They’d rather look good and lose than admit Trump is the best candidate

RINO titanic

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Our nation is in deep trouble. Our world is burning down and an anti-American in the White House is fanning the flames. We the people who love America must do something to save ourselves now! We have been let down by the fake conservatives we sent to Washington to put out the fire and start fixing the damage. They have laughed in our faces. We have reluctantly put our faith in the Supreme Court to halt the advance of unconstitutional legislation; but the justices have stabbed us in the back and twisted the blade with smug talk about the fix being “up to the people.”

Until last summer we had no one to champion our cause. It was only us. That has changed with the emergence of Donald Trump as the frontrunner in the Republican primaries. We now have a once in a lifetime opportunity to fix what is wrong and save our country; and we simply cannot squander it.

Yet there are those whose demands for conservative purity have caused them to first scoff at Trump, then throw their “Flavor of the Month” candidate at him to take him out. Since that didn’t work they are lecturing us and pushing Ted Cruz, a man who is a proven liar. Worse still, more than a third of voters believe Cruz is not eligible to be the president. Ted Cruz is not an alternative, but just another way to pat us on the head and tell us to “run along.”

These chattering purists are frightened of losing their influence over us when Trump wins. With no particular credentials, save for knowing yesterday’s political rules, they presume to tell us we don’t know what is good for us. It’s time for them to get out of the way. Those of us who don’t want to keep rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic have to seize the moment and take control of our own lives.

Where our “betters” think they get the justification to tell us what is good for us is no longer important. They would rather look good and lose the country than look bad among themselves and support Trump.

Donald Trump is the only man in the field who can be successful in a general election. He has the talent and will to fix America’s problems.

Is it Time for Women to Register for the Selective Service Program?

By Jim Emerson, staff writer

This week, while addressing the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the ongoing effort to open combat positions to female troops, the Marine Corps commandant and Army chief of staff both told senators “that they believe women should be required to sign up for the military draft now that they are being integrated into all combat positions.” (1)

The generals, Robert Neller, USMC and Mark Milley, US Army, told the committee that women should no longer be exempted from the Selective Service program. The integration of women into combat position without a long term study by the defense department is being forced upon the military by non-serving politicians. Certainly it is an issue which signals the need for a national debate. Will Americans allow their daughters, sisters and wives to be drafted into a combat position? (2)

Certainly there are women who are capable of performing the same work as men in the military. But inescapable facts of biology make that a minimal number at best when it comes to filling positions on the front lines. Standards will be undoubtedly be lowered as they have been in every other social experiment forced on the military. In this nation’s history only men were required to register with the Selective Service. During times of war they were drafted to create an Army to protect the country. Women have fought for America since the days of the American Revolution. But they did not serve in Washington’s Continental Army.

It was Barack Hussein Obama and the also never-served-a-day-in-his-life Defense Secretary Ash Carter who have ordered the military to open all combat positions to woman. But the question must be asked: Are Americans ready to see pictures of flag-draped coffins flying into Dover AFB carrying their Moms, daughters and sisters?

Lawmakers on the Senate panel are skeptical of the current push to place women in to combat positions. Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona has cited a Marine Corps integration study that “found differences among women, specifically more injuries and lower performance in combat situations. He said it shows biological differences have implications on the battlefield.” Rather than addressing the long term implications of this and other studies, the Obama administration forced the military to comply with its demands. The mandates of liberalism must be implemented, after all. Common sense has long been ignored in favor of the lunacy of political correctness. In the case of women being placed on the battlefield, the consequences of forced integration were never considered, only the necessity of implementing the liberal agenda.

One wonders how many men will lose their lives as a direct result of females not being able to physically perform the duties connected with combat. How many will die attempting to be chivalrous?

Before the mandatory registration of women for the draft became an issue, the Supreme Court ruled in Rostker v. Goldberg that it was constitutional to register only men for the draft. Women were exempted because there were not considered for combat roles. This was apparently a time during which people understood the differences between men and women, along with the meaning of chivalry. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is currently deciding the case of National Coalition for Men vs. the Selective Service System. It will determine whether women must also register. (5)

This week Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and Ryan Zinke of Montana introduced a bill requiring women to register for the draft. It was a move designed to take the decision out of the hands of the military so it can be debated in Congress. (4)

A warning to America, do you really want this? Can you handle the inevitable outcome? {3}

Marco Rubio, George Soros, Rupert Murdock, and Fox News: The Cheap Labor Gang

Rubio Soros Fox

Marco Rubio, George Soros, Rupert Murdock and Fox News are the Cheap Labor Gang. They are all in on a scheme to push amnesty down our throats. Here’s how it works: They win; we lose if we nominate Rubio.

While Iowans showed they aren’t concerned about illegal aliens, (just 11% saw them as important) the rest of America is very concerned about them. A September CNN survey showed an astounding 9 of 10 Americans see illegals as an important issue. Among those very concerned about illegal aliens are Marco Rubio, George Soros, Rupert Murdock, and Fox News. Their concern is seeing that America is flooded with cheap laborers who will take Americans’ jobs; and are actively working in concert to see that happen.

Marco Rubio would like those 90% of voters, who see illegal aliens as an important problem, to forget that just a few years ago when he had barely arrived in the Senate he was a member of another group, the Gang of Eight which included ultra-Liberal New York Democrat Chuck Schumer–another politician on Soros’ payroll. That Gang’s sole purpose was to slip amnesty past the America people. It failed but its efforts live on in Rubio’s candidacy.

One of Rubio’s close confidants is Cesar Conda who has served as his Chief of Staff. Conda is an amnesty zealot and worked as an editor for George Soros, the nation’s chief amnesty supporter.

Donald Trump has been the most consistent enemy of the Cheap Labor gang so he has been under constant attack by Fox News which is owned by Rupert Murdock. Murdock is a board member of the all-out amnesty pushing Partnership For a New American Economy which lobbied to support the Gang of Eight’s amnesty treachery.

Fox News’ Vice President Bill Sammon’s daughter Brooke is Marco Rubio’s national Press Secretary.

Is there any reason to think Rupert Murdock would not send his Vice President’s daughter the questions Fox News will ask Marco Rubio to keep his campaign and the Soros/Murdock dream of amnesty and no borders alive?

If we nominate Marco Rubio this is how it works. They win; we lose.


Cruz pulls one more Clinton-like dirty trick before heading to New Hampshire

Ted Cruz

First it was the Clinton like intimidation letter scolding voters because Ted Cruz decided their past refusal to vote in the Iowa caucuses made them bad citizens. That was a planned eleventh hour “Oops that NEVER should have happened; why that’s terrible,” dirty trick worthy of Hillary and Bill Clinton.

Then on election night Cruz super supporter Republican Congressman Steve King – (a self- identified enemy of amnesty who has no trouble overlooking the pro amnesty Club For Growth’s support for Cruz) decided that Cruz needed another thumb on the scale and spread a lie about Ben Carson dropping out of the race with this tweet, “Carson looks like [he] is out. Iowans need to know before they vote. Most will go to Cruz, I hope.”

Now In true Clinton style, Cruz apologized to Carson, but of course it comes after the fact.

Cruz said, “What the team should have done is send around the follow-up statement from the Carson campaign clarifying that he was indeed staying in the race when that came out. That was a mistake from our end, and for that I apologize to Dr. Carson.”

In another Clintonian “Not me, It wasn’t me” statement Cruz tried to blame CNN for the “innocent mistake.” Cruz has said that CNN reported Carson was leaving the race; but CNN says, “No, we didn’t say that.” More than this, Carson’s wife “Candy” actually heard the lie being spread in a polling place in Ankeny. According to a report in the Dailymail, Mrs. Carson “actually walked in, on it being said,[and] gave a speech about no, he’s still in the race and that’s a lie”

So who should be believed, the media that has an agenda or a candidate who desperately needed a win?

If this tweet was a stand- alone “one time mistake” without any hint of a pattern it could be overlooked; but its similarity in sleaziness to the intimidation letter makes one wonder if it should be overlooked.

Supporting news story


This one is from Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard

Jeb Spends $2,884 Per Iowa Vote

Florida governor Jeb Bush received 5,165 votes in Iowa. His vote total constitutes 2.8 percent of the Republican turnout, placing him in sixth place in the Iowa caucus.

Yet no candidate in either party spent more in the race than Bush.

According to MSNBC, Bush spent $14.9 million in Iowa, all coming from Bush’s super PAC. (In fact, if one were to consider national ads and money from the campaign, the total would be significantly more.)

That means, the once Republican frontrunner spent $2,884 per Iowa vote.

Conservative Blogging from Coach Kevin Collins