Republican News -  Page 1
Home      Back

-- Support Josh Mandel (R-OH) Conservative - 2/5/17
-- Top reason conservatives can't take America back - 3/1/14
-- The Three Amigos of GOP Defeat in 2016 - 1/18/15
-- We’re Putting Unconstitutional ‘Concentration of Power in President,’ Says Constitutional Scholar - 6/24/11
-- Mitch McConnell leads the betrayal, joins with Harry Reid to support Lynch - 4/23/15
-- In the rush to pretend that Republicans have scored a victory in the debt limit battle, considered this - 8/02/11

 Support Josh Mandel (R-OH) Conservative:  A new poll of Ohio voters shows State Treasurer Josh Mandel (R-OH) defeating incumbent Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) 40 to 39 percent. This is an impressive start given that Mandel, a Marine Corps veteran who served two tours in Iraq, just got into the race this month.

Senator Brown is one of the most liberal politicians in Washington today. He's voted to raise taxes, increase the debt limit, and bust the budget with trillions in new spending. He also supported the Iran nuclear deal, backed instant amnesty for illegal immigrants, and cast the deciding vote for Obamacare!

Please help Josh Mandel, a proven conservative leader, defeat Senator Brown and drain the Senate swamp!

Another poll shows Mandel as the clear favorite among Republican voters in a primary election when matched up against liberal Congressman Pat Tiberi (R-OH) and establishment state representative Matt Huffman (R-OH).

The survey showed Mandel defeating Tiberi 60 to 12 percent and defeating Huffman 62 to 8 percent. It's a clear indication that voters in the Buckeye State appreciate Mandel's character and service.

These numbers show the strength of Josh Mandel's candidacy, but the Washington establishment won't let him win without a fight. It's why conservatives must quickly unite behind his campaign.

Please help Josh Mandel post a strong fundraising number in January by donating to his campaign today!


Josh Mandel was the first (and many times only) statewide Republican official to stand up for conservative principles. He was the ...

✓ First and only statewide official to oppose the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in Ohio.

✓ First and only statewide official to oppose tax increases on oil and natural gas exploration in Ohio.

✓ First and only statewide official to oppose Common Core educational standards in Ohio.

✓ First and only statewide official to support the Heartbeat Bill, legislation preventing abortions after the heartbeat of the unborn baby is identified. Sadly, Governor John Kasich recently vetoed this bill!

✓ First and only statewide official to recognize that the November 2016 attack on students at The Ohio State University was an Islamic terror attack.

Josh Mandel not only campaigns as an unapologetic, full-spectrum conservative; he governs as one too!

Please help us get 2017 started right by making a generous contribution to Mandel's campaign for the U.S. Senate.

He's a principled leader that we can count on to fight for conservative values and to drain the Senate swamp!

 Top reason conservatives can't take America back

Richard Viguerie: 'Their No. 1 opponent isn't Pelosi, Reid or Obama'
by Greg Corombos Greg Corombos is news director for Radio America.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told conservative activists Thursday that if the GOP wins control of the U.S. Senate this year, the party will aggressively pursue and enact conservative policies, but legendary conservative leader Richard Viguerie warns the track record suggests something very different.

McConnell and 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan were among the first speakers at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, near Washington, D.C.

“If I’m given the opportunity to lead the United States Senate next year, I won’t let you down,” McConnell said. “I will lead with integrity, we will fight tooth and nail for conservative reforms that put this country back on track, we will debate our ideas openly, we will vote without fear, and we will govern with the understanding that the future of this country depends on our success.”

But Viguerie doesn’t believe the promises.

“Well, that’ll be a first for him because his entire Senate life has been spent growing government, and that’s why we have a tea party today, because of the failure of the Republican leaders,” he said. “When they’re in power, they act like Democrats, except they grow government a little slower than the Democrats do.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Richard Viguerie below:

Viguerie said it’s possible that McConnell could be a champion for conservative policies, but only if several more tea-party Republicans are elected to give the Republicans a majority again.

“The opportunity to save America and return America to limited government and constitutional government is in the primaries,” he said. “If we are fortunate in nominating and electing limited government constitutional conservatives this year, Mitch McConnell will be a far better Senate leader, providing he wins re-election, which is very much in doubt.”

For his part, Rep. Ryan told CPAC attendees he knows there’s an ideological rift in the party, but he said that’s good, so long as conservatives come together in campaigns and policy fights.

“You fight it out, you figure out what works, you come together, and you win,” Ryan said. “It’s messy, it’s noisy, and it’s a little bit uncomfortable, but the center of gravity is shifting.”

He also said conservatives cannot insist on 100 percent purity from every Republican on every issue, saying a party poised to win elections “doesn’t burn heretics; it wins coverts.”

In “Takeover: The 100-Year War for the Soul of the GOP and How Conservatives Can Finally Win It,” Richard Viguerie reveals how to establish limited-government constitutional conservatism as the governing philosophy of the Republican Party and bring sanity to Congress and the White House.

Viguerie said comments like those diminish the major divide that’s consumed the GOP for more than 100 years.

“I think he’s papering over a serious, serious problem. I’ve just written a book called ‘Takeover,’ which describes that we’ve been engaged in a 102-year-old civil war inside the Republican Party, which is the most important political battle in America today. It’s not between Republicans and Democrats. It’s inside the Republican Party, and it’s a serious disagreement over the role of government,” Viguerie said.

“Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are on the side of the big government, and constitutional conservatives have just [awakened] recently to realize their No. 1 opponent is not Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama, but it’s the big-government Republicans, and they’re in the way of conservatives governing America,” Viguerie said.

Paul Ryan is a big-government Republican? In 2012, Viguerie hailed Mitt Romney’s choice of Ryan as a running mate as a sign conservatives would have a place in Romney’s administration if he were to win. Viguerie said he’s seen a lot of change in Ryan.

“You wouldn’t want a better next-door neighbor or best friend. He’s just a wonderful human being, but he has been in Washington a long time now, and it seems like he’s signed on to the establishment,” he said. “You don’t get selected to leadership positions unless you play ball with the big-government types in Washington. So Ryan has been a disappointment to conservatives.

“We thought he would run a more aggressive, challenging, hard-hitting campaign in 2012, and he didn’t do that. Ever since then, he’s been going along with the expansion of government,” he said.

Viguerie believes conservatives have a good chance to add to their numbers, first in primaries against GOP senators he finds insufficiently conservative in states like Kentucky, South Carolina and Mississippi and in open seats like Nebraska, as well as many seats defended by Democrats.

 The Three Amigos of GOP Defeat in 2016

1/18/2015    Jeff Crouere

After six difficult years under Barack Obama, the country is ready for a change in the White House. The President has delivered a continual dose of no compromise liberalism that has divided the races and polarized the political climate.

This has led the presidential campaign to start earlier than ever. Among Republicans there are a dozen hopefuls who may vie for the nomination. It is a perfect opportunity for the Republican Party to take back the White House and implement conservative policies that will undue the disastrous Obama agenda.

Unfortunately, winning the presidency in 2016 is no easy task. Despite his limited experience and liberal philosophy, Barack Obama was elected President in 2008. He retained the office four years later even though his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was incredibly unpopular.

A major reason for his success was his unimpressive opposition. The Republican presidential nominees, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008 and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2012, were uninspiring moderates who were unwilling to defend the party’s platform and attack the Democrats on the issues.

These defeats continued the losing streak for the establishment, wing of the Republican Party. History shows that moderate GOP presidential nominees lose in the general election to a Democrat opponent, for it occurred in the races of 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.

With this horrific track record, party honchos should be desperate to find a good conservative to win the presidential nomination in 2016. Instead, GOP party bosses are overtly supporting the upcoming presidential candidacies of the three major moderate candidates: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Romney. This is an embarrassment of riches for party elites who can choose from among three candidates.

Too bad the establishment ignores political history, which shows none of these moderate candidates can win the presidency. If any of them receive the 2016 nomination, they will lose to Hillary Clinton or whoever the Democrats nominate.

The key reason for this result is that a moderate presidential candidate will not excite the conservative base of Republican voters who are the party’s backbone and number in the millions. Conservatives are the chronic voters, who run the organizations and volunteer their time for the nominee.

Conservatives are tired of being overlooked and ignored by the GOP establishment wing. The grassroots cannot match the money of the establishment, but they certainly have more passion and energy and are a needed component for any GOP presidential candidate to win the White House.

It worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. He won 44 states in the first election and 49 states in his re-election, in other words, massive landslides. According to so-called political experts he was too conservative, a wild eyed cowboy who was too threatening to the American people.

Instead of losing, he trounced his liberal opponents by offering a clear contrast to the Democratic Party. He stood on conservative principles and did not waver. This type of statesmanship appealed to not only Republicans, but also Independents and “Reagan Democrats,” who were tired of the failed liberal policies of their party.

In this election, there is a great opportunity for the Republican Party. Voters are ready to seriously consider an alternative to the disastrous Obama policies. However, if the GOP offers only the “pale pastels” of another moderate loser and not the “bold colors” of a conservative, the party will surely lose again.

If Bush, Christie or Romney wins the nomination, millions of conservatives will stay away from the polls or vote third party. The days of holding one’s nose and voting for the Republican candidate as the “lesser of two evils.” are over.


 We’re Putting Unconstitutional ‘Concentration of Power in President,’ Says Constitutional Scholar

Friday, June 24, 2011 By Terence P. Jeffrey CNSNEWS.COM

( - A scholar who served for 40 years as a constitutional law expert at the Library of Congress is pointing to President Barack Obama’s use of military force in Libya without congressional authorization--and, in the longer-term, a lack of effective action by Congress to protect its constitutional prerogatives--as evidence the United States has begun putting an unconstitutional “concentration of power” in the hands of one man.

“We’re ending up with a concentration of power in the president which is not constitutional,” Louis Fisher, now a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project, told’s Online With Terry Jeffrey.

Fisher, who is the author of Presidential War Power, a definitive scholarly account of the drafting and historical implementation of the constitutional war power, said President Obama cannot use the United Nations or NATO to authorize his use of military force in Libya because under the U.S. Constitution only Congress can authorize a U.S. military action not needed to defend the United States against an attack.

“I think President Obama had an obligation to get authority up front,” said Fisher. “Obama, as you know, reached out to NATO, reached out to Security Council, reached out to the Arab League.”

Fisher said he is not calling for impeachment hearings for Obama, but did say he believes members of Congress and the public should understand that “nothing would be more impeachable” than war without authorization and that it was “a very grave offense.”

“I’m not going to recommend that the House Judiciary Committee hold impeachment hearings. But I would like members of Congress and the public to say that nothing would be more impeachable than a president who takes the country to war without coming to Congress, who does it unilaterally,” said Fisher. “So I would like people to be educated, including members of Congress to be educated, that that is a very grave offense.”

In addition to working for four decades as a constitutional expert at the Library of Congress, Fisher also taught, among other places, at Georgetown University and the William and Mary Law School.

“I would like to make it clear that in the UN Charter you cannot have the president and the Senate through the treaty process--the UN Charter or NATO--you cannot have those two actors take the power of Congress and the House of Representatives and give it to either the Security Council or to NATO countries,” said Fisher. “And I think even people who read presidential power broadly know that that’s not possible.

“You cannot use a treaty to amend the Constitution,” said Fisher.

Fisher points out that the war-powers language presented to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 initially granted Congress the sole power “to make war.” According to James Madison’s notes [2] from the convention, Madison himself and delegate Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts offered an amendment to change the language to “declare war.”

“Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry moved to insert ‘declare,’ striking out ‘make’ war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks,” said Madison’s notes.

The ensuing debate at the Constitutional Convention, the ratification process that followed, and the treatment of the war power by early congresses, presidents and Supreme Courts, Fisher explained, all make clear that the Founders understood that the Constitution gave Congress authority over initiating hostilities—whether sharply limited actions or broader wars--except when the president needed to act unilaterally to “repel a sudden attack.”

In the debate at the constitutional convention, for example, Roger Sherman of Connecticut agreed with Madison and Gerry’s understanding of what the war power should be, saying, as recorded in Madison’s notes, that the “Exectuive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war.”

Apparently responding to Pierce Butler--a delegate from South Carolina who did suggest that the power to initiate hostilities be vested in the president--Gerry said he “never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war.”

Fisher said that Butler was “the only one” who argued at the Constitutional Convention for giving the war power to the president. The “other Framers were just stunned that anyone could give that power to the president,” said Fisher. “And later Pierce Butler backed away a bit. He recognized he was out by himself and no one would support that argument.”

George Mason of Virginia, who supported Madison and Gerry’s successful amendment, told the Constitutional Convention, as recorded by Madison, that he “was agst giving the power of war to the Executive, because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred ‘declare’ to ‘make.’”

Fisher said Mason’s language illustrates the Framer’s belief that both houses of Congress needed to act on a decision to go to war. “The reason he would use words like that is if you go to war, it’s part of the deliberative process, it’s not the decision of a single person,” said Fisher. “It’s the whole elected officials in the legislative body making that decision.”

Every president and Congress from the ratification until the Korean War in 1950 respected this meaning of the Constitution’s war power.

“From 1789 to 1950, every president, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, the rest, Polk, they all went to Congress either for authorization or a declaration,” said Fisher.

Fisher says that even after President Harry Truman told Congress that he would not use U.S. troops in a U.N. operation without first getting congressional approval, and even after Congress passed the U.N. Participation Act that required that the president come to Congress first, Truman went ahead and ordered troops into combat in Korea without congressional authorization.

“So in 1950, when he goes to war against Korea, he never ever came to Congress either before or after for authority,” said Fisher. Truman, he said, later told reporters the conflict in Korea was not a war, but a “police action.”

More recently, President Bill Clinton was a prolific abuser of Congress’s power to authorize military actions not needed to repel attacks on the United States.

“He never came to Congress one time for authority, Clinton,” said Fisher. “Invade Haiti. Go into Bosnia. Go into Kosovo.”

Looking back on his 40 years of experience working with Congress, Fisher says that some members fail to protect the rightful constitutional powers of the body in which they serve, thus ceding authority to the president that the Framers never intended the president to have.

“Some take care of their institution, many do not take care of their own institution,” said Fisher. “That was an assumption by the Framers, that each branch would take care of itself and push away encroachments.

“If members of Congress don’t do it, then I think constituents and the general public have to say that it’s your duty,” said Fisher. “You have to protect yourself, because if you don’t protect yourself, you’re not protecting us. And we’re ending up with a concentration of power in the president, which is not constitutional.”

Fisher said the media is culpable, too.

“And the media doesn’t help,” he said. “The media often says: Oh, the president has all these really brilliant people around him and he knows what the national interest is and so forth. So the media plays into that.”

Nor, he said, are scholars always helpful.

“And even scholars do it,” he said. “Arthur Schlesinger’s famous for the imperial president. Well, he helped build up the imperial president with his books on Andrew Jackson and FDR and John Kennedy. So scholars have been very negligent on having this really idealistic view of the president. He’s someone with goodness and expertise and all of that. It’s purely imaginary.”

On Friday, the House cast a pair of seemingly contradictory votes relevant to its constitutional war power. It voted against a resolution that would have authorized President Obama to continue to use the U.S. military in Libyan operations while prohibiting the use of ground troops there. Then it voted against a resolution to cut off funds for the Libyan operation.

 In the rush to pretend that Republicans have scored a victory

Senator Nelson 
Voted YES
Senator Rubio   
Voted NO

Message text follows:

August 2, 2011

In the rush to pretend that Republicans have scored a victory in the debt limit battle, have you considered this?

There are NO SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS on what the "Super Committee" can report.  And whatever the committee decides to do is EXEMPT from a filibuster in the Senate and the Speaker's ordinary prerogative not to bring it up in the House.

So, take the so-called gun show "loophole."  Or the ban on semi-automatics.  Or the Lautenberg proposal to ban guns for anyone the Obama administration decides to put on a "watch list."  Or the ban on large magazines.

If the six Reid/Pelosi Democrats can cower a single Republican into going along with these proposals -- using the threat of a $500 billion defense cut -- they will become law.

This is not even allowed on "reconciliation" because of the Byrd Rule barring "extraneous issues."  But none of the early drafts of this new debt ceiling bill (which have been circulated among the public) have the Byrd Rule, much less a ban on non-filibusterable, non-amendable legislation imposing gun control.

For this reason, we are asking you, in the strongest terms, to OPPOSE the debt limit sell-out.

Know that support of that legislation, if there is any possibility of non-filibusterable gun control, will be considered an anti-gun vote.



 Mitch McConnell leads the betrayal, joins with Harry Reid to support Lynch.   Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his leadership team put a big, fat knife in the back of gun owners in connection with the confirmation of anti-gun Attorney General Loretta Lynch today, April 23, 2015. 

This is the voting record of the Senate - voting to confirm Loretta Lynch a Holder clone, to be AG for the last two years of the Hussein regime.   On the vote where we could have won with only 41 votes, many on this Liars’ List flipped their votes and voted for Lynch.  

First, McConnell brought up her nomination -- even though he, alone, could have stopped Lynch's confirmation by refusing to move to proceed to her.  Then, McConnell filed what’s known as a “cloture petition” to shut down the pro-gun filibuster.  Finally, the effects of leadership strong-arming were evidenced by the fact that several Republicans flipped their votes (a.k.a., lied to gun owners) and voted to shut down the pro-gun filibuster -- in a move called “cloture.” 

The  vote count was 56-43 to confirm.   Consider, there were 43 Senators who voted against Lynch on the final nomination vote.  If they had ALSO VOTED against Lynch on the “cloture” vote -- where only 41 opposition votes were needed -- the Lynch nomination would have easily failed.

Patriots in Alphabetical sequence by Senators Name voting NAY Traitors in Alphabetical sequence by Senators Name voting YEA

Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Nay
Boozman (R-AR), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Capito (R-WV), Nay
Cassidy (R-LA), Nay
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Cotton (R-AR), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Daines (R-MT), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Ernst (R-IA), Nay
Fischer (R-NE), Nay
Gardner (R-CO), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Lankford (R-OK), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Nay
Perdue (R-GA), Nay

Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rounds (R-SD), Nay
Rubio (R-FL), Nay
Sasse (R-NE), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Sullivan (R-AK), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tillis (R-NC), Nay
Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay


Cruz (R-TX), Not Voting

Ayotte (R-NH), Yea
Baldwin (D-WI), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea
Booker (D-NJ), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Coons (D-DE), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Yea
Franken (D-MN), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Heinrich (D-NM), Yea
Heitkamp (D-ND), Yea
Hirono (D-HI), Yea
Johnson (R-WI), Yea
Kaine (D-VA), Yea
King (I-ME), Yea
Kirk (R-IL), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Manchin (D-WV), Yea
Markey (D-MA), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murphy (D-CT), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Peters (D-MI), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schatz (D-HI), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Warren (D-MA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea






Back to Politics   Back to Voting Index    Top