Tea party PAC plans announcement with U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts

The Wichita Eagle ^ | October 13, 2014 | Suzanne Perez Tobias

[GeronL]

This happened some time ago with a conservative who lost out to a RINO in another big race and refused to attend a breakfast the next morning and shake hands with the winner of that Primary. Where is that candidate today - nowhere!!!

and if it were the other way around, and the RINO would not endorse? They'd probably be running the state party

[GeronL]

The Republican Party establishment can go to hell as far as I am concerned. You explain it well. Bend over and take it up the rear or get out.

A lot of us conservatives are getting out. Good luck with your Doles, McCains and Romneys.

[Yosemitest]

I will NOT vote for a RINO.
NEVER AGAIN !

What a DISAPPOINTMENT these dupes are that continue playing the "Establishment Republicans' " game of "Vote fort the lesser of two EVILS "!
Compromisers ALWAYS LOSE !

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
Someone once said [We're] 'Not victims of "the Establishment." '
I disagree.
I ask you again:

Who was it that dumped all those negative adds on Conservative Candidates in the primary?
Who was it that constantly battered each leading Conservative in the primary with an average of three to one negative ads against our real candidates?
Who's money was dumped against the conservative choices?

It WAS Mitt Romney, leader of the "Establishment Republicans"
and it WAS the "Establishment Republicans" who funded all those negative ads against Conservatives.

So conservatives, the BASE of the Republican Party, WERE ' victims of "the Establishment." '

These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.

Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.

Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”

Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.

For example,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.
Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.



The "Establishment Republicans" can GO TO HELL !

[trebb]

FIRST we MUST DESTROY the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" BEFORE we can REBUILD the CONSERVATIVE GOP.

Perhaps you are one who espouses the idea and is also capable of explaining why it will work.

I have asked others and they refuse, or can't give a cogent answer: How does replacing wishy-washy Republicans with hard-core democrats further our purpose and/or position us optimally to foster a less radical leftward swing and get us on track? How many more Obamas can we take and still be able to remember what our nation once looked like?

The Left got it's current power and all it's anti-Freedom/Constitution crap in place by patiently voting, en-masse, for anyone who was even a smidgen less conservative than the other choices. They stuck with the game plan and they made huge strides towards our destruction one baby step at a time. If you really think that allowing them to become a super majority throughout (bound to happen if everyone in every State follows your recipe) will help Conservatism, please explain it so others can understand it.

[Yosemitest]

Discernment?
WHEN will YOU LEARN that you're being played for an IDIOT ?

We will never unify under "Establishment Republicans" .
"Establishment Republicans" have more in common with the Democrats, than they do with Conservatives.
The weak candidates are "Establishment Republicans", weak on national security, amnesty for illegals, abortion, and government spending.
"Establishment Republicans" scream "COMPROMISE".
And people who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.
These "Establishment Republicans" are being weeded out, one by one, and slowly but surely, the TEA Party is taking over.



Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.

[KC_Conspirator]

http://spectator.org/articles/60635/what%E2%80%99s-matter-milton-wolf

[Bubba_Leroy]

I will NOT vote for a RINO. NEVER AGAIN !

The Democrats are counting on it.

Conservatives refused to vote for RINOs in five of the past six Presidential elections. All that got us was President Clinton, President Obama and damned near President Algore. How has that strategy been working out for you so far?

Do whatever you can to get the best candidates nominated that you can vote for, but when it comes time to vote all you can do is pick between the candidates that you actually have to choose from. Unless you are on the ballot, you will never have a candidate to vote for that you agree with all of the time. The best you can hope for is a candidate that you agree with most of the time. In many cases, your choice comes down to which is the lesser of two evils. That is reality whether you like it or not.

In one month, either the Democrats will continue to control the Senate for another two years or Republicans (including a lot of RINOs) will control the Senate. Those are the only two possibilities. One of those two choices is going to occur, regardless of whether or not you refuse to pick one.

In a Republican/RINO controlled Senate, at least the conservatives have a chance of blocking some of Obama's far left wing liberal judicial appointments. In a Democrat/Harry Reid controlled Senate, then conservatives have no chance whatsoever to block anything.

The only way to get the establishment Republicans to stop pushing moderate/liberal candidates is to fight like hell to get a conservative candidate nominated in 2016 and then fight like hell to get him elected by a landslide. Winning elections sends a message.

[9YearLurker]

Believe me, I’m not in favor of Establishment Republicans. I’d like to see a nationalized Tea Party that unites to endorse and back good conservative candidates, initially on the GOP ballot, in 50 states.

As that national party matures, if they don’t succeed in taking over the GOP from the Establishment, then I’d like to see them pull a UKIP.

But that doesn’t mean that with an Obama presidency and the Supreme Court potentially at stake, once the primaries are over, we should be backstabbing those in the GOP who have actually held the line in office.

There’s a difference between strong and stupid.

[Yosemitest]

It's a long, hard battle that we've got ahead of us.
We must "STEEL" our political party.
No longer can we tolerate "linguine-spined" elected Republicans.
To fight this EVIL, we must ALL be willing to expose the DemocRATs' lying, cheating, stealing, and abusing their constituents,
and be able to do it at the drop of a hat.
Those RINOs that we MUST weed out, continue to make us weaker and weaker, with every consecutive election.

Go back to Comment #24 and watch those videos.
David Horowitz describes the problem VERY WELL, so you MUST watch it and take notes.
Each and every one of our candidates MUST FIGHT and MUST HAVE NO SYMPATHY about DESTROYING their DemocRAT opponent.
The "nice guy" and the "want to be loved by the media" fantasy ~ IS OVER.
If our elected officials can't fight and "DELIVER A KNOCK OUT PUNCH", then we don't want them, ~ plain and simple.
Read Jack Kerwick's article again.
Don't skip over this "MEAT" and don't get lost in the minutia !
If you still want to be timid and soft spoken, then expect to continue losing.
If you're still on the "MILK" of politics, you're going to get you head delivered to you by the DemocRATs.
It's time to "DRAW BLOOD" !

[Yosemitest]

I don't give a DAMN about WHAT the DemocRATs are counting on.

"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS"SHALL NOT PASS !


It's SIMPLE.

Vote AGAINST "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" !
Vote FOR REAL CONSERVATIVE "Tea Party Candidates" !

[NYRepublican72]

That’s because we need Kansas as insurance to take the Senate. Too many states are too close for comfort right now.

All-in-all Roberts is not a RINO like Cochran or McConnell. Wolf may have been a better choice, but I’d much rather have Roberts in this seat than the pinko “independent” that will caucus with the RATS.

[Yosemitest]

If we must give the GOP a "FIERY FURNACE OF A TRIAL"

then SO BE IT !

"COMPROMISE" IS A DIRTY WORD !
I read a great article by Sheriff Jim R. Schwiesow, Ret. written February 4, 2011 from "NewsWithViews.com" and here's part of it.

COMPROMISE – A DIRTY WORD
Compromise – is defined as:
“A middle way between two extremes”

If this is a literally correct definition, and I believe that it is,
what then are we to do when the two extremes at the opposite ends of the plane are
that which is moral
and that which is immoral?
Is it possible that a righteous compromise can be accomplished
when such a compromise, by the very definition of the word, must contain the elements of an extreme that is in and of itself evil or wicked ?

Compromise is as old as humanity;
compromise began as a human endeavor to attempt to escape the penalty for the transgression of God’s laws
and to mitigate or contravene the absoluteness of God’s word.
Compromise is man’s way
to lessen the seriousness of disobedience to immutable laws and dictums,
or to excuse or condone such disobedience altogether.
No good thing comes from compromise.
Man’s accommodation of transgressions by compromise is not a defense for iniquitous acts in the eyes of God.
Compromise is the devil’s invention;
God who is perfect in every way will not be conciliated by the conditions of a compromise.

Compromise was introduced into the lives of men in the Garden of Eden by that serpent of old, Satan,
and will remain with men until the Lord Jesus Christ brings this world to an end - which He will inevitable do - and establishes His Kingdom.

THE FRUITS OF COMPROMISE
Most people have come to believe
that compromise is a useful tool
and that the negotiations thereof have brought about good things and useful policies.
If one examines that belief closely it soon becomes apparent that
there are no useful results that accrue to negotiated compromise on any level.
In fact most often
compromise actually breeds dissention and strife,
which in turn leads to more compromise.
In short compromise feeds upon itself and eats up that which is just and right in the process.

To live in a world of compromise is to live in a world without absolutes,
and yet we know that the entire universe as well as the lives of men are managed, controlled, and kept within irrevocable bounds by the absolutes established by Almighty God.
We violate those bounds, via compromise of any kind, at our peril.

Political negotiations (compromise) in regard
to the step down from the safeguarding of the sanctity of life
and from the immutable right granted by God to be defended against being murdered -
as set forth in the sixth commandment
- has enabled an American medical assassination machine
that has claimed nearly double the number of lives of the combined number of military and civilian deaths attributable to World War II.

The killing of innocent babies has reached record heights.
The lives of twenty-four percent of all unborn babies are delivered into the hands of the serial killers of the medical community.
A baby is murdered every twelve seconds,
and it is estimated that in this country alone there have been ninety-two million living beating hearts stilled by the bloody hands of the legal abortionists.
This conspiracy to commit murder,
this aiding and abetting of murder,
this disconnect between the forbidden pre-meditated murder of living adults and the sanctioned pre-meditated murder of living babies
has been wrought by a politically mediated compromise between
those who claim the right to murder babies
and those who know God’s absolute prohibition of murder.
And there is more.

Now continuing…compromise on morality resulted in the condoning of, and an exponential increase in, the filthy - God condemned - practice of sodomy and promiscuous sex.
For every compromise of God’s word a penalty is exacted.
Aids rapidly achieved endemic proportions, first in the United States and then in the rest world.
We were told that Aids was a disease of monkeys that had migrated to men.
The inventiveness of the scientific community and the political apologizers who defend such appalling and execrable behavior
often find fertile ground in the credulous minds of a spiritually deprived people.
I’m not done.

POLITICAL COMPROMISE CONTINUES TO DESTROY THE REPUBLIC
Today as never before in our history the dishonorable who control our social destiny via their political intrigues
subject the nation to a slow death by way of political compromise.

Compromise through ill-conceived trade agreements has destroyed domestic industry and extinguished millions of jobs.
Compromise on sound financial practices has destroyed the housing market, seriously damaged the economy and crippled small businesses.
Compromise on immigration has demolished the social structure, bankrupted state and local governments, critically imperiled national security and jeopardized the safety and well-being of the people.
And compromise on moral integrity has corrupted the youth, encouraged extreme vice and given license to social prurience.

THE BEGINNING OF THE END
In a recent article I wrote
that from this time forward
the people of this nation will not know a day of peace,
there will be no good news, each bad day will fade into another equally bad day,
and the black and ghostly apparitions of the former will blend with the grim and ghastly tidings of the new.
The Lord has departed from a people that have departed from Him and prostituted themselves before heathen gods,
a people who will in the coming days loathe themselves for the evils that they have committed in all of their abominations.
They will surely know that He is the Sovereign God who will carry out His word
to do evil unto them that defy His word and deny His Lordship over all of creation.

As I write this piece
the nation is seized by a 2,000 mile long arctic blast of an unprecedented magnitude;
each season delivers devastation of Biblical proportions.
Tornadoes ravage, floods inundate, conflagrations gobble up thousands of acres of trees and foliage and lumbering mudslides follow in the wake of these,
hurricanes terrify the coasts, and hail, ice, and snow bring cities and towns to a standstill.
Truly the day of the Lord is at hand.

One who reads these words and does NOT understand or relate to that which has been written
can be thought to possess one or more of the following character deficiencies:
deep perversion, callous indifference, abysmal illiteracy, or appalling ignorance.

Believers in God’s word know
that ignorance of a secular kind is directly attributable to a lack of spiritual discernment.

Solomon gives a litany of dangers that await the man who lacks Spiritual discernment:

“To deliver thee from the way of the evil man, from the man that speaketh froward things;
Who leave the paths of uprightness,
to walk in the ways of darkness;
Who rejoice to do evil, and delight in the frowardness of the wicked;
Whose ways are crooked, and they froward in their paths:
To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;
Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God.
For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead.
None that go unto her return again,
neither take they hold of the paths of life.
That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous.
For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it.
But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it.”
[Proverbs 2:12-22]

A modern translation:

"Wicked and perverse men are scattered like land mines across the paths of our lives.
Without discernment we will soon be following them into the dark of destruction.
The adulteress, every man’s worse nightmare, will seduce those who cannot see past her beauty and promises.
Behind her attraction lies the steps that descend to hell.
No one who goes to her returns,
but how can anyone know this apart from God Himself telling us."
[Proverbs 2:12-22]

Read Compromise Is a Dirty Word for Club for Growth.

[Bubba_Leroy]

Believe me, I’m not in favor of Establishment Republicans.

I fully agree.

Saving our nation will require two necessary steps.

First, the Republicans need to take control of the Senate this year. If not, then Obama and Reid will have two more years to pack the courts with whatever far left wing nominees that they want, all of whom will be legislating from the bench for another generation. Also, the chances of Republicans taking the Senate in 2016 are slim, simply because of the numbers of Democrat and Republican seats that will be up for election that year. The best chance for a Republican controlled Senate after 2016 is to take the Senate this year and hold it in 2016.

Second, we need to elect a conservative President in 2016 and start replacing RINOs in the House and Senate with conservatives. A conservative President with the support of a Republican controlled House and Senate can undo nearly everything that Obama has done.

If we cannot accomplish both of these steps, then it is going to be very difficult for our nation to survive.

[Yosemitest]

I DISAGREE !
"ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" hav e been counting on JUST THAT KIND OF THINKING since Ronald Reagan handed the Office over the the RINO Bush.

NO MORE ! ! !
If the candidate is NOT CONSERVATIVE, I'll shove him over the cliff,
and PUNISH the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" for all their dirty scams by voting for the TRUE RAT !

[Bubba_Leroy]

That’s because we need Kansas as insurance to take the Senate. Too many states are too close for comfort right now.

Also, we need insurance for 2016, when it will be an uphill battle just to break even.

In 2008, the Democrats had a landslide year. As a result, most of the seats that are up for election this year are Democrat seats. In 2010, the Republicans had a landslide year. As a result, most of the seats that are up for election in 2016 are Republican seats.

To gain seats in 2016, the Republicans will have to take out Democrats who managed to get elected or re-elected in 2010 and hold on to every Republican that got elected that year. It will be an uphill battle not to lose some Senate seats in 2016, no matter who our presidential candidate may be.

I don't want to fight like hell to get a conservative candidate nominated and elected President in 2016 only to have everything we want him to do blocked by a Harry Reid controlled Senate.

[Jonah Vark]

Soros to Host Fundraiser for ‘Independent’ Kansas Senate Candidate

Kansas Senate hopeful Greg Orman insists that he is not beholden to the Democratic Party, but a major Democratic donor is hosting a fundraiser for his campaign to unseat Republican incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts.

Jonathan Soros, son of billionaire Democratic donor George Soros, will host a New York City fundraiser this week for Orman, who is running as an independent candidate, according to an invitation obtained by America Rising.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/soros-to-host-fundraiser-for-independent-kansas-senate-candidate/

[Bubba_Leroy]

If the candidate is NOT CONSERVATIVE, I'll shove him over the cliff, and PUNISH the "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" for all their dirty scams by voting for the TRUE RAT !

Because that has worked so effectively for the past 20 years.

In 1992, conservatives refused to vote for the RINO Bush, giving us President Clinton.

In 1996, conservatives refused to vote for the RINO Dole, once again giving us President Clinton.

In 2000, conservatives refused to vote for the RINO Bush II, damned near giving us President Algore (He won a majority of the popular vote. Thank God for the electoral college).

In 2008, conservatives refused to vote for the RINO McCain, giving us President Obama.

In 2012, conservatives refused to vote for the RINO Dole, once again giving us President Obama.

Do you see any sort of pattern here? Has refusing to vote for a RINO and letting the Democrat win ever worked?

Trying to convince the establishment Republicans not to nominate RINOs by electing Democrats is like trying to convince the environmental left that Global Warming is a scam by pointing out that every single global warming model that has predicted Global Warming has been wrong for the past 20 years.

The only way to get the establishment Republicans to stop nominating RINOs is to get a conservative candidate nominated and then get him elected by a landslide. Winning elections sends a message. Losing elections does not.

[9YearLurker]

I agree, though that has been our ongoing strategy—and it hasn’t been sufficient. That’s why I think we need to develop a national tea party to both consolidate our votes at the primary stage and then, if necessary, eventually replace the GOP outright.

[9YearLurker]

Simply voting in Democrats doesn’t solve anything either. I agree that we have to take stronger action, but it doesn’t have to be mindless action.

[Bubba_Leroy]

"In 2012, conservatives refused to vote for the RINO Dole Romney, once again giving us President Obama."

Typo, though RINOs are pretty interchangeable.