Listen as the Madison Project’s Drew Ryun breaks down the Presidential race, the GOP Establishment and other topics with Steve Deace, the Rush Limbaugh of Iowa.
To hear Drew’s interview, click here.
Listen as the Madison Project’s Drew Ryun breaks down the Presidential race, the GOP Establishment and other topics with Steve Deace, the Rush Limbaugh of Iowa.
To hear Drew’s interview, click here.
If this past month has showed us anything, it is that the Republican leadership in Washington has failed us over and over again. To be specific, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been playing games left and right, saying one thing and doing another. Under his leadership corporate issues such as the Highway Bill and the Ex-Im Bank were prioritized and pushed through while conservative, commonsense legislation like increased Iran sanctions and the defunding of Planned Parenthood were stifled by the Majority Leader.
Now, Planned Parenthood is on the chopping block, and all conservatives are asking the question, “what is Republican leadership going to do about it?”
Certainly, counting on leaders like McConnell and Boehner will not do any good; they’ve failed us multiple times.
As of late, undercover videos of talks with Planned Parenthood officials and doctors have showed many discussions over the selling of fetal tissue. Not only is this immoral but it is also illegal.
These findings have gotten many fired up over the issue of abortion and what they can do to cut federal funding from the horrible organization. Plagued by moral and legal issues at the very core of its existence, taxpayers must not be forced to fund Planned Parenthood any longer.
Some conservative leaders, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), have vowed to cut funding from Planned Parenthood, despite an overwhelming support of the organization by Democrats and many Establishment Republicans. To achieve what some would call this “long fought battle against abortion”, conservatives need to take any measures necessary. For example, attaching a bill to defund Planned Parenthood to a vital piece of legislation, say the budget of the federal government, would make it much more possible that the organization could be officially defunded by the end of the year.
Instead of doing this, the Senate is voting on a bill to defund Planned Parenthood this evening that will surely be vetoed by the President. If they were truly serious about this vote then they would have considered Sen. Mike Lee’s amendment to defund Planned Parenthood because it was attached to the Highway Bill which was on deadline to pass and would have given them considerable leverage.
Cruz said that he would do whatever was necessary in order to end Planned Parenthood. It is exactly that kind of attitude that we need in order to get things done in Washington. To fight against these horrible attacks on children, women, and families in general, conservatives need to be willing to take up their arms and fight against the lies and evil deeds of organizations like Planned Parenthood. Let’s call McConnell out on his weak leadership and demand he take the defunding Planned Parenthood seriously.
Read Ron DeSantis’ response to the Planned Parenthood scandal below.
Help us support DeSantis in his fight for Senate by donating here.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 15, 2015
DeSantis reacts to video of Planned Parenthood representative discussing the sale of fetal organs
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL – Congressman Ron DeSantis released the following statement in response to video released by the Center for Medical Progress that appears to show a senior executive in Planned Parenthood discussing how to save organs from aborted fetuses in order to sell them to third parties:
“This video is deeply disturbing and made me sick to my stomach. That anyone from Planned Parenthood could so casually talk of selling off organs from aborted babies is repulsive,” said Congressman DeSantis. “I join my colleagues in denouncing this loathsome practice and Planned Parenthood’s callous attitude regarding the disposal of fetal remains. The organization ought to be ashamed and I will continue to support efforts in Congress to prevent them from receiving taxpayer dollars.”
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment of the Constitution guaranteed same sex couples the right to marry. Regardless of this misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, as of now, same sex marriage is legal throughout the entire United States.
What does the Supreme Court’s decision mean for those who do not support or agree with same sex marriage? Before the Supreme Court came to its conclusion, Justice Alito has asked Solicitor General Verrilli regarding IRS regulations if schools and other religious institutions would lose their tax exemption status if the definition of marriage were to be changed. There has long been suspicion and fear that the advancement of the same sex marriage campaign would lead to the coercion of those who do not share the belief into participating in the celebration and affirmation of same sex marriages, regardless of religious beliefs and practices.
A brief example of this attack on religious liberty is the well known case of Aaron and Melissa Klein of Oregon, whom when refusing to provide their bakery services to a same sex couple that wanted a wedding cake were fined $135,000. This horrible violation of the Constitution came after the couple had to shut their bakery down as a result of the many protests and boycotts that occurred in reaction to their exercise of their right to refuse service.
In response to the SCOTUS decision, Senator Mike Lee continues to stay true to protecting the religious liberties of Americans and defending the actual rights granted in the Constitution. The Senator from Utah has introduced the First Amendment Defense Act (which has 57 House co-sponsors and 18 Senate co-sponsors) in order to protect the rights of individuals and institutions that support traditional marriage. In particular, the bill would prevent the federal government from denying contracts, tax exemptions, grants, certificates, license, or anything of the sort to a person, business, or institution solely because that person, business, or institution believes that marriage is and can only be between one man and one woman.
Regarding the importance of protecting the rights of all Sen., Lee states: “Our focus must now be on defending these crucial rights of conscience. That is exactly why Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) and I have introduced the First Amendment Defense Act, which would prevent the federal government from discriminating against anyone who believes that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.”
Mike Lee continues to show through his efforts to preserve a fundamental right that he is willing to lead and defend our values when few in Washington are willing. His example should be a motivator for all of those who value the rights granted to us in the Constitution and remind us that we need not be discouraged by the inability of the Supreme Court to make the correct decision. Instead we should mobilize and fight for our religious liberty like never before. It’s time to support real conservatives, like Mike Lee, who will spend their time in Washington fighting the status quo not becoming part of the problem. Our freedoms are at risk and we must do all we can to support efforts to protect them.
We all know them. In fact, every election cycle, they woo us with campaign trail promises that they will go to Washington, D.C. and be champions for the conservative cause. However, when they get to Capitol Hill the excuses begin: the time is not right, you don’t understand the process, etc. On and on the well worn excuses go, more smoothly with each use as the power of incumbency sets in and the very folks who elected these people are left scratching their heads in frustration.
Who are these two-faced politicians?
They are #ConvenientConservatives who know exactly what it takes to get elected and have no intention of ever fulfilling their campaign promises.
In fact, as we have noted before, many Republican candidates won in 2014 running on conservative issues: the repeal of Obamacare, halting illegal amnesty, defending life, lowering taxes, etc.
The problem is, very few of them actually intended to go to Washington and fulfill their promises. There are reasons for this. The chief amongst them is many campaigns are poll tested for messaging. In other words, campaigns and candidates know what the voters want to hear often before campaigns are even launched.
Two, those who decide elections have loyally followed the GOP thinking they are the party of limited government and social conservatism and these activists work overtime to get them elected.
Yet charts like this one from the Heritage Foundation beg the question: if the GOP is the party of limited government, why has government grown so much during an era when the GOP has dominated control of the House of Representatives, the chamber from which all fiscal bills originate?
While the above is a sobering reminder, electing more and more conservatives should be encouraging to those who believe that “a government that governs best governs least.”
And they are not alone in their beliefs. A majority of Americans agree with conservatives that Obamacare is not our healthcare solution, that illegal immigration must be stopped (some polls even have Hispanics supporting efforts against illegal immigration at 66% to 21%), that a reduction in taxes is the path forward and that we must oppose abortion in all or most cases.
Could it be that the majority of Americans really are conservatives? Does the silent majority still exist in America today? We believe it does and therefore the electoral math is simple, isn’t it? Run on a platform of 1) Repeal Obamacare 2) Stop amnesty 3) Reduce taxes and 4) Run as a Pro-Lifer and statistically, you’ll have a greater chance of winning (gerrymandered districts not withstanding).
As noted above, however, the GOP Establishment has become a professional spin machine as it advances the cause of its corporate friends on the backs of the grassroots who elect them every cycle, all the while pacifying them with empty promises and throw away lines.
Lock stop with the GOP leadership are these #ConvenientConservatives like Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC). Elected in the Tea Party wave of 2010, Ellmers ran as a comprehensive conservative. She was going to Washington, D.C. to take on career politicians, to buck the GOP leadership, to reduce taxes, limit the overreach of government and fight for family values.
At face value, it would appear that she has done much of that. One loses track of how many times she has voted to fully repeal Obamacare on the floor of the House. These votes mean nothing, though. They are show votes. Whether she is a willing participant in the scam or a backbencher looking to please leadership, none of these votes to repeal Obamacare meant anything (nor will they in the future).
However, on the votes that really matter, Ellmers has not only voted to fund Obamacare, she has voted for abortion loopholes for Planned Parenthood.
How, you ask, has she pulled this off under the noses of her conservative constituents and grassroots supporters?
It’s simple, really.
She voted yes on the $1.1 Trillion Omnibus and Cromnibus spending bills just this past December. While most conservatives are watching the shiny objects like full repeal bills that will never go anywhere legislatively, Ellmers is voting for the $1.1 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill that not only increases the base discretionary spending to $24 billion, it continues funding failing government programs. It also contains a loophole that could allow Obamacare subsidies to fund abortions.
After having read the above, ask yourself: is Renee Ellmers a conservative? She clearly goes out of her way to message like she is. Her voting record on the real bills (not the shiny object ones) indicates that she is not.
As for immigration, Ellmers ran on a strong, cookie cutter conservative platform. She was going to work to secure the borders and fight amnesty. But again, when the rubber hit the road, she voted for the Cromnibus that did nothing to defund President Obama’s executive amnesty that was tied to the Department of Homeland Security funding. Ellmers and her apologists will retort that two weeks ago she voted to send a House bill that defunded amnesty to the Senate.
It passed. And it was a shiny object and an easy vote.
The GOP leadership in the House knows full well that the Aderholt Amendment that defunds amnesty will be stripped out in the Senate and a bill that does nothing to defund amnesty (and frankly, may advance amnesty) will be returned to the House.
This next vote is the one that counts and it appears that the conservatives in the House will likely have to take down a rule to stop the Senate bill from advancing. All eyes will be on #ConvenientConservatives like Renee Ellmers to see what she does in this scenario.
If her about face on the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is any indication, not only will Ellmers cave, but the litany of excuses will begin: we don’t have the votes, the President will veto it anyway, etc.
Sadly, Ellmers is not alone in leading the #ConvenientConservative Caucus. There are many more like her and instead of being fooled by show votes and shiny objects, conservatives need to start paying attention to their Members real voting records and holding them accountable when their true colors are exposed.
Today, thousands of people across the nation descend on Washington, DC for the 42nd Annual March for Life.
It’s been 42 years to the day since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision to legalize abortion came down — and passionate activists have been pushing back against it ever since.
In the past few years, the life movement has gained momentum, thanks to gains in scientific knowledge and cultural awareness. The country has pivoted toward a much more pro-life view, with more Americans identifying themselves as such.
The March comes just one day after the GOP decided to pull a bill that would ban late-term abortions after 20 weeks. The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act had already faced a promise of a veto from President Obama, but it was expected to pass the House.
Some establishment Republican lawmakers, lead by Rep. Renee Elmers (R-NC), feared that dealing with this issue could hurt their chances with millennials and women, but they clearly aren’t listening to the American people.
A new poll shows that 60% of Americans support a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, which is just one week shy of a baby feasibly being able to survive outside the womb on its own.
The disappointment will serve only to embolden marchers more, as they brave the cold temperatures in what’s been called, “the nation’s largest and most enduring peaceful protest.”
Over 56 million children have been killed by abortion since Roe v. Wade, but states are making strides every year to protect both women and the unborn from the awful consequences of abortion.
The Madison Project is proud to endorse only pro-life candidates and conservatives who believe in the fight for protecting life before birth. Today, they are proud to stand with those who March for Life.
In the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s final decisions for this term, conservatives appear jubilant in apparently winning two key court cases. In Harris v. Quinn, the high court ruled 5-4 that a group of home health care providers who work for a state government cannot be coerced into providing financial support for a public sector union. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the court ruled 5-4 against Obamacare’s contraception mandate, which would have forced a privately owned business to provide abortion and contraception-related health care coverage to its employees.
Indeed this is great news for religious liberty, as these decisions were both one vote from going the other way.
But therein lies the problem.
Why should bedrock inalienable rights pursuant to natural law and nature’s God be subject to the whims of nine justices in black robes? Why should we have to wait with baited breath on Twitter, wondering if our right to uphold our religious beliefs will be preserved? Remember, four justices clearly held that government can coerce a private company into providing any service that violates our rights. This should scare us all.
Moreover, to the extent that we place our rights and destiny into the hands of the remaining five justices, their decisions were quite narrow in scope. In the Hobby Lobby case, the majority ruling only covered “closely held private corporations.” Hence, until any future ruling is handed down on more expansive grounds, the government can still coerce religious institutions, non-profits, and publicly-traded corporations to provide abortifacients.
Furthermore, the decision only applied to contraception coverage and no other forms of religious liberty. The justices made it clear that coercion to accommodate gay marriages or other “ENDA style” mandates could be fair game.
We are supposed to rejoice over the fact that a narrow set of businesses were spared from the worst form of coercion? I guess so. Sadly, it could have been worse.
In the Harris case, while the court ruled against the coercion of home health care workers to join a union, they declined to uphold the natural rights of any worker to work freely – unfettered by unions. Why should any worker, particularly government workers who are funded by taxpayers, be coerced into supporting the circuitous Democrat campaign finance operation through unions?
There’s something fundamentally wrong that we now live in a time when we must wait for a new court case in order to preserve all areas of liberty – religious or anything else.
So was this a good day at the court? Sadly, yes. We are at the point when a day like today is reason to rejoice.
It looks like we’ve lost another one. We’ve lost another GOP senator who is giving into the radical left on critical issues while mislabeling the fight as a battle over “social issues.” Here is what Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson had to say about abortion, gay marriage, and illegal immigration on CNBC:
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Oshkosh, said Monday that he’s a traditionalist, but if voters want gay marriage to be legal he won’t step in their way.
Johnson made his comments during an interview on CNBC’s Squawk Box.
“I’m a pretty traditional guy,” Johnson said. “I’m almost 60 years old. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. But again if the voters decide that they want gay marriage, I’m not going to oppose it.”
Johnson was drawn into a discussion on social issues, including immigration and gay marriage. Initially, he focused on “the economic issues that overweigh all the other ones.”
“These social issues are going to primarily be decided in the states, through (the) democratic process and that’s the way it should happen,” Johnson said. “I’ll certainly go with the judgment of the American people in terms of where they want to fall on, whether it’s the abortion issues or gay marriage.”
He said on immigration, “We’ve got a lot of migrant workers in Wisconsin. I’ve never had a migrant worker ask me for citizenship. They just don’t want us to deport their moms and dads, their husbands and wives. I don’t think we’re going to do that. We need to actually solve this problem. We need a functioning legal immigration system.”
There are too many false premises in his statement to debunk in one post, but here are some points to consider:
For those who are so eager to throw away their principles for ephemeral polling data (which doesn’t even apply to abortion and immigration in which the people are squarely with us), they should remember the debate over global warming legislation.
Towards the end of President Bush’s presidency, most Republicans started buying into global warming and green energy socialism. The media joked about Senator Jim Inhofe being the last man standing against climate fascism. Then, buttressed by Climategate, we fought back against the farce and showed how their agenda was built upon a false premise. Now you can’t find a Republican who is willing to promote global warming, and even many Democrats have shied away from the issue.
But gauging by Johnson’s alacrity to throw away his moral compass, he will undoubtedly follow superficial polling data on “economic” issues as well.
As we’ve noted a number of times, Republicans have used their majority to pass these ridiculous “suspension” bills that are often bad policy instead of exclusively bringing conservative legislation to the floor. The latest misfire is an attempt by a number of Republicans to pass a bill granting The National Women’s History Museum (NWHM) a physical location on the National Mall.
One of the biggest obstacles to restoring our constitutional Republic is the inherent advantage the progressives enjoy inside of our culture. Their monopoly on media, entertainment, and education has given radicals the opportunity to slowly, yet relentlessly, introduce extreme ideas into the mainstream with a high degree of success. The least we can do as conservatives is not use our majority to gratuitously grant the feminist movement more leverage to promote leftwing propaganda in our nation’s capitol under the guise of celebrating famous women.
Undoubtedly, building a museum dedicated to studying the contributions of prominent American woman is an interesting endeavor, especially when funded by private contributions. But one glance at the website of the NWHM makes it clear that this particular outfit will be used as a conduit to promote general liberal causes like most other feminist “women’s” organizations. They’ve already paid homage to Sandra Fluke, which is not surprising because they are allied with a whole array of left-wing women’s groups.
Here is a sampling of political information on the members of the board:
With such leadership and associations, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which this museum does not become an organ for the homosexual and anti-life movements.
The House Natural Resources Committee passed HR 863, The National Women’s History Museum Commission Act, by unanimous consent on Wednesday, April 9. The bill is sponsored by uber-leftist Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and co-sponsored by 81 Democrats. But shockingly, 15 Republicans have also co-sponsored this ridiculous endeavor to grant radical feminists a foothold in a national park. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) was an original co-sponsor and is joined by Reps. Frelinghuysen (R-NJ), Ellmers (R-NC), Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Rigell (R-VA), McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Lummis (R-WY), Peter King (R-NY), Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Hanna (R-NY), Capito (R-WV), Latta (R-OH), Dent (R-PA), Susan Brooks (R-IN), and Webster (R-FL).
This bill was already introduced during the Pelosi Congress in 2009 and passed by voice vote! It was only stopped in the Senate because Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) placed a hold on the bill.
Leadership plans to bring the bill to the floor next week under suspension. The bill was rushed to the floor by Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA). Once this museum is constructed and granted access to the national mall, there is no way it will not grow into a left-wing bastion and it is unlikely that it will not become a recipient of federal funds when Democrats are in control of Congress. If this is how Eric Cantor uses the majority in the House, why should we promote him to the position of Speaker?
Ask yourself the following question: would a Democrat-controlled House grant people associated with the Susan B. Anthony List authority to set up a women’s museum in a national park?
Who needs a GOP majority when Republicans are willing to do the bidding of the far left?
Cross-posted at RedState
Yesterday, Matt Bevin posited a basic argument against redefining marriage – one that should be shared by any conservative concerned with the inane effort to change a fixed definition. Bedrock legal definitions are necessary because they have far-reaching ramifications. Once we change the basic definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships, what is the legal rationale for not including any other loving relationship?
For example, a son or daughter might want to collect the Social Security benefits of one parent in place of a spouse. Why can’t they define their relationship as a marriage and be entitled to collect those benefits?
This was the gist of Bevin’s argument in his own words From The Janet Meffered Show:
“If it’s all right to have same-sex marriages, why not define a marriage—because at the end of the day a lot of this ends up being taxes and who can visit who in the hospital and there’s other repercussions and things that come with it—so a person may want to define themselves as being married to one of their children so that they can then in fact pass on certain things to that child financially and otherwise.
Where do you draw the line? And if in fact a person can arbitrarily draw it here why not could someone else draw it arbitrarily somewhere else? There needs to be rule of law. Marriage has for millennia been defined as between a man and a woman universally. And it’s something we should recognize.”
Pretty simple argument – one which the left has declined to answer for years.
Instead of debating Matt on the substance of the argument, the far left has chosen to willfully distort his words to focus on an absurdity. The liberal Talking Points Memo cited an extremist group, Right Wing Watch, suggesting that Bevin was predicting gay marriage could lead to incest. Obviously, anyone with half a brain could see that he was making a legal argument and not suggesting that the social relationship of a gay marriage will lead to incest, especially given the fact that, by definition, same-sex couples can’t procreate.
Yet, amazingly, Mitch McConnell’s Chief of Staff (who also happens to be a top gun at the NRSC) tweeted out the left-wing article and compared Bevin’s comments to those of Todd Akin about rape and pregnancy.
Is there something Team Mitch would like to share with us? Do they think there is anything offensive about pointing out the folly of redefining marriage? Are they that out-of-touch with the mainstream of the very party McConnell seeks to lead?
Well, maybe so.
Remember Mitch’s articulate response to Justice Kennedy’s egregious ruling on DOMA, which in part, led to a Kentucky federal district judge forcing gay marriage on his home state?
“Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell issued no statement at all.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) simply flashed a smile and ignored a reporter’s question about the court’s decision Wednesday. (Politico)
And speaking of the ruling in Kentucky, Judge Heyburn was a McConnell staffer whom he recommended for the judicial appointment. During his confirmation hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee, McConnell noted that Heyburn was a “progressive Republican” and cited the Louisville Courier Journal calling him “far from a right-wing ideologue.”
Did McConnell know something at the time about Heyburn’s “progressive” jurisprudence?
This is not the first time Heyburn shredded the Constitution in order to inject his progressive views on Kentucky. In 1998, he overturned the state’s law banning partial-birth murder.
Matt Bevin is right to be outraged by this rogue judge appointed by McConnell.
Once again, Team Mitch is making it clear that they are just as fraudulent social conservatives as they are fiscal conservatives.
Paid for by Madison Project. Not authorized by any candidate or committee.
© 2016 Madison Project. All rights reserved.
Site by A3K Advertising, Inc.