Browsing Category "Blog"
13 Apr
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

Mr. Ed: Central Park Horses

Issues such as housing and jobs have been put on the back burner by Democrats to address the more important topic; Central Park horses.  A $1 million ad by animal lovers is due to arrive soon, attacking Christine Quinn’s support of the horse-carriages. Quinn, who see’s herself as an animal lover, has proposed that she will seek a “no-kill” policy for the city’s animal shelters if elected, but that is not enough for the “real” animal lovers. On Wednesday a few dozen horse-carriage protestors met in the Upper West Side were the majority of them said they are single-issue voters. Enter Democrat candidate Bill de Blasio. If he wins, he promises on the very first day in City Hall, he will ban the horse-drawn carriages. Republican candidates have not issued any statements on the topic. Perhaps because they see housing, education, crime and security, and jobs as being more imperative.

16 Jun
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

No Room for Vice in Vice President

As this has been a very tight primary race with Romney finally emerging as the much anticipated Republican nominee, the vice presidential candidate will be more important than ever. In a race that is most likely going to come down to the crosshairs, the difference between gaining the most votes from independents, women or minorities could indeed come down to the Republican nominee’s choice for second-in-command both on the campaign trail and in an eventual White House takeover.

As Romney is gaining momentum as the Republican leader to unify the GOP, it will be indispensable to have more than a sidekick, but a strong and willful republican candidate in his own right. This potential running mate must possess strong qualities that people can trust and relate to. Furthermore, this person must be ready to fulfill the duties of president, no babbling Biden’s or unknown newbies.

Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor who many were rooting for in the early stages of primary season, would be a choice that could bring together Republicans from all ends of the spectrum, uniting the political party come election time. Meanwhile, Senator Rubio of Florida would help seal more of the Hispanic vote both in his own swing state and around the nation, a growing demographic that has the potential to decide an election.

This is Romney’s most crucial decision prior to the November polling period , and his team is most likely already in the process of experimenting with possible players. Right now the field is full of hungry thoroughbreds ready to run, and Romney must decide who has the greatest chance of helping him reach the finish line first. Christie’s deliberate mannerisms and debating skills would indeed give Governor Romney an edge as a no-nonsense political pundit who is ready and willing to take on President Obama. Rubio is a gentle faced Latino who won the hearts of voters in the Sunshine State, quickly rising up the ranks as a favorite frontrunner. His young family and vivacious vibrancy would bring great enthusiasm into the race, appealing to a new generation of young voters, a group known to sway more to the liberal left. It’s been said that JFK seemed to be the obvious choice for President after viewers noticed his Old World charm and good looks during a televised debate, and Romney and Rubio would certainly be quite a presidential looking pair.

A most ideal vice presidential candidate must have a strong record of supporting Republican ideals while also understanding what people are most unhappy with under the Obama administration, from healthcare to failed economic policies. He must rally the American spirit in the country, Independents and Tea Party consorts alike, a strong presence while also bringing an unrestrained enthusiasm for his candidate.

Those who helped establish Romney as a presidential figure during the nomination have most probably been receiving phone calls, such as Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, an undeniably crucial and close voting stomping grounds. In a race that is expected to be one of the closest in recent times, the state might very well determine the election.

While women’s issues have been a major concern in the country with contraception issues becoming a national religious as well as political debate, Romney has his pick of six diverse women in governorship roles throughout the country, yet it is unclear whether Romney will find it necessary to pick a woman to address these concerns. He will most likely want someone with some experience to fall back on so as to strengthen the long standing argument that Senator Obama was less than qualified to take on the role of president, leading to the country to fall into an even deeper recession, with failed economic policies and social reforms. Back on the campaign trail in 2008 when Obama promised to create a brighter future for the US, who voted for the one time senator on the premise he was planning to add healthcare for all onto the agenda? Rather, he was voted in to move the economy and create job growth, and now Romney and his soon to be VP must follow through on this failed promise.

As Romney just weeks ago clinched the nomination, he and his advisors will most definitely be researching and reviewing the candidates who will propel the fight even further. From prominent states to political pundits, the chosen one must possess the background and energy to make 2013 the year Republicans take back the reins.

2 May
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

Republican Common Sense vs. Democrat Ideology

There’s a really interesting lesson in messaging when observing President Obama’s claim for a second term, which not only conveniently reinforces his incompetence as U.S. President, but provides further insight into left-wing philosophy. His entire campaign and track record of the past four years is based on hypotheticals and subjectivity. There is very little that reminds voters of his capabilities (with the exception of the one decision he may have actually have gotten right, and by blowing it way out of proportion reminds us that the number of correct decision is in fact only one, but more on this later); rather there is much more about what could have happened, what would have happened, and what might happen next time… with different circumstances of course.

What WOULD Mitt Romney have done with the Osama Bin Laden raid? This of course isn’t helped by Mitt’s own varied nuances on the subject, but Obama’s strongest claim thus far is rooted in the possibility that his Republican opponent may have, could have acted differently. This mentality allows him to seamlessly take credit for many other things as well. There might have been unthinkable death, destruction and atrocity in Libya’s near future through by averting Congressional approval for military action, he prevented it. The lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies in the U.S., must be because of Obamacare. They must be because we have no proof of what would have happened differently had we not adopted the president’s plan.

By inflating and creating problems that may have existed without the course of action taken by the president, he has, by his own account, prevented countless disasters and a vast number problems that don’t actually exist. This allows him to hide the negative results of the actions he took, and run on the hypotheticals of false choices. This is, of course, not an entirely new course of action for presidents who by all objective observation have failed their country; but the extent to which this president demonizes his opposition for actions that were taken on under his own administration is truly unprecedented.

So let’s get back to the messaging part. Focusing your message only on what could have happened differently under a different course of action can arguably be done in any situation to make the alternative seem worse.  But, the hypothetical scenario can’t be proven because it didn’t really happen (that’s why it’s an alternative).  Is a trillion dollar stimulus really that bad when the alternative could have been unimaginable economic catastrophe that sent the nation into unforeseen economic depression?  Who’s to say but, of course, Obama.

This mentality attempts to avert objective comparison and use a hypothetical distortion of causal relationships to prove a point that is essentially not provable. Our current president champions this thinking, but it is particularly noticeable among all socialists/democrats/communists.  (Don’t kid yourself: they want the same things just at different speeds).

Republicanism is grounded in common sense; Democratic philosophy is grounded in ideology. It’s about what is vs. what should be… or what could be… or what might be different if this happened… That is the choice that we have in 2012.

20 Apr
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

Our Choice in 2012

Under president Obama’s authorization, over 147,000 government jobs have been created.  Thanks to public unions, who donate taxpayer dollars 95%-5% in favor of Democrats, public employee payrolls have continued to increase, while national private sector wages have been down three years in a row, and 401k’s have depreciated as much as 20%. At the same time, public unions demand that the taxpayers who fund their continuous pay increases and lavish trips to Vegas “pay their fair share.” Meanwhile, the very people the Democrats claim to support are falling behind, and scandal after scandal in the public sphere is treated as merely “business as usual.”

Is it just a coincidence that under president Obama’s watch, as 147,000 new employees have taken their seats thanks to the American taxpayer, scandals within his administration have run rampant? Solyndra, LightSquared, the GSA, the TSA, the Secret Service… the list goes on and on.

I think it’s time we all remind ourselves how incredibly contradictory and destructive left-wing philosophy truly is. We have to draw the moral convictions of the kind of society that we want to live in: one that demands sacrifice from men of ability in the name of “fairness,” or one that rewards productivity and ability in recognition of personal and societal advancement.

30 Mar
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

Newt is Right

I have to admit that I have never been a big fan of former Speak Newt Gingrich.  While I do believe that it was his leadership and the Republican controlled Congress (as opposed to President Clinton) that lead to the terrific economic expansion of the 1990s and the near elimination of the national debt, I have always found the former Speaker’s style to be less than, shall we say, polished and diplomatic.

Having said that, I still have greatly enjoyed following his 2012 presidential campaign.  Speaker Gingrich is obviously a very intelligent individual and possesses great debating skills.  His rebukes of the national media were spot on.  And, finally, whether you like him or not or whether if you agree with him or not, he clearly has a lot of interesting things to say.

As someone who was a boy during the Apollo years, one of his proposals that I found most interesting involved building a permanent base on the moon.  If you recall, when he made that proposal, he was universally mocked.  His opponents and the media called it a “hair-brained scheme” with no chance or basis in reality given our current economic condition.

It’s hard to believe that this reaction came from the same America that tamed the West, won the Cold War and put a man on the moon.  Sure, times are tough but that does not mean we can’t still have big dreams and goals.  Speaker Gingrich proposed bringing private enterprise into the mix, thereby truly opening up space to commercialization and privatization.  We used to call proposals like that “visionary” and “challenges worthy of our efforts” not hair-brained schemes and dumb ideas.  Many of our greatest undertakings were accomplished during tough economic times, particularly when we opened up the challenge to the private sector.  Perhaps Speaker Gingrich does not have the eloquence that President Kennedy had in the 1960s when he challenged us to put a man on the moon (he certainly doesn’t have the support and adoration of the media that Kennedy had) but he has a vision and has called on Americans to think outside the box and rethink our ideas about the exploitation of space.  Our nation needs to encourage, not discourage, such forward thinkers.  It is time again that we realize that the biggest obstacle to our ability to achieve great things comes not from economic statistics but from the naysayers and doubters among us who prefer to maintain the status quo.  If he contributed anything to the debate in this cycle, Speaker Gingrich reminded us that if we are to achieve great things, then we need to dream and imagine a nation not bound by the mundane constraints that will always exist.  In short, Speaker Gingrich reminded us that, as Americans, we should always remember to think big.

Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller.  He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg.  Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses.  A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village.  He may be reached at

29 Mar
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off


[man-deyt] noun a command or authorization to act in a particular way on a public issue 

I guess that you would have to be living under a rock not to know that this week the Supreme Court is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or, as it is more commonly known, Obamacare).  The act requires (i.e. forces or mandates) people to buy health insurance or be subject to a monetary penalty.

When all the hyperbole and posturing is set aside, the essential question before the Court is: does the federal government have the power to force people to buy a particular product (in this case health insurance).  Let’s stop for a moment and consider that.  If the federal government has the power to force citizens to buy health insurance, what else do they have the power to force us to do?  If the Court holds that the mandate is constitutional, would there be anything left that the federal government does not have the power to force us to do?  It stands to reason that if they can force us to buy something, then they would also be able to force us not to buy something.  One can only imagine how those who oppose the Second Amendment could use that argument to further restrict our right to bear arms.

The irony here is that, when proposed, the mandate provision was seen as the “least intrusive” and “most conservative” way to achieve universal health care.  The theory was that the alternative, the government actually providing the insurance (i.e. the “public option”) would create a socialistic type government bureaucracy that would take us way beyond the welfare state.  Mandating or forcing people to buy health insurance was more acceptable, according to this logic, because what the government was essentially doing was “forcing” people to take responsibility for themselves.  And after all, this line of thought concludes, what could be more appealing to conservatives than people taking responsibility for themselves?

No question that the public option would have blown the already dangerously high federal deficit through the roof.  It would have destroyed any chance at achieving the fiscal discipline that we so desperately need.  But, come on!  We Republicans believe in and champion personal responsibility because it leads to optimal innovation and efficiency.  To the contrary, we believe that one does not take responsibility for himself if he is being forced to do so.  Americans do not need the government to tell us to be responsible.  Responsible Americans built this country without the need for mandates.  It’s time we again realize that responsibility comes from within and cannot be imposed by a government bureaucracy.  If we let this “most conservative” approach to universal health care stand, we will surrender the last bits of freedom and dignity we have left, i.e., the freedom and dignity to be responsible for ourselves and to determine our own destinies.

Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller.  He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg.  Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses.  A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village.  He may be reached at

27 Mar
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

Attacking Each Other

Last week, Rick Santorum said that if Mitt Romney were to be the GOP nominee this fall, the nation “might as well” stick with Obama, implying that, at least in Santorum’s opinion, there is no difference between Romney and Obama.

Wow!  A GOP candidate for President says that we should vote for the Democrat incumbent over the GOP candidate if Romney is the nominee.

Now, I am no shrinking violet.  I am a veteran of a few campaigns as well as a native New Yorker.  I know that politics is a dirty game and things are said in the heat of the moment when candidacies are at stake.  Heck, I can even recall Ronald Reagan, who had a famous 11th commandment about not speaking ill of fellow Republicans, saying a few choice words about his opponents like Jerry Ford and George H.W. Bush.

However, in all my years following GOP politics I have never heard a Republican candidate say on national TV that we should vote for the Democrat over the Republican.  Ronald Reagan would be rightfully ashamed of Mr. Santorum.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not arguing that Gov. Romney is the perfect (or even preferred) standard bearer for us this fall.  But we are all Republicans and we shouldn’t be here if we don’t believe that Governor Romney or any other GOP candidate is preferable to Mr. Obama.

For the sake of ego, Santorum is exploiting the potential schism which has simmered within our party for some time.  He is encouraging the unraveling of the party by bating those in our party who spend their time calling fellow Republicans names like “RINOS” and identifying a strict code which one must swear to if he or she is going to be deemed a “true” Republican.  Santorum makes us forget that the fundamental reason why we are Republicans is because we believe in a free economy and a limited government which does not overly intrude into our lives.  All those who believe the same should be welcomed into our party in the same way that Ronald Reagan welcomed so many new Republican voters in 1980 and 1984 and stitched together a winning coalition which gave him a mandate to cut taxes and limit the size of government.  If alive today, I imagine that President Reagan would be appalled to hear fellow Republican calling each other RINOs.  I imagine that he would also be disgusted by the comments made by Rick Santorum.

Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller.  He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg.  Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses.  A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village.  He may be reached at

27 Mar
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

All My Sons

Last week, President Obama commented on the death of Trayvon Martin.  Obama said that if he had a son, his son would look like Trayvon.

I found this comment to be extremely disappointing and totally inappropriate.

First, what does Obama’s comment mean?  Is it because Trayvon was black that he looks like Obama’s hypothetical son?  Suppose Obama was white and looked like the now son (once daughter) of Cher.  Would the President have said that if he had a son, his son would look like George Zimmerman?  (As an aside, doesn’t the most frequently shown photo of Mr. Zimmerman bear a striking resemblance to Chaz Bono?)  In either case, what does this mean? How is the physical resemblance of any individual an appropriate factor in this case?

Instead of pandering, what Obama should have said was that we should reserve judgment until we know all of the facts of the case and, as things stand now, we still need to learn what actually happened that night.  Obama should have reminded people that, in America, one is innocent until proven guilty and that Mr. Zimmerman has a right to remain silent in the face of the current ongoing media maelstrom.  He should have reminded us that Mr.  Zimmerman’s silence is not indicative of his guilt, but rather, may be a carefully planned legal strategy.  (As both an attorney and a law professor, Obama knows darn well that any lawyer worth his salt who may be advising Mr. Zimmerman would tell him to keep a low profile given the current situation.)

As the President of all the United States, Obama could stand to take a lesson from Joe Keller, the protagonist of the 1947 Arthur Miller play All My Sons.  After cheating on a government contact which resulted in the death of Americans, Joe Keller realizes that his greatest sin was not cheating the government but rather was failing to realize that all Americans are his (and, by implication, our) sons.  Unlike Joe Keller, Obama is wrong not to realize that George Zimmerman could just have easily been his son too.

Joseph Mendola, a native New Yorker and a graduate of Columbia Law School was the 2009 Republican candidate for NYC Comptroller.  He received nearly 200,000 votes, the most of any Republican running for office in NYC in 2009 except for Michael Bloomberg.  Joe is licensed to practice law in New York, New Jersey and Florida. He works in the securities industry and holds 10 different FINRA sponsored licenses.  A direct survivor of 9/11, Joe lives with his 2 young children in one of America’s greatest liberal bastions, New York City’s Greenwich Village.  He may be reached at

19 Dec
Posted in: Blog
By    2 Comments

Divide and Conquer

Quick – a test for you, reader.

Think conservative.  Think of the types of people who are, generally speaking, conservative.  Name some you know.

Now think liberal; liberal types of people; liberal people you know.  Keep both groups in mind for a few minutes.

It is only natural to grow accustomed to certain assumptions: you would never, for example, critically re-examine why it is better to have an umbrella when it rains.  Obviously, it helps to keep you dry.  But as other to ideas we hold, such as who constitutes the typical liberal or conservative, a shifting political reality demands that we apply a critical eye.

What does our news media, popular entertainment, and pop culture tell us about how we’re supposed think about liberals and conservatives?  I’ll elaborate my perspective on this question.

Who are the “liberals?”  They’re women, minorities, gays, “transient workers,” the poor, (now apparently) the “middle class,” and union workers.  If you listen to Democrats, they’ll tell you story after horror story about people in these neatly divided classes who have suffered at the hand of big business, racism, an unjust criminal code, and sexism.

And the conservatives?  The conservatives, particularly the “Republicans,” are white males, religious people, the “rich,” and a curious mix of racists and rednecks, either seething with hatred of all minorities or madly in love with their guns, if not both. If you listen to elected Republicans, too many waste precious news time explaining that they’re not really racist, that they really do care about the “middle class,” and oppose theocracy.  Fortunately for these weak “leaders,” such as Mr. Boehner, very few conservatives are listening to their weak voices.

Now think back to your initial groups.  Check it against your daily experience.  Speaking personally, I know conservative gays, conservative women, conservative union members, conservative immigrants (legal, of course), conservative teachers, etc.  I know wealthy liberals.  I know lower middle class conservatives.  You probably do too.

So what?  The groups aren’t perfect, you say, but they’re more or less accurate.  It’s true that groups typically associated with Democrats vote for them, and the same goes for Republicans.  What kind of a ridiculous article is this?

May I implore the good reader to think deeper?  Democrats, it is indisputable, seek to portray Republicans as uncaring because they are relatively more resistant to extending special privileges to (read: pandering to) certain factions of the population.  Said Speaker Pelosi in October: “Under this bill, when the Republicans vote for this bill today, they will be voting to say that women can die on the floor and health care providers do not have to intervene if this bill is passed. It’s just appalling.”  As underwhelming as Speaker Boehner is, it’s difficult to imagine that he wants any part of women dying on the floor.

Such revolting rhetoric is symptomatic of a political party that no longer represents all citizens.  Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all of the Democrat leadership have adopted an extremely cynical and destructive agenda and campaigning tactics that divide us by race, sex, and income bracket.  On the promise of rewarding 50.1% of the population at the expense of the other 49.9%, they are staking virtually all their election prospects.  Such a campaign is guaranteed to be poisonous, angry, personal, and downright dirty.  Democrats have themselves made this explicit:

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.

Democrats know, through recent experience, that their promises for a better country are lies.  The “working class,” after 3 years of Obama, is suffering with extraordinary unemployment, debt, and loss of personal freedom.  The black community is suffering especially hard.  All kinds of Americans are languishing under a vigorous and systematic statist agenda, one that proscribes private property rights and selectively applies laws, to say nothing of its dangerously inept foreign policy.  Obama and his advisers know that the economy is stalled; they admit just that each time Obama says “Pass this bill now!”

But why would they do this?  The reason is not difficult to understand, but can difficult to believe and accept.  Democrats are power hungry.  They want a permanent class of overlords, managers, intellectuals, and state-funded “scientists.”  In capitalist countries, like traditional America, a permanence of power among a small clique is exceptionally rare.  The greatest families of this nation – the Morgans, the Rockefellers, the Vanderbuilts, the Roosevelts – achieved power, sure.  But not power that spans centuries, like the aristocracy and royalty of Europe.  To achieve longevity requires the co-opting of the political system.

These ideas may sound conspiratorial, but they have a long, written history.  Plato’s Republic was “ideal,” presumably fair, and totalitarian.  Skipping the various manifestations of tyranny that spanned the Middle Ages, French philosophers revived the myth of a virtuous ruling class that could eradicate the troubles of life.  Saint-Simon imbued Auguste Comte with a false knowledge of man, Comte in turn influenced Hegel, and it was Hegel who gave Marx his famous dialectic.  (See Hayek.)  Rousseau contributed the romantic notion of a virtuous natural world beleaguered only by corrupt human institutions.  The destruction of Western political culture comes from those who always promise smarter “rule” through revolution.

Among a massive state apparatus that treats a citizen like a client there is no room for a party that represents a free people, much less a free people to elect such a party.  The people vote for Party A, because A promises to give more to more people than Party B.  It’s impossible to promise two people the same loaf of bread, but it is possible to offer them the same nebulous entitlement program.  See Canada, where neither party opposes nationalized healthcare in principle, but only in trivial detail.  See England, where Prime Minister Cameron meekly manages a dangerous decline.  See Europe, as it erupts in chaos as a result of diminishing rations.  Yet in all the turmoil and debt, do you see any political party in Canada, the U.K., or the EU standing athwart history?  Do you hear them yelling stop?

America’s unique tradition of liberty has preserved the freedom of her citizens.  Right now, our nation’s future is in danger.  Democrats are potentially one election away from cementing their agenda to remake the American government into a giant corporation, thus rendering the American people customers without any alternatives or legal recourse.  Fundamental transformation is their stated goal, and divide and conquer is their strategy for victory.

Speaker Boehner and every presidential candidate should explain to the American people what is at stake.  Explain what President Reagan meant when he said:

Since when do we in America believe that our society is made up of two diametrically opposed classes – one rich, one poor – both in a permanent state of conflict and neither able to get ahead except at the expense of the other? Since when do we in America accept this alien and discredited theory of social and class warfare? Since when do we in America endorse the politics of envy and division?

Do not let yourself be identified as your government as anything else but an American, and reject the familiar caricature of political identities.  Demand nothing more than your rights.    This staid mentality will be what saves us or won’t.

5 Dec
Posted in: Blog
By    Comments Off

Support Doug Urbanski NOW!

Dear Readers,

Reagan’s famous “11th Commandment” warned that ““Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Maybe I recommend a 12th?

“Thou shalt not abandon fellow Republicans in the fight against liberalism” …  Which brings me to a letter I received from a friend.

“William,” it read “Do you remember a few months back you helped me out with Conservative talk show host, Douglas Urbanski? You were so kind enough to announce it on the [NYYRC] website…. Well… due to Liberal [expletive deleted] The Doug Urbanski Show is going to be off the air in ten days. The show has high ratings. But a new bunch of peeps are coming in, that leans towards Liberal ideas, and Doug is out.”

While I have no doubt that Doug, conservative broadcaster and Hollywood agent, will find new work – and that the liberal who replaces him will fail, just like the pathetic Air America – let’s show our support for those who speak our values by visiting his website and listening to his show!  He has another 10 shows left.

Tune in!  Call in!  Send a message that in these perilous times, conservatives won’t be marginalized.  It’s through grassroots activism like this that we will win our country back.

Very sincerely yours,


P.S. – You can visit his producer’s conservative website here:

P.P.S. – It wasn’t such a bad expletive.  Just “schmucks.”  But it was hard to resist the reference.