IMG_6100 (1)

By Nancy Thorner –  

The late conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly left a great legacy and much work to be done. That work was the topic of discussion at this year’s Gathering of Eagles as the attendees planned for the upcoming year.

Representatives of many of organizations Phyllis founded, including her many Eagle Forum chapters, RNC for Life and America’s Future met together at Gathering of Eagles in St. Louis, MO January 26 – 28. The conference was held one block away from the Phyllis Schlafly Center in Clayton, MO, which was dedicated on Friday, January 27. 

The weekend included panel discussions on “Pro-Life Matters”; “How to Reach the Next Generation”; “Education and Abstinence”; “What DC can do for you?”; a visit to Phyllis’ home where she wrote, read, and went about her daily life; and a dedication of the Phyllis Schlafly Center with Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft. Phyllis’ life was celebrated with expressions of love which included fond remembrances by many who had been inspired and mentored by her.

What you should know about Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly was a national leader of the conservative movement since the publication of her best-selling 1964 book, A Choice Not An Echo, until her death on September 9, 20l7.  Phyllis was likewise a leader of the pro-family movement since 1972 through her founding of Eagle Forum, which was successful in its fight to stop radical feminists’ ultimate goal, the Equal Rights Amendment.

Phyllis Schlafly founded Eagle Forum in 1972 and named it after reading the Biblical passage Isaiah 40:31:  “But those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be  faint.”

At a Trump rally in St. Louis, MO on March 11, 2016 Phyllis Schlafly, in keeping with her 1964 book,  A Choice Not An Echo, accordingly endorsed candidate Donald Trump.  Phyllis wrote a final book before her death six months later in collaboration with Ed Martin and Brett M. Decker, The Conservative Case for Trump.

As fate would have it, Phyllis Schlafly passed away on September 5, 2016, the day before the release of her book.  Candidate Trump attended her funeral mass at the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis on Saturday, Sept. 10, 2016.

Celebrating Life! Dinner: Janet Porter Promotes Heartbeat Bill

One of several noteworthy events at this year’s Gathering of Eagles was the Celebrating Life! Dinner which featured Janet Porter.  Janet (Folger) Porter is the President and Founder of Faith2Action, the nation’s largest network of pro-family groups. Its mission is to win the cultural war for life, liberty, and the family.  She also hosts a 60-second daily radio commentary which airs in 200 markets, including the American Family Radio and the Bott radio network, contributes to WorldNetDaily.

Ms. Porter initiated the nation’s first Heartbeat Bill in Ohio on Feb. 2011 to legally protect unborn babies with detectable heartbeats.  This effort inspired Arkansas and North Dakota to pass Heartbeat Laws–now the most protective pro-life laws in the nation.  

While Janet Porter and Rep. Steven King were both attending the funeral of Phyllis Schlafly in St. Louis in September, 2016, Porter persuaded Rep. King to act by initiating a federal Heartbeat Bill. 

“I gave him a packet and Rep. King agreed to introduce a federal Heartbeat Bill, which would protect every baby whose heartbeat can be detected. Ninety to 95 percent of the abortions will be ended with that bill.” 

Janet Porter gave this certain and consistent marker:  It is with 96 – 97% certainty that a child will survive until a live birth when a heartbeat is heard.

Congressman King introduces Federal Heartbeat Bill

Republican Congressman Steve King, who represents the 4th District of Iowa, followed through with his promise to Janet Porter on January 12, 2017,  by releasing the following Press Release statement upon introducing “The Heartbeat Bill” that would require physicians to detect the heartbeat and prohibit the abortion of a baby with a beating heart: (HR 490, the “Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017”).   

This bill is modeled off similar legislation proposed in Ohio at the end of last year. Ohio governor John Kasich ultimately vetoed the state’s so-called Heartbeat Bill (which he said he feared might not be constitutional) in favor of a 20-week abortion ban.

Even the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that “the point at which an unborn child possesses a detectable heartbeat” is a “more consistent and certain marker than viability”—where the court allows legal protection.

H.R. 490 is now in the Judiciary Committee.  Rep. Steve King needs co-sponsors.  

Randy Hultgren as a co-sponsor (R-District 14)

Illinois Congressman Randy Hultgren participated in the 2017 March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday 27, 2017. Rep. Hultgren, having participated in the Washington D.C. event which celebrates life, should volunteer to become a co-sponsor of Rep. King’s bill. 

Get behind and help create a grassroots swell for Rep. King’s Heartbeat Bill – Federal HR 490. Contact Randy Hultgren and your own representative and encourage them to support the bill.

To contact Randy Hultgren:  Washington, D.C. office (202) 225-2976.  Campton Hills District Office:  (630) 584-2734 

Remember this slogan: “Heart my Heart, Save my Life”

Subsequent articles will cover other memorable events at the Gathering of Eagle, as well as one that will inform readers about the personal side of conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly, observed from a field trip to her home and through others Eagles in attendance, some who knew Phyllis for 50 years.

By Nancy Thorner – 
The Convention of the States (COS) is an Article V Constitutional Convention (Con-Con), supported and funded by well-connected conservatives that refuse to acknowledge the danger their effort could usher onto our republic. 
Radio talk show host, Mark Levin, started pushing for a constitutional convention several years ago, arguing in his book, The Liberty Amendments, that such a convention is the last hope “to reform the federal government from its degenerate, bloated, imperial structure back to its (smaller) republican roots.” 
Unfortunately, many otherwise well-educated and well-meaning conservatives have succumbed to Levin’s siren to insist that an Article V convention is the only way to restore the balance of federalism in our Republic.
They evidently are not aware that under Article V of the Constitution, our founding fathers established two methods for future generations to add amendments to the Constitution:  1) either two-thirds of both houses of Congress can propose an amendment, and then three-fourths of the states ratify if they call it. . . or not – the safe method or 2) two-thirds (34) of the states call for a federal constitutional convention, and then three-fourths of the states ratify whatever amendments are proposed by the convention. This method must be avoided at all costs.  It could lead to a runaway convention in which our original Constitution would be scrapped and a new Constitution would be substituted. 
Consider also a big financier of global fascism, George Soros. Soros is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V campaign that is being promoted by Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Allen West, and other popular conservative spokesmen, as he pushes for a new “progressive” U.S. Constitution by the year 2020.
Conservatives must not be fooled by Con Con activists
Conservatives should shudder at the thought of a convention populated by activists, who endowed with power have a Soros credit card in their pocket and a commitment to “social justice” as their purpose.  Instead, many grassroots, Tea Party, and Christian groups are being infiltrated with progressive ideas by people presenting themselves as Conservatives, Christians, or Patriots.
The enemies of the Constitution are targeting 2017 for passage of the Convention of States (COS).  They are
gearing up to exploit the Republican majorities in state legislatures.
A sign that the Con Con issue is really heating up is that during the past month there has been more than 60 articles reflecting the big push for a “Con Con” (Article V Convention, misnamed a “Convention of States” or “COS”)  In that 69 of the 99 state legislative chambers are now controlled by the Republican Party, the possibility now exists for Con Con to be passed under the guise of “term limits” or a “balanced budget amendment.” 
The good news is that Gun Owners of America just reaffirmed their opposition to Con Con.  (The NRA, having at least one Board member who is a Con Con supporter, won’t speak out against a Con Con.) Without question, one of the first things a Con Con would do is to dilute or repeal the Second Amendment.
Victory over Con Con in Congress
Pro-Constitutional Convention advocates tried to sneak a deceptive provision into the new House Rules on the first day Congress was back in session, Tuesday, January 3, 2017.  The provision — which became the second order of business in the House after the election of Speaker Paul Ryan — was deceptively called the “10 Amendment” rule (regarding the 10th Amendment) and would have purportedly limited a Con Con (Article V Convention) to the amendments initially proposed.  In other words, the proposed Rules change was a pretentious hoax that would have merely created a false appearance of protection.  There is no way to limit the proposed type or number of Con Con amendments during an Article V convention). 
The Rules change proposal failed and was not included in the House Rules for the 2017 session.  You may find the full text here of the newly adopted House Rules
Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) proposed the deceptive 10th Amendment Rule; Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform based in D.C., fully endorsed the Rules change.  In a letter to Congress members dated January 2, 2017, Norquist asked the House to change its Rules in a way that would encourage calling a Con Con or Article V convention.  The first two paragraphs of Norquist’s letter to Congress are noted below (For the full text of Norquist’s letter see here):
January 2, 2017
Dear Republican Members of Congress:
I write to urge you to support an Amendment to the House Rules package proposed by Rep. Kevin Cramer and endorsed by House Rules Chair Pete Sessions that could help restore the Article I Legislative Power of Congress.
The proposed “10th Amendment Rule” would protect the Constitution by recognizing and enforcing the Constitution and especially the 10th Amendment power of states to strictly limit the scope of a Constitutional Amendment process initiated by the states…
Grover Norquist specifically cited Pete Session, House Rules Chair, as being supportive of the “10th Amendment Rule. It just so happens that Rep. Sessions is from Texas, from where much of the pressure for Con Con is coming. Both the governor and lieutenant governor of Texas have built big political war chests and both have been persuaded to support a Con Con, which has already been pre-filed there as the Convention of States legislation.  
Check out Grover P. Norquist’s interactive relationship map to observe observe the scope of his influence and wide spread connections.   This article discusses the coalitions formed by Article V Con-Con groups, and who is holding hands with whom.  
Existing state applications for an Article V Convention and resolutions rescinding prior applications 
Not only is Texas being targeted. Former U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, in an article published recently by multiple newspapers in Wisconsin, demonstrates that Wisconsin is being targeted by the COS project.  He described himself as the “honorary chairman” of the apparently unrelated American Transparency organization, but he’s featured on the Convention of States website. It is interesting that Tom Coburn was part of the Never Trump movement, as many in COS likewise were and might still be.  Posted information about Tom Coburn can be found here.  Read here Andy Schlafly’s rebuttal to Coburn’s editorial. 
Two years ago Section 3(d) of the rules package authorized the Judiciary Committee to maintain a public list of state applications for an Article V convention or resolutions rescinding prior applications.  Before then, there was never any central list of applications.  The status of states can be found here.  
  • Twelve states have been targeted for 2017 by the promoters of a constitutional convention — a “Con Con” or “Convention of States”.
  • Eight states have enacted resolutions for a Convention of States, some using language different from others, but each of the eight states should rescind its call.
  • Seventeen states that have passed a Convention of States should rescind it.  A recent example is the rescission by Delaware of all of its prior resolutions for a Con Con.
  • Here are some efforts at rescission 2017.
Argument against a Convention of States 
Following are some of the best arguments against a Convention of States to defeat the enemies of the Constitution who seek a constitutional convention to change it:
  • *Require a fiscal note, which is billions of dollars in lost entitlements to states
  • Justice Scalia called this proposal for an Article V convention a “horrible idea” at a public event less than a year before he passed away.
  • Phyllis Schlafly completely opposed a Con Con and Convention of States, and all variations on the concept.
  •  Convention of States would be a vote against the conservative Republican national platform, which emphatically rejected this.
  •  Convention of States would enable liberals to repeal the Electoral College.
  •  Convention of States would open the door to repealing the Second Amendment.
  •  Convention of States would facilitate a new constitutional right to taxpayer-funded abortion.
*For example, in which of the targeted states can we compel the legislature to attach a fiscal note for the planned constitutional convention, including delegate expenses and the loss to the state of federal entitlements? Forcing a fiscal note to the tune of the millions or billions of dollars. for the Con Con project would stop it in these targeted Republican states.
Past opposition to Con Con
1) Barry Goldwater said: “[I am] totally opposed [to a Constitutional Convention]…We may wind up with a Constitution so far different from that we have lived under for two hundred years that the Republic might not be able to continue.”
2) Chief Justice Warren Burger said:  “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey.  After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda.  The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress “for the sole and express purpose.”
 “The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and pay the penalty.”  Proverbs 27:12 


By Nancy Thorner – 
A conference call held Friday morning, December 2nd to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy sounded an alarm that President-elect Donald Trump is being pressured from the media to nominate a person based more on gender than stand on the pro-life issue.
The call was led by the late Phyllis Schlafly’s son Andy Schlafly, who is President of the Legal Center for Defense of Life, Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, and General Counsel, Association of American Physicians & Surgeons. Notable is that Andy Schlafly went to law school with President Barack Obama.
Although President-elect Trump pledged to pick a pro-life candidate to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, he didn’t promise to stick to the list of 21 names given him to consider. There will be pressure from the media to pick a woman from the list, because of media awareness that all four women on Trump’s candidate list lacks pro-life credentials and are, therefore, unacceptable candidates for the vast majority of those that supported Trump for president.
Every trick will be used by the other side to discredit Trump’s Supreme Court nominees, such as false news reports claiming that a principled pro-life candidate is unwilling to be named as a Supreme Court nominee or that the nominating battle is too daunting a process to go through. This is not true, as pro-life candidates are willing to go through a confirmation hearing even if as vicious as the one endured by Clarence Thomas.  It is a given that nothing garners greater resistance from the Left than attempts to overturn Roe through the nomination of a pro-life Supreme Court justice.
Donald Trump’s appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox cable show on Thursday, December 1, Trump told Hannity that he would pick a pro-life candidate to fill Antonin Scalia’s place on the Supreme Court, as Trump had first pledged to do during his final presidential debate with Hillary, and that his announcement would be made shortly.  Trump said he had three or four names in mind.  Unfortunately, Hannity didn’t ask Trump to follow through by naming names.  As such, can we really expect Fox News to help in getting the message to Trump about suitable Supreme Court nominees? 
Supreme Court appointments have far reaching consequences
Andy Schlafly considers the appointment of Supreme Court justices a very important issue.  Many elected or appointed officials only serve two year terms, but a Supreme Court Justice can remain in power for 30 years.  Presently the appointment of a Secretary of State is receiving extensive media coverage; however, the Secretary of State has no influence over pro-life issues.
Schlafly recalled the year 1981 when President Regan appointed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.   Later on in his administration Regan appointed Justice David Souter.  As Schlafly warned:  “We cannot stand by and wait for it to happens again given Trump’s pledge to appoint pro-life justices.”  Yet some of Trump’s advisors and senators are pushing Trump to appoint names on the list that are not really pro-life.  Trump does rely on his advisors to give him candidates that are pro-life.  It is unconscionable that Trump has been falsely told that all twenty-one candidates on the list are pro-life, but they are not. 
Non-negotiable issues for Andy Schlafly:  1) Candidate must be pro-life and have a pro-life record.  2) Candidate must be able to stand up against the pro-abortion side and the media.  If not, that person is unacceptable as a Supreme Court justice.  How is it that so many of the twenty-one individuals on Trump’s list are not pro-life?  The Federalist Society supplied half the candidates on the list.  It’s not a pro-life organization!
Personal vouching of a Supreme Court candidate is suspect
Personal vouching for a Supreme Court nominee, even by another conservative, will not work.  It is folly to engage in such wishful thinking.  President George H. Bush was told that David Souter was pro-life, then Souter went to the other side under pressure from the pro-abortion side and the media when the media wrote negative stories about him. 
Trump relies on Reince Priebus, formerly Republican Party Chairman who has been appointed as Trump’s chief of staff, to give him good information.  We already know that Trump is pro-life and wants to fill the vacancy left by Scalia’s death with a candidate in the image of Scalia.  If Priebus recommends a candidate to Trump who isn’t pro-life, the nomination will have to be withdrawn, and Reince’s betrayal will be made known to Trump and to the public.  Such a falsehood by Priebus to the president he serves, and the embarrassment it would cause Trump, would demand that Priebus be the first to leave the Trump administration.  Priebus is well aware of Trump’s pledge to select a pro-life judge.  Twenty-two percent of voters did indicate that selecting a pro-life justice to replace Scalia was of great importance.
The U.S. Senate could likewise be party to a stunt to undermine Trump.  Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Majority leader, doesn’t like to have pro-life votes and hesitates to bring them up.  Senator McConnell might indicate that a pro-life nominee could not be confirmed.  But this is not true.  According to Andy Schlafly, we have a pro-life Senate.   Fifty senators are pro-life, and Mike Pence would be the tie breaker.  If Senator McConnell should offer the excuse that a pro-life justice nominee would be impossible to confirm, it could then be asked, how did it happen that Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts were all confirmed with a Senate less pro-life than today’s Senate makeup?  If McConnell should insist a pro-lifer can’t get through the Senate for confirmation, the remedy is to pick another pro-lifer, and still another one, and then continue appointing pro-lifers until one is confirmed.
Not to be dismissed is McConnell’s pipeline to Reince Priebus.  McConnell could vouch as acceptable a phony conservative pro-life candidate to Priebus who would, in turn, inform Trump that the suggested candidate was a sure bet to sail through a Senate confirmation.  It therefore counts for nothing should Priebus tell Trump that such and such candidate is pro-life, as   Souter and Kennedy were said to be pro-life when appointed by presidents George H. Bush and Ronald Reagan, respectively.
Eagle Forum’s “Coalition Letter SCOTUS”
A Coalition Letter is being readied to be sent to President-elect Donald Trump titled, Coalition Letter SCOTUS, which includes the latest signatories as of Sunday, December 4th.  Any pro-life groups who chooses to duck this all important issue is going to lose credibility. Go here to read Coalition Letter SCOTUS in its entirety
Below are some salient points from the Eagle Forum SCOTUS letter:
  •  As you stated during the campaign and in your ’60 Minutes’ interview after your election, you are pro-life and you pledged to nominate justices to the Supreme Court who are pro-life. 
  • Justice Scalia never ducked the abortion issue and always sided with the pro- position.   His replacement should be nothing less.
  • Attempts to nominate a “stealth” candidate lacking in a record on abortion was the failed approach of the past, and would be inconsistent with the transparency of your incoming Administration. 
  • Candidates who lack a pro-life record include, for example, Judges Diane Sykes, Steven Colloton, Raymond Kethledge, and Neil Gorsuch, and Justices Allison Eid and Joan Larsen.  As each of these judges has either ruled against the pro-life position or has otherwise shown an unwillingness to be publicly pro-life, they are disqualified from filling Justice Scalia’s seat, particularly in light of how better candidates are available to be nominated.  
Mr. Schlafly expressed concern that Trump’s Supreme Court pick could come down to Judge Diane Sykes, an unacceptable pro-choice woman, when pressure is applied on Trump to appoint a woman.  Judge Diane Sykes would be vigorously opposed by Eagle Forum, which would then create a huge embarrassment for Trump.  When withdrawing Sykes’ nomination, Trump would have every right to demand why he wasn’t better informed about Judge Diane Sykes before nominating her.  
Outstanding Candidates for Consideration: 
  • Judge Jennifer Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit has credentials equal to or better than those on the list.  She would be an outstanding nominee for Justice Scalia’s seat. 
  • Likewise Judge Edith Jones, Judge Jennifer Elrod’s elder colleague, who, although 67 could become a superb compromise pick of a woman in anticipation of how the media will push the gender issue and senators will pressure Trump to nominate a pro-choice woman from the list of 21, when there are none.   Neither Elrod nor Jones made the list given Trump, but they should be interviewed by Trump to silence the media pressure for a female nominee. 
  • Justice Charles Canady of the Florida Supreme Court is on the current list and would make a fabulous nominee. 
As Andy Schlafly remarked:  “There must be a public push back if Trump appoints a justice who is not pro-life, for there is so much at stake to do otherwise.  If we are not willing to fight for a pro-life candidate now to replace Scalia, it will never happen.”


Wednesday, October 07, 2015

Thorner: Will Ted Cruz be the Establishment’s Final Ploy to Stop Trump?


By Nancy Thorner – 

Despite the media and the Republican establishment spin that Trump is fading, Trump is beating Hillary 48 to 41% in the key swing state of Iowa according to the NBC News Marist Poll. An excellent article by was published in the Chicago Tribune on Sunday, October 4 about polling problems. It shows why even this result may still be too tilted to Hillary.

In Europe, polls misfired this past year in Greece, Israel and Great Britain where polls results were off by wide margins. The Bloomberg article blames inaccurate polling results on individuals not picking up their phone when pollsters call due to the decline of landlines. But a common thread to all these “bad” poll numbers in Europe was the polling bias against candidates the local liberal media didn’t favor. Anti-establishment and anti-liberal media voters are apparently hanging up on pollsters from liberal media organizations all around the world.

With this in mind, Trump is probably doing better than what his polls indicate. With a hard core 30-35% of the primary vote, Trump can win the nomination in the winner take all primaries with a splintered opposition, the same strategy Jeb hoped to employ. Trump will benefit from the rigging of the rules by the Republican establishment unless that same establishment can settle behind one anti-Trump candidate.

Possible Anti-Trump Candidate 

But who could that be? Even though a rising star and looked upon as an honorable person and a world-respected surgeon, Dr. Ben Carson will have a tough time winning the Republican nomination. He has some surprising history on abortion, guns, wars, and Wall Street which so far has remained below the public radar.

Senator Rubio has a major problem with the base because he really supports amnesty for illegals, having said one thing in Spanish and just the opposite English. Carly Fiorina is unelectable with her terrible business record and other problems. The fact her “charity” has given a half million to Planned Parenthood should be enough to send her back to single digits in the polls. Jeb and Kasich are way behind despite media adoration.

Running a third party, as threatened by Bill Kristol if Trump wins the Republican nomination, won’t stop Trump any more than running John Anderson stopped Reagan in 1980. Anderson actually took votes away from Carter, and so will any “centrist” the establishment puts up. Trump is not Bush, the father, who had few major policy differences with Clinton after raising taxes, nominating liberal Supreme Court Justice Souter and backing away from the Second Amendment. That allowed Perot to flourish as a protest candidate.

For a man who has been attacked as a know-nothing blowhard, Trump is the only candidate who has released detailed policy initiatives on immigration, the Second Amendment and taxes. His tax plan brought approval from conservatives like Mark Levin in eliminating the loopholes the crony capitalists on Wall Street love. Trump continues to play to the Reagan Democrats by defending gun rights, as he did with his immigration and trade plans, despite unremitting media and Republican establishment hostility (or silence, as in the case of gun rights).

Observers like Sharyl Attkisson are commenting on Trump’s crossover appeal. What Attkisson is seeing is being backed up by polling of Reagan Democrats. Consider Macomb County in Michigan. It has a population of approx. 850,000 people and is a prominent swing region. Macomb is known for a strong independent streak and is the home of many Reagan Dems.

According to pollster Steve Mitchell, “all the GOP candidates being polled against Hillary in that critical Macomb region are beating her soundly…. The Teamsters have threatened not to endorse Hillary thanks to her position on the Keystone Pipeline and Trump’s popularity with their members makes a Trump endorsement by the Teamsters a real threat. Many Reagan Democrats will vote for Trump only in the General Election, but some of them will vote for the first time in the Republican primary, especially if some unions like Teamsters get behind him.”

Polls in State of Fluctuation, but Trump Maintains Lead

While the latest IBD/TiPP Poll shows Donald Trump in second place and seven points behind Ben Carson, Donald Trump holds a commanding nine point lead over Ben Carson according to a new Pew Research poll. CNN reports how Trump now garners 25 percent of the vote to Carson’s 16, with eight each for retired Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.  Texas Senator Ted Cruz checks in at six percent, while Florida Gov. Jeb Bush struggles at 4%. Other polls show Trump running around 35%. Get away from the media polls and Trump goes back up well over 30%.

Given the absolute hatred shown by the media toward Trump (which undoubtedly includes juggling the samples to get the “right” results), might Trump actually be under polling and Carson over polling due to voters intimidated not to say what they really think, as referenced earlier in recent overseas elections?

The 4% for Jeb Bush in the CNN poll is also an outlier, but Jeb’s implosion in other polls is undeniable. Jeb continues to make mistake after mistake, like when he claimed that Boehner did a good job as House Speaker. It is worth noting that  among Iowa Caucus voters Jeb is also near 4%

Money Influences Campaigns

With the millions Jeb collected before he announced his presidential bid, he had hoped to run-out-the-clock of all other Republican candidates should he have a poor start in Iowa, etc. Jeb has the money needed to run ads against anyone who would dare to challenge what he perceives as his right to become the next president.

These ads could be effective on the lesser known Republican challengers, but could Jeb’s immense Super-Pac war chest $103 million plus, begin to make a dent in the support of a man already universally known and reviled by every media outlet, Donald Trump? What’s worse, this (mostly) wasted money for Jeb has sucked up money the Establishment desperately needs for down ballot races.

The Chamber of Commerce spent tens of millions in 2014 and still was just barely able to squeeze Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran past the primary finish line, while losing a very big fish in Eric Cantor over the immigration issue. Now the Chamber will have to fund Establishment hacks from President (as Jeb fails) to U.S. House races. The Senate will need to spend even more money than it did in 2014 to protect its incumbents. This hatred of the Republican Leadership has even reached the Vice Chairman of the RNC. Because of all the bad votes from the Cromnibus in December 2014 to the present vote for Boehner’s successor, there are potentially dozen of Cantors to defend in the House primaries.

Ted Cruz, the Alternative Establishment Candidate?

In short, the Establishment may have to do triage and jettison trying to elect Jeb or any other establishment favorite for President. It is therefore far more important to keep an iron grip on Congress. The Establishment does have an alternative in Ted Cruz, who is not as anti-Establishment as he presents himself to voter with his background: Ivy League education, George W. Bush administration official, Texas Solicitor General appointed by the present Texas Governor (then Texas Attorney General) Greg Abbott and the unprecedented appointment of “vice chairman of grassroots outreach for the Senate Republican campaign arm” right after his election.

Cruz’ wife Heidi Nelson Cruz was also in the Bush administration as an economic director for the Western Hemisphere with the National Security Council (a “trade expert” on NAFTA). Additionally Heidi Cruz was a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and worked for Goldman Sachs.  Even Ronald Reagan, a Bohemian Club member, wasn’t this connected to the ruling Establishment!

Cruz has helped the Establishment at other times besides the 2014 primaries. During the “Gang of 8” attempt in the Senate to pass illegal amnesty in all but name, Cruz offered a compromise amendment to expand H-B visas by 500%. When Cruz first run for Senate in 2011, he was far softer on immigration matters, even supporting birthright citizenship:  Cruz also lent support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership in an April 2015 Wall Street Journal editorial with the very Establishment Paul Ryan. He later flipped his vote against the TPP after the House by the bare minimum of 218 voted to allow Obama to negotiate this treaty. Like defeating embattled Republican Senate Incumbents in 2014, Cruz could have sunk this treaty had he had opposed it from the very beginning.

Rick Perry, by dropping out has allowed dozens of Texas legislators to endorse Cruz, who should take almost all of Texas’ 155 delegates that are up on March 1. If Cruz can sweep away Carson and Huckabee in Iowa, he should get the lion’s share of the religious conservative vote, which is about half the primary vote in crucial early primary states like Iowa and South Carolina. Cruz is spending a million dollars on Christian radio ads between now and the end of the year. The rest of the candidates who could appeal to this voting bloc can’t afford to do likewise.

A Quartet of Candidates to Follow: Trump, Rubio, Jeb, and Cruz

Trump is now mocking Marco Rubio’s baby face and his tendency to sweat and look sleazy under pressure. That’s because Rubio is the last man standing, in addition to Cruz, who could stop Trump. But will Jeb allow his money to be spent for Rubio who back stabbed Jeb’s initial effort?  Or will he instead direct his money to go to down ballot races the Establishment needs even more?

Compared to Trump, Cruz has been “flexible” in the past. The nightmare scenario for the Establishment is a hostile Congress and a Trump Presidency. To prevent that, having Jeb’s money spent on down ballot races while letting Cruz take out Trump looks increasingly like the best solution for the establishment.

Phyllis Schlafly had these words of wisdom to impart on October 6, 2015, with her commentary, “The Establishment Looks for a New Plan B”:

“Plan A, of course, was to assure the nomination of Jeb Bush, whose views are the perfect reflection of the Republican donor class. But despite many months of campaigning, $114 million of political funds raised through June 30, and two presidential debates watched by a record-setting average of 24 million people, Jeb Bush has dropped to sixth place, registering only four percent in the latest Pew poll”. . . . “It may be that the only alternative left for these Republican would-be kingmakers is the late entry of a new candidate to enter the race. We are already hearing rumblings about resurrecting Mitt Romney.”

Schlafly then gives this warning:

“When the establishment is allowed to pick the Republican nominee, a candidate unable to win the support of the all-important middle-class America is the result. Establishment candidates have been unable to win the popular vote in five out of the last six elections, and that outcome is not something any Republican should want to repeat.”

Phyllis is right and that’s why Ted Cruz, with his anti-establishment image, is the only one who could possibly replace Trump, and go on to victory in 2016. Those who know the Constitution are aware that the key to power in the U.S. is Congress, not so much the Presidency. In the end, the Republican establishment will probably swallow Cruz to hold on to their power in Congress.

Many who faithfully read Illinois Review every day most likely refer to themselves as “conservative Republicans.” I have been concerned for a number of years regarding the future of self-proclaimed conservatives and their waning influence in the Republican Party.

In Lake County there is a functioning and active conservative group that dates back to 2001, the Republican Assembly of Lake County.

Years ago it was mandatory for RALC members to be pro-life, to ascribe to marriage between one man and one woman, to uphold gun rights via the Second Amendment, etc. Its Platform is closely aligned with the Platform of the Republican Party in Illinois. With a relaxation of membership qualifications, no longer is it necessary for a candidate to check “yes” beside all questions asked of prospective members on the RALC membership application form to qualify for membership.

The relaxation of standards by the RALC has resulted in diminishing the impact its members can have in advancing conservatism in Lake County.

Even when a conservative Republican candidate does attempt to run for office in Illinois, an attempt is made to derail that candidate in favor of a Republican Establishment candidate, as was the situation in Illinois House District 58 when Minority House Leader Tom Cross — who has garnered far too much power and influence here in Illinois — funneled thousands of dollars to the establishment candidate after promising the Republican challenger that he never became involved in Primary elections.

The same disregard for conservatives happened at the federal level when in the 8th Congressional District no financial help was directed toward Joe Walsh by the U.S. House Republican Party in his campaign to retain his House seat against challenger Democrat Tammy Duckworth.

If the Republican tactics employed to eliminate conservative candidates seem underhanded and unfair, there is much more more to fear in the near future.

In the aftermath of the Nov. 7th elections conservatives are being told by the top brass of the Republican Party in Illinois and at the Federal level, that the Republican party must change its stripes or it will forever lose elections.

It has been decided that we, as conservatives, are out-of-step with society by clinging to our pro-life and anti-gay marriage messages. But it is on the issue of illegal immigration where a Republican compromise would bring about lasting and disastrous implications that could torpedo the Republican Party out of existence.

It is regretful that a prominent conservative senator, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), is suggesting that Republicans be more accepting and tolerant of illegal immigrants to win elections.

Do Republican (and conservatives in sync with Sen Rubio) really believe that by going Democrat-lite the Republican Party will win predictably Democratic voters over to the Republican side? Will the Democratic Party gleefully hand over some of its voter base to Republicans– Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote in November — just because Republicans are finally saying “pretty please, vote for me” to Hispanic voters? I don’t think so!

Instead, granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens would infuse the Democratic voter base with millions of potential new voters. Meanwhile, all the Republican Party would gain from any amnesty plan is the element of hope that their largess toward Hispanics would be rewarded at the polls.

In an outstanding video featuring conservative David Horowitz, Horowitz laments how many conservatives don’t accept their own philosophy to the extent that they are able to stand up to the pressures of pop culture, either too ashamed to declare and fight for what they believe, or not equipped to explain their conservative principles which far outshine the failed policies of the liberal Left.

Michelle Bachmann was cited by Horowitz as a conservative who unabashedly stands up and fights for what she believes (and she was reelected!). Establishment GOP leaders instead consider conservatives and Tea Party candidates and legislators their greatest threat.

It was through information shared by conservative radio host, Mark Levin, during his Monday, November 20 radio show aired on WLS-890 AM, that I heard about House Majority leader John Boehner’s recent power grabs and scorched-earth maneuvering in order to crush conservative opposition in the House.

On November 20 Levin read to his radio listeners a commentary by Daniel Horowitz, Boehner’s Irony, that disputes the claim that Boehner is weak and flaccid in the face of adversity. On the contrary, Boehner has reorganized the House so conservatives will be relegated to the back burner without a voice.

In light of Boehner’s scorched earth tactics and aggressiveness against House conservatives, it is not unreasonable to expect that Boehner, in future negotiation with Democrats, will reach across the aisle, even when promising otherwise, in order to win the mantle of bi-partisanship which Republican leaders seem to crave when in power. For Boehner, not unlike other powerful establishment Republican leaders, folds like cheap a accordion when faced with Democrat masters.

Conveniently forgotten by Republicans is that Democrats in power crush all opposition that impedes them from attaining their Statist goals. Boehner, nevertheless, has created what appears to be a free rein for himself in capitulating to Democrats on a laundry list of policy items.

Why? Because both parties want big government as it offers them more spoils to split between them. Boehner’s dictatorial action in the House therefore seems to signal Republican Establishment desperation. Action had to be taken in the House to relegate Republican conservative legislators to the back burner. Beware of Boehner’s recent announcement that Obamacare is on the table for fiscal cliff talks, or that raising taxes is out of the question.

Republican pundits — Karl Rove captures the prize in demonizing conservatives — and Republican leaders in the Illinois General Assembly and the U.S. House and Senate foolishly believe Republicans need to offer amnesty to illegal aliens and compromise on issues of morality in order to win elections. Instead, they would be wise to heed the words of Eagle

Forum Phyllis Schlafly in an article published on November 21, Political Parties Need Rebranding.

According the Phyllis Schlafly, the Republican Party needs to change its marketing and its economic message so the Party “can be rebranded as the party of family, good jobs, and superior weaponry that keeps America safe without war. Safe without war and Reagan-style peace through strength can help to win back the Millennial generation.”

To Schlafly, the basic Romney-Republican economic message of cutting taxes and regulations to enable people to prosper as entrepreneurs, innovators, and employers was fine, but it didn’t relate to the millions of men who lost $50,000 jobs and then had to take minimum-wage of part-time jobs that don’t pay enough to support a family.

Schlafly had this to say about how Republicans should define the Democratic Party: “The Democratic Party should be rebranded as the Party of atheism, amnesty, abortion, and debt.”

Lastly, Phyllis Schlafly believes there is plenty of hope for the Republican Party because 30 of the 50 governors are now Republican. At the same time Schlafly urges grassroots Republicans, with the help of Tea Party allies, to take back control of their Party at the local level and set the Republican Party on a winning path!

But what are conservatives in Illinois to do when well known Republicans like John Porter, Jim Edgar and Jim Thompson support and back Democrats, as they did in the recent November General Elections, while at the same time Republicans are being urged to vote the Party line.

John Porter endorsed Democrat Julie Morrison over Republican Dr. Arie Friedman in the IL District 29 race; Jim Edgar and Jim Thompson endorsed Democrat Scott Drury over Republican Mark Shaw in the IL 58th House race. What blatant dichotomy!

After all, elections are many times won by small margins. Furthermore, while Illinois may run out of money, it will never run out of corruption.