy Wall Street complaints, ie. the rich bankers, the corporations, the rich people versus us little people.

It is very interesting to me, to see so many people trying to appeal to conservatives in a GOP primary election using the rhetoric that has been employed by the left and by the followers of Saul Alinsky for more than 40 years.

This rhetoric leaves me rather cold.  Not only does such leftwing sounding rhetoric not motivate me to vote for a candidate who employs it but it makes me want to rush to the other candidate as quickly as I can to offer my support, aside from the generally very good track record of Seth Grove.

If I could vote once again or choose one more district I could vote it, as my regular readers know from several previous columns, I would go in a big way for Andy Shaw (joinAndy.org) knowing that not only would we have toppled Planned Parenthood’s favorite GOP State Senator with his victory but we would get TWO outstanding champions of Christian conservative values – the conservative-Christian-attorney team of Andy and Andrea Shaw.

I note that the state chairman of Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation, Jay McKiernan, has issued an all-points bulletin for volunteers to flood the district, for donations to come from anywhere and everywhere in America and has put his own “money where his mouth is” on this race to support the ACTION of PA endorsed candidate by knocking on doors to seek votes for Andy Shaw.  To join him go to http://JoinAndy.org.

So I’m voting for Rick Santorum for President.  Either Sam Rohrer for Senator or any other candidate who can stop Steve Welch according to the latest polls 10 minutes before I cast my vote for the GOP nominee for U.S. Senator on Tuesday.  For Chris Reilly for Congress.  I wish I could vote for Andy Shaw for State Senator in the district further away near Harrisburg.  And for Rep. Seth Grove.

Rick Santorum for President.  Chris Reilly for Congress.  Andy Shaw for State Senate.  Reelect Seth Grove as State Representative.

I welcome your comments and reactions, and any other suggestions for primary election day in Pennsylvania this coming Tuesday, April 24.

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section.

A lot has happened during the last few weeks.  I’ll try to catch up a bit in this post:

Rick Santorum dropped out of the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.  I’ve liked Santorum from the beginning, though recognizing he probably didn’t have the staying power to really make a strong bid.  Although I am not as socially conservative as he, I have admired him for his fearless adherence to spiritual and moral principle.  I think he is a good and decent man who would have made a good and decent President; something our Country probably could use right now.

I had no idea he has a child with special medical needs.  His withdrawal at this time is best for his family, and especially for his little girl.  Rick Santorum is a young man, and there will be plenty time for other Presidential bids.  I’m sure in the final assessment of Rick’s life, he won’t wish he had spent more time campaigning, and less with his daughter.

George Zimmerman was finally arrested and charged with second degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin.  Apparently Florida authorities found a prosecutor who was willing to write up the charges.  I would feel better if they had come from a Grand Jury, rather than an individual that might be succumbing to political pressure or other motives.  Having said that, I think it is a good thing to give everyone their day in court.  Let’s see all the evidence and hear all the testimony.  My only concern here is that the prosecutor might have a tougher time getting conviction on second-degree murder than manslaughter.  If Zimmerman is acquitted of all charges, there may not be enough National Guardsmen in all of Florida to keep it from going up in flames.

President Obama is still trotting out the “Buffett Rule”.  Would some newsperson with balls please ask the President how much exactly the deficit would be reduced by implementation of the “Buffett Rule”?  Then follow up with:  “When exactly would Warren , and all the tax evaders in Government and elite Hollywood be required to pony up what they owe to IRS?  When EVERYBODY has paid “their fair share”, I’ll consider supporting something like the Buffett Rule.

Did I mention waste in Government?  I’m not against taxes.  We need taxes to make this Country run.  What really burns my backside is seeing the hard earned tax money from Americans being squandered by the dimwits in our Government.  The GSA (you know, the people keeping track of how our money is spent) scandal broke last week.  Looks like GSA employees had a great time at our expense.  I guess they were just doing their part to stimulate the economy in Las Vegas.  How patriotic.

In a related item this morning I see that the President’s Secret Service contingent was sampling some of the “local flavor” in Columbia during his visit to “stimulate relations” with that country.  According to an Obama administration official , this news broke because of a loud disagreement between one of the Secret Service guys and his “date” over her bill for “services rendered”.  I assume he thought he was being overcharged for the “merchandise”.  Thank God somebody in Washington is watching out for our interests!

Originally posted on 04/15/2012 at ConservativeCompass.com

I do not know what it is about a Christian conservative speaking about his faith and about public policy issues that so much enrages the secular liberal left in America but recent writings by the undersigned in this space have generated more personal insult, attack and strawman arguments attempting to demonize what we say than anything I have written during the last seven weeks of 5x a week essays I have posted, and this one – number 37 and sending my count to over 80,000 words – may create a few aneurysms.

I pray for calm among my liberal-left, secular left audience who monitors these pages on the lookout for places to attack Christians.

One of the purposes of today’s report is to support the call of two men of the cloth in south Central Pennsylvania, who began and ended their meeting with State Representative Scott Perry with a prayer.

The two Christian pastors are advocates of the “Women’s Right to Know” bill that is stalled in the State House of Representatives.

The meeting was held to ask Rep. Perry why he had withdrawn his sponsorship of that bill which would most certainly have cost Planned Parenthood a few dollars in lost abortion fees if it were enacted.

If Planned Parenthood is forced by legislation being considered in Harrisburg, to allow the expectant mother to actually see the ultra sound image that is already being taken in 99% of all abortions in America, the fear that the abortionists have is that some of those mothers will get all queasy and change their mind.

In other words, the sight of their own real life baby in an ultra sound image, even as the smooth talking Planned Parenthood operator is telling them it’s just a blob, may cause a few mothers to say “oh its my baby” and cancel the planned abortion.

This fear is so very real that it generated a massive campaign by Planned Parenthood to prevent Pennsylvania from becoming the 24th state in the U.S. to compel them to offer the mother the chance to see the ultra sound image.  The campaign used a series of lies, including the claim that the Republican legislator was going to “rape” women with a “vaginal probe.”

Of course, those writing heated letters and angry phone calls are completely unaware that in 99% of all abortions in America Planned Parenthood already DOES an ultra sound image and in 93% of all cases, does an ultra sound using that vaginal probe.  The major issue is, will Planned Parenthood be forced to allow the expectant mother to see the image if she wants?

Father Samuel Houser of St. Patrick Catholic Church hosted this meeting at his parish conference room in York City, presided over by the Chairman of the York County Chapter of Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation (ACTION of PA), Pastor Ken Gibson, to pray that their state becomes the 24th to allow women to see that photographic image of their own baby, despite Planned Parenthood’s vehement objections.

In attendance at this meeting was State Representative Scott Perry, one of the 40 state legislators who had originally sponsored House Bill 1077, the “Women’s Right to Know” bill, but who then withdrew his sponsorship.

Rep. Perry sent an email to the legislators – which I reported last week – saying he followed Sarah Palin’s example of last year – he hadn’t retreated, he was reloading.  But he will had some explaining to do.

Rep. Perry is a candidate for the Congressional seat of retiring 6 term Rep. Todd Platts.  The April 24 primary will select a Republican nominee for this strongly GOP district and there are seven candidates.

Rep. Perry went into this meeting very much in “the hot seat” with the two Christian pastors.  They did not understand why he had withdrawn his sponsorship of a bill they consider so important.

But Rep. Perry came out with two much more informed Pastors, and with a bounce in his step.  It isn’t every day that two men of the cloth pray for you as Pastors Houser and Gibson did this past Wednesday.

In fact, the two Christian Pastors were so “fired up” by what they learned in their one hour meeting with Rep. Perry, that they stayed overtime after their meeting, to draft up a “statement” about their meeting with him.  And they then issued a news release about their meeting along with the statement.  I will conclude today’s column with the full, unedited text of both.

But the real news is this.

Father Houser and Pastor Gibson, both members of ACTION of PA, invited Rep. Scott Perry to speak to a campaign rally of their group tonight – Friday night – and to explain what is needed to secure passage of this “Right to Know” bill.

Both men of the cloth now better understand that the liberal-left is far more organized than conservative-minded Christian members of their congregations.  They pray that their congregations will help change that so that legislators don’t hear such a one-sided email and phone response when bills such as HB 1077 are heading for a floor vote.

Rep. Perry told the two Pastors that his side in this battle was outnumbered with some of his colleagues reporting the mail and phone calls running 5 to 1 against them.

When a bill goes into committee for “markup” it doesn’t always come out for a floor vote.  So often, it is “bottled up” in the committee.

If the bill does come out it is most often because a consensus of committee members has formed and a vote to release it out of committee – sometimes with changes – has taken place.

But at every step along the way, hearing from constituents who are interested in a bill – whether it is for or against it – can make a huge difference.

But the HB 1077 bill that came out of committee was very different from what had been endorsed by a majority of the GOP controlled State House of Representatives, on its way in.

It was so different from what had been earlier endorsed, that the liberal-left attack on the newly revised bill, was very effective – and caught friendly forces by complete surprise, since they’d never been consulted about or appraised of the changes in advance.

This was Rep. Perry’s explanation when he had more than a few minutes to explain the action that was promised in support of the “right to life” cause.  Between the unexpected changes, the enormous outpouring of opposition to the bill, and the relative silence of our side, the “Right to Know” bill is now in danger of defeat.

40 Republicans withdrew their support of a bill because it was totally changed.

What then, would Rep. Perry support?

Father Houser and Pastor Gibson won’t say, beyond the statement they released and which is below in its entirety.

They will only say that they left the meeting smiling and pleased, and that they have a commitment from Rep. Perry to speak at their campaign rally tonight (Friday night), and to work diligently to lead the charge for a “Women’s Right to Know” bill.

Tonight Rep. Scott Perry will speak at the ACTION of PA campaign rally – more than 18 candidates running for U.S. Senate, other statewide offices, for Congress and for state legislature – will be speaking.

But Rep. Perry won’t be speaking merely as a candidate who wants our vote for U.S. Congress on April 24.

He won’t be speaking merely as the candidate who finished in first place at the ACTION of PA candidate forum’s “straw poll” back in February.

Rep. Perry has promised to help ACTION of PA kick off a new push to enact “The Women’s Right to Know” bill in the Republican controlled House of Representatives.

That is why the two pastors – Father Houser and Pastor Gibson – ended the meeting with a prayer for Rep. Perry’s success as their champion.  And why they left the meeting happy.

No endorsements have been made in this race, not by either Pastor and not by ACTION of PA.  And we know of at least one candidate (Ted Waga to be specific) who has been VERY outspoken on the issue of the Women’s Right to Know bill pending in Harrisburg.  In fact, Waga has telephoned and has spoken to several legislators about this topic, and has been one of our information sources for some past reports on this very topic.

No, it is entirely appropriate that the prayer this past Wednesday was not for Scott Perry the candidate for Congress, but for the State Representative who may as a champion of this cause, help rally support to see “The Women’s Right to Know” bill enacted into law in Harrisburg.

I join Father Houser and Pastor Gibson in being thankful for this turn of events, and look forward to what Ted Waga and Scott Perry will have to say on this topic at the Friday night rally – free to the public – of Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation in York, PA.

Here’s the news released late this afternoon (followed by the full text of their statement):

Christian Pastors Urge Rep. Scott Perry to speak out on “Women’s Right to Know” Bill, urge passage in Harrisburg

Pastor Ken Gibson and Father Samuel Houser meet with Perry, who seeks GOP nomination for U.S. Congress, invite him to speak at rally tonight

Meeting with State Representative Scott Perry, a candidate for the GOP nomination for U.S. Congress to replace the retiring Rep. Todd Platts in the May 24 GOP primary, two Christian pastors urged passage of “Women’s Right to Know” legislation to force Planned Parenthood abortion clinics to allow expectant mothers in their care to see any ultra sound image taken of their baby and urged him to speak out at a campaign rally they invited him to speak at tonight.  Perry accepted their invitation.

Pastor Gibson and Father Houser, who are leaders of “Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation (ACTION of PA) said “We pray that clear statements of support will be forthcoming from Representatives such as Scott Perry favoring the “Women’s Right to Know.”

We believe it is critical that a bill should be passed and signed into law in this session, which guarantees that the mother have the right to see the ultra sound image already being done in 99% of all cases of abortion in the United States.”

Pastor Gibson, who is Chairman of the York Chapter of ACTION of PA and Father Samuel Houser, met with State Rep. Perry at Houser’s St. Patrick Catholic Church conference room on Beaver Street in York City this past Wed. for one hour.  They released a statement after the meeting in which they said that one political party which won control of the State House and Senate and Governor’s mansion “…promised in the last election to give results” but this “Right to Know” bill is stalled.

Pastor Gibson announced that one of their key advisers on this issue is Michael Geer, President of the Pennsylvania Family Institute with an office in Harrisburg who was in contact with them in the hour before their meeting.

Both Pastors pledged that they will redouble their efforts, together with other pastors they are in contact with, to urge their congregations “to register to vote, to express their opinions to their legislators on public policy issues and to vote only for those candidates who clearly express that the centrality of faith is of prime importance to them as they determine public policy questions.”

ACTION of PA (York County Chapter) is a conservative Christian political action committee which endorsed three candidates for state legislature and will hold a free rally for them today April 13 at 7:15 PM at the Heritage Hills Golf Resort and has invited the public to attend.

Details about the free candidate forum and rally tonight (Friday) at 7:15 PM and the one hour reception preceding it (6 to 7 PM) are at http://www.yorkcountyaction.com.

(full text of their statement follows)

Statement of 4/11/12 regarding

Rep. Scott Perry & “Women’s Right to Know” Bill

Statement of Pastor Ken Gibson and Father Samuel Houser, after their meeting with PA State Representative Scott Perry, candidate for the GOP  nomination for U.S. Congress to replace retiring Rep. Todd Platts.  The meeting took place at the St. Patrick Church Conference Room in the city of York on Wed., April 11, with the two pastors joined by several members of St. Patrick Church. 

All of those in the meeting are members of “Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation (ACTION of PA), with Pastor Gibson serving as the York County Chairman.  Rep. Scott Perry had been one of the original sponsors of House Bill 1077, the “Women’s Right to Know” bill which was reported out of committee with significant changes to the original proposal.  The changes to the original which caused some 40 GOP legislators to withdraw their sponsorship, including Rep. Perry.

“We commend State Rep. Scott Perry for taking the time to meet with us today and for his work in the legislature representing his constituents and his beliefs.  We recognize the possibility that his work may continue in Washington if he is successful in his quest for a Congressional seat where he would represent more of us.  We met to express our concerns about the threat to religious liberty in America today, seek ways in which we can work together to influence public policy and learn more about the process.  We come away from our meeting convinced that Rep. Perry is a good man and faithful to important moral principles which should always guide all public policy.

“We remain concerned that the passage of important legislation such as one that would guarantee the “Women’s Right to Know,” is still in question in the state capitol of Harrisburg, despite the control of both chambers of the legislature and of the Governor’s mansion by a political party that promised in the last election to give us results.  We pray for a more favorable outcome in both the national and state public policy arenas and we continue to urge our congregations to register to vote, to express their opinions to their legislators on public policy issues and to vote only for those candidates who clearly express that the centrality of faith is of prime importance to them as they determine public policy questions.

“We pray that clear statements of support will be forthcoming from Representatives such as Scott Perry favoring the “Women’s Right to Know.”  We believe it is critical that a bill should be passed and signed into law in this session, which guarantees that the mother have the right to see the ultra sound image already being done in 99% of all cases of abortion in the United States.

“And we thank Rep. Perry for taking the time to meet with us today, and were especially pleased to pray for the success of all public policy leaders in doing what is right for America, right for their constituents and right in the eyes of our almighty Father.

*

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

Mitt Romney was not my first choice for President. Frankly, he didn’t make my top three. I was initially enthusiastic about Tim Pawlenty. Later, I volunteered in Iowa and South Carolina for Gov. Perry. Lastly, I campaigned in Tennessee for Rick Santorum. Now it appears inevitable that Gov. Romney will be our nominee. (No offense to my Newt friends, but he’s batting 2-31 out of states that have weighed in so far, and he’s batting even worse if you throw in D.C., Puerto Rico and Guam.) So my goals now are to elect solid conservatives to the US Senate and House this fall and work to elect Mitt Romney President.

While I’m no political genius, I am something of a student of politics. I’ve volunteered on multiple GOP national presidential campaigns including campaigning for Bush in Florida in 2004, and I have a degree in political science and history. Here’s some keys I think Gov. Romney needs to utilize in order to win this fall.

1) Romney must frame the debate by relentlessly going on offense against Barack Obama. Romney held nothing back in attacking his GOP opponents. He needs to follow the same guidelines in going after Obama. Romney would be wise to study Ronald Reagan’s speech at Liberty State Park, NJ in 1980. Reagan opened his presidential campaign on Democratic turf, and he delivered a speech for the ages holding nothing back against Jimmy Carter. Romney’s speech following his Illinois primary victory is precisely the kind of speech he needs to deliver day in and day out through November. I encourage you to watch the speech in its entirety. It is one of Romney’s finest moments of the campaign.

Obama will attempt to make Romney a villain, so Romney must turn the tables and consistently pound Obama’s disgraceful economic record (sky high unemployment, blocking energy development and the 100% increase in gas prices since Obama took office, drunken deficit spending, etc), shameless identity politics (war on women) and socialist rhetoric and policies (e.g. class warfare, Obamacare, etc). Let’s face it: the GOP primary was primarily white noise to Democrats and Independents, so any prior Romney attacks on Obama have not really been heard by swing voters.

Romney will be outspent and outgunned financially by Obama, so Romney must introduce bold arguments and bold ideas (continue to embrace Paul Ryan’s economic reform ideas and develop a few good ones—bring back drill baby drill, introduce a flat tax, etc) to steer the national debate to the right. All Romney has to do is talk about North Dakota. They’re drilling their socks off up there, and unemployment is under 4%.

2) Deploy Ann Romney. She has the star power potential of Sarah Palin. Just unleash her. She has a compelling life story to tell—of overcoming cancer and fighting MS. It takes a woman of strength to raise 5 boys as successfully as she has. The American people will grow to love her. Ann Romney has the potential to be a better spokesman than Romney’s VP nominee. Send Ann to swing states where women can sway the election. She will do nothing but help Mitt Romney. Just look how the Hilary Rosen attack backfired. Hilary Rosen, Obama loyalist and White House guest on 35 occasions over the last three years, pulled off a seemingly unimaginable task—uniting the right behind Mitt Romney. On the down side, Rosen’s White House pass has likely been revoked through the election.

3) Select a solid VP nominee. Attention team Romney: take all that charming stuff you keep reading about Rob Portman in the WaPost and NY Times, and get it out of your heads. Portman would be a very bad VP nominee, although I think he’d potentially be a great Chief of Staff or Commerce Secretary. Portman is Mr. Establishment, and he is far from youthful. He’s like an Ohio version of Mitt Romney. Portman would bring about as much enthusiasm to the ticket as a Joe Biden cameo at a Pittsburg St. Patty’s Day parade. A Portman VP selection does not compute. Romney doesn’t need to doubledown on country-club Republicans. He needs some conservative bona fides. At the same time, Romney doesn’t need somebody who would overshadow him (goodbye Newt and Santorum from the veepstates). However, he solidifies his candidacy if he selects someone who passionately articulates conservatism and lives it. This winnows the field to a few excellent VP choices: Allen West (articulates conservatism fluently, is youthful, represents a must-win swing state, brings military experience to the ticket, generates enthusiasm among conservatives and potentially cuts into Obama’s African American support), Marco Rubio (also a great conservative spokesman, has won a statewide election in a must-win swing state, is youthful and has the potential to help the GOP win the Hispanic vote), Paul Ryan (a policy genius, has a youthful and winsome personality, is eloquent in arguing conservatism, represents a swing state, has routinely taken on Obama) and Rick Perry (brings military experience to the ticket, has an outstanding record as governor, was firing on all cylinders at the end of his Presidential candidacy (unfortunately it was too late for him to make a comeback) following his recovery from back surgery. Perry also would help Romney shore up the conservative base and be a stark contrast to Obama. I think Gov. Bobby Jindal would be a formidable VP choice, but I’m uncertain he has the charisma of West, Rubio, Ryan or Perry. Rubio arguably offers Romney the most upside potential. He possesses some executive experience as Speaker of the Florida House, represents a crucial swing state and is a rising star in the GOP.

The bottom line for Romney is that the failed socialist policies of the Obama presidency have made 2012 a year ripe for a Republican resurgence. That’s not to say Romney won’t face some sizeable challenges: namely a hostile media bent on destroying him, a wary conservative base and a cash-rich Chicago political machine. Winning will require taking the gloves off and going full throttle after Obama. For Romney to win, he must frame the debate as a recall election on Obama—and he needs to deploy his best weapons from his arsenal: his wife and his veep nominee.

If you are one of those people who believes the Constitution creates a ‘wall” of “separation of Church and state” this bulletin may alarm you.  Some people just don’t agree with you.  They reject this idea that Christians aren’t supposed to speak about their faith when they speak of legislation or candidates they support.

They didn’t get the memo in York, PA where a conservative Christian group is holding an old fashioned campaign rally for three outstanding candidates who received their endorsement tomorrow, Friday, April 13 in York County, PA.

But before you separationists get totally dispirited I do have good news for you so stay tuned to hear about Steve Welch, who you will see, appears to be your kind of candidate for U.S. Senator.

The “gag order” on Christians which seemingly prohibits them from speaking about their faith in the public policy arena will be ripped off tomorrow night in York, PA.

I have their news release that was issued today and see that Senator John F. Kennedy’s “separation of Church and state” speech in 1960 appears to have left them unconvinced.  They do certainly seem to be tutored by a higher power, these Christian conservatives of Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation (ACTIONofPA), who announced support for three specific candidates for state legislature who will speak at their Friday night campaign rally.  A total of 18 candidates for state or federal office have confirmed to speak so far.

One irony for their Friday night campaign rally is that they have as one of their speakers, Steve Welch, the smooth tongued U.S. Senate candidate endorsed by the same GOP state committee which also had previously endorsed Arlen Specter who turned Democrat and before his new Senate term had ended was no longer even a “Republican in Name Only” (RINO).

Why do I call it an irony that Steve Welch is speaking at the Friday night ACTION of PA campaign rally?

Two reasons.

First, he spoke at a candidate’s forum last December 3, along with the other candidates for U.S. Senate.  Alone of the candidates, he made absolutely no reference to his faith in his remarks, something notable in speaking to an openly Christian conservative group such as ACTION of PA.  One of my sources reported to me that they had approached Steve Welch after his remarks, and asked him directly why he had made no reference to his faith?

“His answer sounded like it was right out of Kennedy’s ‘separation of church and state’ speech from 1960″ I was told.

In other words, Steve Welch believes together with then Sen. Kennedy and the liberal-left in America, that once you “step out” into the public square you should never refer to your faith or beliefs and should keep that totally apart from your public policy decisions.

Of course, that is a very liberal idea and not at all what our founding fathers had in mind in establishing this Republic.  The very basics of right and wrong are the core ingredient required for good public policy decision making.

But Steve Welsh did it again at the recent Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, the Commonwealth’s local version of the venerable Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, DC.

A luncheon panel of all seven of the candidates for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senator addressed a variety of questions posed to them by three different moderators.

The first question asked what the candidate would do if he were elected a U.S. Senator on the new threat to religious liberty, the assault on faith by the Obama Administration.

The first candidate (my report does not indicate who) asked, if in his answer he could provide some background or biographical information about himself as part of his answer?  The moderator stated, unequivocally, NO – we have already got that information in our material handed out to the people in the audience and we would prefer to hear your policy response to the question.

Several candidates later it was Steve Welch’s turn to answer and without hesitation he smoothly began to recite his “American success” story as a businessman… and he filibustered with that right through to the end of his time, without EVER answering the question, WHAT will you do as a U.S. Senator to defend our religious liberty as guaranteed under the First Amendment?

Now, I have to note this.

If I were drafting a speech before a Jewish group on December 3 I’d have opened up my Bible to the 2/3 portion called by us Christians, The Old Testament and refer to it, citing beliefs we have in common.

If I were a Mormon speaking to a group of Christians I’d speak about our shared family values.

And if I were an Atheist asked the question of Steve Welch at the recent confab of conservatives, most of whom are strong and devout Christians, I’d have spoken of the Constitution and the religious freedom it guarantees, and the constraint it places on government, restricting their power to throttle our freedom.

But Steve Welsh filibustered his way out of this at the recent PLC, ignored the subject at the ACTION of PA event on December 3 and even said he would not speak to that topic when questioned.

He will speak tomorrow, Friday, April 13 and I can’t wait to see what he will do as his agnosticism on the subject of the threat to religious liberty is becoming increasingly apparent.

Steve Welch, I suspect, is going to find out that he can run but he cannot hide from the conservative Christians who, I am told, have noticed his apparent stand with their enemies on what to them is a very important issue – the defense of faith, the response to the Obama war on religion in America today.

I yield the balance of my time to the news release of Americans for Christian Traditions in our Nation (ACTIONofPA), York County Chapter, a group that didn’t “get the memo” that apparently, Steve Welch did get, separating men and women of faith – like them and like Rick Santorum – from the public policy arena.  God bless them in their work and if you live anywhere nearby please do join them at their free rally tomorrow night (Friday).

Conservative Christian Group Rallies for outstanding Candidates for Office this Friday in York County

Andy Shaw, Ernie Merisotis, Kelly Henshaw earn endorsement for GOP primary

The York County Chapter of a conservative Christian political action committee has endorsed three candidates for state legislature and will hold a free rally for them Friday, April 13 at 7:15 PM at the Heritage Hills Golf Resort and has invited the public to attend.

The endorsed candidates are three of the eighteen candidates for U.S. Senate, U.S Congress and General Assembly who seek the support of the members of the group and will be speaking at “Conservative Victory 2012” on Friday.

The ACTION of PA York County Chapter endorsement went to just three candidates in York County who were cited as outstanding: Andy Shaw for State Senate (31st District vs Pat Vance), Ernie Merisotis for State Representative (93rd District vs. Ron Miller), and Kelly Henshaw for State Representative (94th Distrct vs. Stan Saylor).

“Andy Shaw, Ernie Merisotis and Kelly Henshaw understand that the centrality of faith to them in their personal, family and public life is a core ingredient for public service,” said Ken Gibson, the group’s York county President. “Simply put, they know the difference between right and wrong, and have a strong moral compass to guide them.  They are right on the issues of concern to Christian conservatives, from fiscal responsibility, to upholding the right to life of unborn babies to the defense of marriage from government attack and the full range of issues which conservatives in their districts are concerned about,” said Gibson.

Details about the free candidate forum and rally this Friday at 7:15 PM, the one hour reception preceding it (6 to 7 PM) can be found at the organization’s website, http://www.yorkcountyaction.com. Because seating is limited pre-registration is requested by noon on Friday. Guests will have the opportunity to ask questions of the candidates.

**

Tomorrow I will report on a meeting between two Christian Pastors and another of the candidates who has accepted their invitation to speak to at tomorrow’s campaign rally.

The two are Father Samuel Houser (pastor of St. Patrick Catholic Church in York City) and Pastor Ken Gibson (the York County Chairman of ACTION of PA, who met with State Rep. Scott Perry on the subject I have written of several times in this space – the “Women’s Right to Know” bill.  Rep. Perry had originally been a sponsor of HB 1077 but then, together with 40 other legislators, he has withdrawn.

Similar legislation forcing Planned Parenthood to allow a pregnant woman to see the ultra sound image/picture that they have taken, has been signed into law in 23 other states.  Why not Pennsylvania?

Planned Parenthood has already admitted that it does conduct an ultra sound in 99% of all abortions that it does.  But the abortion mill – or “healthcare” provider as they prefer to call themselves – is very opposed to any measure that forces them to give the expectant mother/victim the option of actually seeing the image of their own baby.

So, why did 40 state legislators withdraw as sponsors of HB 1077 in PA?

Perhaps you’ll learn the answer in this space tomorrow or from Rep. Perry on Friday night.  Of special interest to readers and those attending the rally on Friday night – Rep. Perry is one of the 7 candidates for the open Congressional seat of retiring, 6 term Rep. Todd Platts.

P.S. Memo to ACTION: I do not know if you will be endorsing any candidate for U.S. Senator, or if Sam Rohrer is as popular with your group as he was where he handily won the PLC straw poll, but if there isn’t an endorsement may I suggest a “negative endorsement” for you to consider; “not Steve Welch.”

HanoverHenry of RED STATE is Pat Henry on Facebook, and I’m on the lookout for new friends there. You can also communicate via private mail at Facebook, and I welcome new sources for my articles focusing on the conservative-Christian viewpoint in Pennsylvania.  I appreciate your sharing this article elsewhere and only ask that you include this “disclaimer” in any reprints or sharing you do.  And I thank those whose information have helped me with some of my reports, including those who do not wish to be quoted by name.

Links to articles I wrote at RED STATE at my Facebook Notes section. 

PCW Extreme Political TV
Campbell-Chapman Sports Complex
Sullivan,
MO
Tuesday April 10th, 2012
Host: Johnny Suave

‘The Voice of PCW’ Johnny Suave and his life
size cardboard cut-out of Shania
Twain

Suave introduces Arkansas Head
Football coach Bobby Petrino who walks out slowly with his neck in a brace
and his face all scraped up.  Suave asks him about the accident and why he
conveniently forgot to mention to AD Jeff Long that he had his 25 year old
mistress on the back of his motorcycle with him.  But before Petrino can answer,
some guy wearing an Arkansas Razorback shirt complete with Hog hat jumps Suave and
then challenges anyone to a match.

*Def Leppard’s
Tear It Down plays*

Suave: YES!

‘The Extreme Equalizer’ Whiskey Tango
Foxtrot

Suave: IT’S THE EXTREME EQUALIZER- WHISKEY TANGO
FOXTROT!

Tear it down – There’s got to be a better way
Tear it down – I can’t wait
another day
Tear it down – There’s got to be a better way
Tear it down –
If only you could stay
All night long

Crowd: What the @#$#!…What the @!##!

Petrino: Oh, snap.

(1) ‘The Extreme Equalizer’ Whiskey Tango Foxtrot def. The Arkansas
Kid w/Coach Bobby Petrino
WTF grabs The Arkansas Kid by the
throat…lift…CHOKESLAM!  He puts his foot on his chest…1…2…3.

Crowd: PCW…PCW…PCW!

Post match, AD Jeff Long comes out.

Long: Coach Petrino.  You’re FIIIIIIIIIIIIRED!

BACKSTAGE
Rick Santorum (R-PA) enters the building with A.
Tom Bomb (R) and his entourage.

Suave: The hot
rumor is that Rick Santorum is suspending his campaign tonight.  Is this the end
of the Republican
contest?

(2) ‘The Japanese SuperDestroyer’ Yamamoto Tanaka (R) def.
Daniel-San
Tanaka, Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) wrestler, came out when
Daniel-San called out John Creese and the Cobra Cons for attacking him last week
during his match against Steve Torino- Car Salesman.

…Each man grabs a chair and they trade dueling chair shots.  Creese helps
Tanaka get the advantage by kicking Daniel-San low from behind.

Mrs. Miyagi runs into the ring out of nowhere with Halitosis- The Insane
Luchador with the Insanely Bad Breath and protects Daniel-San.
Halitosis suplexes Creese on a chair.  Halitosis then grabs a chair but then the
Cobra Cons attack.  Creese pulls a metal spike out of his pocket and
jabs Halitosis in the head with it!  He blasts Mrs. Miyagi with a chair shot and
then nails Daniel-San with the chair as well.

Tanaka drags him to the top rope and ends the match with a Japanese
SuperDestroyer for the academic three count.

MATCHES SIGNED FOR JUNE’S PCW LOOSE CANNONS UNLEASHED 8
PPV:
-PCW Television Title Match: ‘The One Man Hollywood A-List’
Stone Chism (D) (c) vs. Valora Salinas

MATCHES SIGNED ALREADY
FOR NOVEMBER’S PCW EXTREME ELECTION NIGHT 2012:
Ohio- Sherrod Brown (D) vs. Josh Mandel
(R)
Virginia- George Allen (R) vs. Tim Kaine
(D)
Massachusetts- Scott Brown (R) vs. Elizabeth Warren (D)

Suave notes Brown v Warren was an oversight from last week.

(3) ‘The Self
Proclaimed Savior of the Middle Class’ Big Labor (D) def. Mitch Thomas- American
Taxpayer
Again, the American Taxpayer no match for his opponent.
Post match, Big Labor continued to beat Thomas down until Chris Christie (R-NJ)
and Scott
Walker (R-WI) ran out to make the save.

That brought out Big Labor’s tag team partner and co-holder of the PCW Tag
Team title James the Jeep Worker (D) which brought out Scott Walker’s Rangers:
John and Ronnie Walker and another brawl broke out.

Suave then reports on the Brad Company-Health Care- PCW Super Court
situation. Following arguments made before the Super Court, the
matter was now in the hands of the Super Court justices to make their
decision.

PCW Hall of Fame Class Announced
Suave announced the
inductees to the PCW HOF:
Wrestlers: ‘No Frills’ Chris Escondido (I) and
Starz N. Stripes (also known as ‘American Citizen’ Kevin Scott)
(R)
Politicians: ‘The American Screamer’ Howard Dean (D-VT) and ‘The
Mastermind’ Karl Rove

The class will be inducted at PCW’s Loose Cannons Unleashed 8 PPV in
June.

Rick Santorum (R-PA)
Santorum walks out and climbs into
the ring.  He takes the microphone and confirms that he is suspending his
campaign.

Santorum: We made a decision over the weekend that while
this PCW CEO race for us is over, for me, we are not done fighting.  We had a
difficult week with our daughter but Bella is a fighter and is doing
exceptionally well.

Santorum then vowed to continue the effort to defeat PCW CEO Barack Obama
(D-IL) in November.

(4) Miss USA vs. Emily S. List (D)- no contest
PCW
Women’s Champion Kathryn Randall Collins (D) and Code Pink both ran in and
helped List destroy Miss USA.

*Sabotage by the Beastie Boys begins to play*

The Mercenaries: Dawn McGill and Svetlana
Kovalevski

McGill and Kovalevski run down and make the save.  McGill
hits the Blunt Force Trauma on Code Pink while Kovalevski levels KRC with the
Russian Crucifix.

Suave: It appears that Miss USA no longer stands alone
against the PCW Women’s champion and the Democrats.

PCW is in Denver this Friday night.  See you then.

Rick Santorum Withdraws from the Republican Race – “Political Postmortem”

By Scott Rohter, April 2012

So according to Mitt Romney’s supporters, Rick Santorum’s withdrawal from the race means that the people have chosen. Oh Really? Well I say NO ! The people have not chosen! The people with THE MONEY have chosen! AGAIN! Romney and his backers, and the Party Establishment with all of their money and all of their connections have chosen once again. The PEOPLE were actually backing either Santorum or Paul. A brokered convention wouldn’t have been so bad for “the peeps.” The only people who were actually afraid of a brokered convention were the Party Establishment and the people who blindly follow them!

Regular people would have probably had a lot more to say under any brokered convention scenario than under the one that has just befallen us, where somebody with at least twice the amount of money as the next guy, is able to buy up all of the advertising in a selected market, and fill up all of the airwaves with lies and half truths about his own record, and about his opponents records, and convince all of the morons to vote for him who don’t ever pay attention to politics until it actually comes time to vote.

And I find it very interesting to note that Newt Gingrich, who actually never had a chance of winning, but only of spoiling someone else’s chances of winning, has still not withdrawn from the race. My guess is that he has proven himself very useful once again, and he has fulfilled his particular role for the Progressive Establishment in this selection process, and there is a reward waiting for him in whatever administration takes over the White House in 2013.

You can read all of my articles at  http://www.lessgovisthebestgov.com/