A New Breed of Elephant: Conservative Outreach, Transcending Identity Politics, and Victory in the 21st Century

Just over a year ago I announced on this blog that I was undertaking a massive project to write a book about minority conservatives. The concept was vague and undefined, but I knew that it was something that I needed to do.

I didn’t have an agent, I didn’t have a publisher, and I didn’t have a name for the book.

One year later and I still don’t have an agent or a publisher, but I have named the book and I’m proud to announce that you can now pre-order it on Amazon. (Paperback copies will be available in mid-March).

The concept of the book changed as I worked on it and eventually settled on the topic of outreach. The minority conservatives I interviewed had so many good ideas for how to reach their communities and as I wrote I realized that this topic is probably the most important one that I could address.

That’s not all the book is about, but it is the majority of the writing. The book is filled with interviews from conservatives from as many backgrounds as I could find and their ideas, along with my own research, formed the basis for the rest of the book. You’ll also find out what the core principles of being a conservative are and what it’s like to be a minority conservative.

I sincerely hope that what I have written in this book does justice to the work of those interviewed and helps conservatism to move forward into the 21st century.

I proudly announce that A New Breed of Elephant: Conservative Outreach, Transcending Identity Politics, and Victory in the 21st Century will hit the web on March 1st, 2016.

Book Cover

Pre-order now on Amazon. 


Old Lies About Romney Make a Come Back with Populists…Time to Slap Them Down (AGAIN)…

By The Snark Who Hunts Back and The Conservative New Ager

Paul Ryan

The look on our faces every time these anti-Romney lies keep coming back.

So recently we’ve been seeing a string of complaints coming out the less intelligent, less thoughtful, and more populist/progressive quarters of the Right once again attacking Romney. And the problem is that the vast majority of these arguments boil down to two problems. The first problem is that they’re trotting out the same complaints that they used 4 years ago and were shown to be utterly without fact, basis, or sanity 4 years ago…and the second problem is that if you had a candidate to actually put up you would be singing their praises and not attacking the only competent candidate there is.   But the clearly the kind of people who prefer populists and progressives are the kind who like to repeat lies that have already been struck down, we might as well cover why these lies are horseshit once again…


So the first thing that all small minded people claiming to be conservative like to point to is Romneycare. They claim it’s the origin of Obamacare. Continue reading

An Open Letter: Ronald Reagan, The Big Tent, and Why the Gender I Sleep With Shouldn’t Determine My Suitability As a Republican Leader

A Message To The Republicans Who Care More About Someone’s Sexual Preference Than They Do Their Political Beliefs

The short version of this message is: were you born that stupid or did you just get hit on the head repeatedly as a child?

I don’t usually have a problem with these types, generally they come out in the comments sections of articles and have slightly better grammar (but comparable intelligence levels…okay, maybe that’s not fair) to the youtuber commentators who shout FAG!!!!111!1! at videos they don’t like.  Sometimes there’s the occasional  “conservative” blogger, talking head, or candidate, but they tend to get smacked down pretty quickly.

Other times, however, their stupid ideas need to be discussed out in the open. I’m talking about people who say things like:

Continue reading

Happy Birthday to the Gipper

You might find it hilarious that I didn’t know where that nickname for Ronald Reagan came from until a week or so ago. My dad and I were stuck in rush hour traffic, discussing old movies, and he mentioned Reagan’s roll in Knute Rockne.

That cleared up my confusion on the nickname by a lot.

So sue me, I haven’t watched a lot of Reagan’s films. I’ve always been more attracted to his political years for some reason.

This is his 102nd birthday and we are all left wondering how we have gone from a President like Reagan to a President like Obama.

It’s a bit depressing.

But let’s take this moment to remember a true American and a great President.

Continue reading

Reagan, AIDS, and Liberal Lies

Rock Hudson poses with Nancy and Ronald Reagan at a White House state dinner in 1984

Rock Hudson poses with Nancy and Ronald Reagan at a White House state dinner in 1984




Recently on my political tumblr I’ve been dealing with an onslaught of messages from liberals, criticizing my respect for Ronald Reagan, because, in their words A significant source of Reagan’s support came from the newly identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination. and Do you think that Reagan refused to do anything positive for aids stricken people because they were gay?

I can only be led to believe that, tumblr being a hive of liberal misinformation (like repeatedly posting links to satirical news sites as ‘proof’ that Romney wants to ban tampons), that this liberal lie has come around on the guitar again as a favored talking point.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that this is bullshit.

The first ridiculous idea here is the Reagan was some sort of homophobe.

First of all, the man worked in Hollywood and as Martin Anderson, a high level adviser to Reagan, said “I remember Reagan telling us that in Hollywood he knew a lot of gays, and he never had any problem with them,…I think a number of people who were gay worked for the Reagans,…We never kept track. But he never said anything even remotely like that comment in the movie. His basic attitude was ‘Leave them alone.'”

Reagan, in 1978, publicly opposed Proposition 6 in California, which called for the dismissal of teachers who ‘advocated’ for homosexuality.

“Whatever else it is,” Reagan wrote, “homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.” He also argued: “Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher’s personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes ‘advocacy’ of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher — should it pass — be considered advocacy?”

That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan’s opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.

Deroy Murdock (Anti-Gay Gipper: A lie about Reagan.)

Then there is the fact that Reagan’s own family denies that he was some sort of homophobe and they were none to pleased by hatchet job portrayal of the former President in the Showtime tv movie The Reagans.

According to the screenplay for “The Reagans,” my father is a homophobic Bible-thumper who loudly insisted that his son wasn’t gay when Ron took up ballet, and who in a particularly scathing scene told my mother that AIDS patients deserved their fate. “They who live in sin shall die in sin,” the writers and producers had him say.

Not only did my father never say such a thing, he never would have. If you have any doubts, read the recently published book of his letters. They reveal a man whose compassion for other people is deep and earnest, and whose spiritual life is based on faith in a loving God, not a vengeful one.I was about eight or nine years old when I learned that some people are gay — although the word ‘gay’ wasn’t used in those years. I don’t remember what defining word was used, if any; what I do remember is the clear, smooth, non-judgmental way in which I was told. The scene took place in the den of my family’s Pacific Palisades home. My father and I were watching an old Rock Hudson and Doris Day movie. At the moment when Hudson and Doris Day kissed, I said to my father, “That looks weird.” Curious, he asked me to identify exactly what was weird about a man and woman kissing, since I’d certainly seen such a thing before. All I knew was that something about this particular man and woman was, to me, strange. My father gently explained that Mr. Hudson didn’t really have a lot of experience kissing women; in fact, he would much prefer to be kissing a man. This was said in the same tone that would be used if he had been telling me about people with different colored eyes, and I accepted without question that this whole kissing thing wasn’t reserved just for men and women.

You should know this story because it’s something the producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron won’t tell you. They have exhibited astounding carelessness and cruelty in their depiction of my father and my entire family. They never consulted any family member, nor did they speak to anyone who has known us throughout the years.

Patti Davis (‘The Reagans,’ From One of Them)*

Then there comes this fantastical idea that liberal subscribe to which is that Reagan was happy that AIDS existed and did everything he could to stop it from being cured, because he was a homophobe who thought gays deserved to die of AIDS.


In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan’s proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed.

Table 5 of Johnson’s report shows annual federal AIDS spending during Ronald Reagan’s watch. This is hardly the portrait of a do-nothing presidency:
Government Spending on HIV/AIDS

Fiscal Year ($ Millions) % growth over previous year
1982 8
1983 44 450.00
1984 103 134.09
1985 205 99.03
1986 508 147.80
1987 922 81.50
1988 1,615 75.16
1989 2,322 43.78
Total 5,727

Source: Congressional Research Service

Deroy Murdock (Anti-Gay Gipper: A lie about Reagan.)

Funding for AIDS research went up 128.92% between 1982 and 1989!

That’s a lot of money folks, a LOT of money.

Could he have spent more? Yeah, probably. I mean were in hard economic times, but if it would have done any good to have more money spent on the research, I’m sure Reagan could have found the money somewhere.

But it wouldn’t have helped.

“You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole,” says Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World. “There were no anti-virals back then. The first anti-viral was AZT which came along in 1987, and that was for AIDS.” As an example of how blindly scientists and policymakers flew as the virus took wing, Fumento recalls that “in 1984, Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler predicted that there would be an AIDS vaccine by 1986. There is no AIDS vaccine to date.”

Reagan had no interest in letting gay people die. He had gay friends, ones that did in fact suffer from AIDS. He held no evangelical, Westboro Baptist, style hatred for gay people, as liberals want to make us believe.

We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.

– 1986 State of the Union address

*Please read the entirety of that article, it is fantastic and I had trouble choosing as little as I did to quote.