In Texas CD-2, voting is as simple as

The Texas CD-2 GOP congressional primary is an interesting race this year. To begin with, you seldom have a single challenger to an incumbent, in the incumbent’s party primary. When there is a challenger to an incumbent in his party’s primary, it’s usually because the challenger sees a lot of perceived dissatisfaction with the incumbent, within his own party. So what does it say when you have three challengers to an incumbent in his own party primary?

Well, that’s what we have in CD-2. Moreover, all three appear to be far to the right of Crenshaw. That’s not to say that they are off-the-chart radicals. It just means that since Crenshaw is so moderate, it’s not difficult to be to the right of him.

The three conservative challengers are (in alphabetic order) Jameson Ellis, Martin Etwop, and Milam Langella. I have met and spoken at length with all three of them. I’ll try to describe each of them in a phrase. Martin Etwop is clearly the most Christian man in the race, being a missionary, who grew up under socialism and who wants to stop it from coming here. Jameson Ellis is a take-no-prisoners conservative, who conservative hard-liners will really like and the Establishment will hate. Milam Langella is a 100% service disabled veteran, who appears to be a strong conservative, but is somewhat more nuanced than Ellis.

Frankly, they are all such fine conservative candidates that I am having trouble deciding which one to vote for. Issues aside, in a runoff debate, I think Langella would be able to keep Crenshaw from using his all-too-common “disabled vet” ploy, to avoid questions he doesn’t want to answer, since Langella, being a 100% disabled vet, would throw it back in Crenshaw’s face, in spades. Even so, my general impression, after speaking with all three of them, is that in a runoff debate against Crenshaw, either Ellis or Etwop would be slightly better overall debaters, than would Langella. But they are all three far more committed conservatives than Crenshaw.

In CD-2, there are a lot of conservatives who are not just dissatisfied with Rep. Dan Crenshaw, but we are totally fed up with him. Not only has the guy turned out to be an Establishment lackey, but he has become increasingly insulting and condescending to his constituents, who ask him potentially embarrassing questions.

I’ll get on to political issues in a moment. But first, I want to talk about Crenshaw’s attitude and total disrespect for the constituents for whom he works – an attitude which should not be acceptable for any candidate, for any position, at any level of government, for either party… OK. Maybe the democrats might put up with such disrespect of their constituents. But Republicans should not accept Crenshaw’s open contempt for constituents, who ask him tough questions.

I have seen him, on multiple occasions, being disrespectful of constituents, who asked him potentially embarrassing questions. But what I saw the other day was not only beyond being acceptable for a GOP congressman, it was beyond belief that any elected official, even a Democrat, would act that way. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee is one of my favorite Democrats to ridicule. But I have never seen her be as disrespectful to her constituents, as was Crenshaw to one of his.

A teenage girl, who was participating in her first ever election, politely asked Crenshaw to clarify his recent statement, in which he referred to Jesus as a “hero archetype”. Let me be clear. This young girl did not accuse Crenshaw of anything. She did not berate him. She did not in any way form her question as a challenge or phrase it to make him look bad. She was not trying to set a rhetorical trap for him. All she did was meekly ask him to clarify his previous statement. In fact, it was phrased almost as if she might have even been trying to give him a softball version of the question that everyone knew had to be coming.

But Crenshaw flew off into a rage, shouting, “Don’t question my faith! Don’t question my faith!” He seriously embarrassed the young girl, when he should have taken the opportunity to use that question as a teaching moment for a new voter. His rant went on for some time, even though many in the audience were booing him. But it didn’t end there.

Later, when an older gentleman managed to say that, as a voter, it was his duty to question everything about candidates, the look that Crenshaw gave the old guy had several people nearby thinking that he was about to get violent. After a moment, Crenshaw just shouted his well practiced litany again, “Don’t question my faith!” and walked off.

As Crenshaw left, one person nearby said to nobody in particular, “Maybe we should be questioning your PTSD,” which drew sad nods and mumbles of acknowledgement from the few people who heard it. In my long life, I have never seen any candidate treat any constituent the way Crenshaw treated those two voters. It was embarrassing, not only to the two constituents, who were the targets of his attacks, but to all the voters present, who had to watch that display of arrogance and condescension.

If I knew nothing else about Crenshaw, his display of arrogance and condescension for his constituents would be more than enough to make me want to vote against him. Regardless of his politics, he is definitely NOT the TYPE of person we should want representing us in Congress.

But the old guy was right. As voters, it is incumbent upon all of us to question everything about every candidate, including questions of faith. Then, if there are questions that a candidate doesn’t want to answer, we have the answer in the candidate’s silence on the issue.

Crenshaw doesn’t want his faith questioned. So, we have our answer.

But let’s get on to the political issues.

Although Crenshaw votes with conservatives more often than not, most conservatives want a congressman who votes conservative ALL of the time. In Crenshaw’s case, the times he has voted with the Establishment and against conservatives, were on issues critical to conservatives. Crenshaw has called for Red Flag Laws and actually voted for a Red Flag Law. If you are not familiar with the term, “Red Flag Laws,” they are laws that attempt to bypass due process and allow guns to be confiscated from ordinary people, for no better reason that a specified public official thinks that the person could, possibly, under the right circumstance, become a danger to themselves or others. Read this tweet from Crenshaw.

Not only has Crenshaw actively supported Red Flag Laws, but when challenged on his support of Red Flag Laws, he doubled down on his support of Red Flag Laws, calling his own conservative constituents, who opposed his anti-gun agenda, “emotionally triggered.” That’s right. If you oppose Crenshaw’s Red Flag agenda, they he considers you “emotionally triggered.”

He went on to say that ” ‘Red Flag Law’ is a general concept. There can be good ones and there can be bad ones.”

That is Crenshaw’s own words! He actually said on video, looking straight at the camera, that there can be good Red Flag Laws. This wasn’t some video, where someone surprised him and he had to respond without time to compose his words. This is his own video! Most of that video concerns him making excuses for Red Flag Laws and talking about how Red Flag Laws could be made acceptable. You can find the whole video on Youtube. But if, like me, you’re a conservative, then the following eight seconds is all you need to hear.

This Establishment RINO wants us to believe the impossible! He wants us to believe that there can be such a thing as a Good Red Flag Law”!!!

Such a thing as a “Good Red Flag Law” is not remotely within the realm of possibility!

On the other hand, if you think that there can be a good and constitutional way to take a gun from an otherwise law-abiding citizen, for something that he might, possibly do, then maybe Dan Crenshaw is your guy.

Just remember that there are already many laws on the books all across the country, that bans convicted felons, those with a Dishonorable Discharge, and those under certain types of restraining orders, from carrying or, under certain circumstances, even owning a gun.

Let me repeat, those laws are already in place.

Red Flag Laws are aimed at you and me – not criminals.

For example, an anti-2nd Amendment teacher could find out that little Tommy’s father owns a gun, so she starts asking Tommy questions about his family, looking for cause to report Tommy’s father. A few weeks later, she learns that Tommy’s father’s pipeline contract job just ended. So, she reports Tommy’s father, under the Red Flag Law. As a teacher, she would probably be considered to be a person of “standing”, so her report would be all that would be required. She reports that Tommy’s father just lost his job and is probably distraught about it. She says that she fears for Tommy and his mother. The next thing you know, there is a knock on the door of Tommy’s home and the police are there to confiscate any guns that may be in the house and Tommy’s father has no recourse except to file suit. It wouldn’t matter that the job loss was nothing but the normal end of a contract job, which happens several times a year in the pipeline industry. It’s a case of “guilty, until proven innocent.”

“Guilty, until proven innocent” is what Crenshaw supports.

There can be no such thing as a “Good Red Flag Law”!

But Dan Crenshaw thinks there can be such a thing… Well, let me correct that statement. That’s what he wants you to think.

And if some or even all of his constituents don’t think like him, then he calls those who disagree with him, “emotionally triggered” and then uses that identification as his own personal “Red Flag”, to justify ignoring those constituents.

As a side note, it occurs to me that, should Crenshaw’s “good” Red Flag Law be enacted, his anger issues would actually make him a target for Red Flag gun confiscation. That would be perfect karma. Think about it…

But, moving on, Crenshaw was also one of 79 RINOs, who voted FOR a bill to strengthen existing state vaccine databases. Some conservatives go further, claiming that it would create a new vaccine database. But I can find nothing in the bill that would do that. So don’t be confused by claims from either side that it has to do with new databases. The point is that Crenshaw followed Establishment orders and voted “Yes,” while real conservatives voted “No.”

Crenshaw is not even close to being the conservative he wants us to believe he is.

Some other left-wing and/or big-government bills for which he has voted:

  • For the so-called COVID relief bill and $1.4 trillion special interest spending,
  • For the National Defense Authorization Act, without Section 230 reforms,
  • For reducing accountability in Congress by defining federal pay as mandatory spending,
  • For a $19 billion spending bill without funding for the border crisis, which conservatives demanded be part of the bill,
  • For the so-called ‘gag and vote for it’ small-business-killing coronavirus emergency legislation,
  • For a $555 billion Christmas minibus spending spree.

So, while Crenshaw has voted with conservatives more than two-thirds of the time, it has mostly been at times when the rest of the Establishment voted with conservatives and when he voted against conservatives, it has mostly been on issues that are very important to conservatives, but when the Establishment voted against conservatives.

Dan Crenshaw is only a conservative when it is convenient to be conservative and when it helps advance his credentials within the GOP Establishment and super PACs.

As many people reading this may already know, I am a big supporter of the FAIRtax. I’ve even written books in support of the FAIRtax. So it should come as no surprise that I talked FAIRtax with all three of the conservatives in the race.

All three conservatives in the race have all signed the FAIRtax Candidate Pledge and show a very good understanding of it. On the other hand, Crenshaw has been in Congress for two sessions, from a district that has many FAIRtax supporters, and he has yet to sign on as a co-sponsor to The FAIRtax (H.R.25).

This is just one more indication that Crenshaw is owned by the Establishment. They don’t want the FAIRtax, since it would take away their ability to play favorites with the tax code, in exchange for super PAC donations.

There is one more thing to consider. Despite the massive evidence to the contrary – evidence that has yet to be investigated – Crenshaw does NOT believe that the 2020 election was stolen, does NOT want that overwhelming evidence to actually be investigated, and he is very vocal in saying so.

So, what is my endorsement in the CD-2 race?

The answer is as simple as “A-B-C”.

There will almost certainly be a runoff in this race and there are three excellent conservatives in the race. I keep going between them and can’t seem to settle on one. I will say this. Martin Etwop is one of the most genuinely nice people I have ever met. Normally, being nice could be a handicap for a congressman. But I think Martin’s experience, growing up under socialism, gives him a perspective-based determination that more than makes up for his being too nice. I only mention this, because I don’t want anyone thinking that Martin is too nice to be a congressman. If there is one candidate who I believe will be most tenacious, it would be Jameson Ellis. When taking to him, I saw someone who was been awakened by Trump and who has become driven to return this nation to the Constitution. But don’t write off Milam Langella. After all, if Langella makes the runoff and Crenshaw tries to play his disabled vet card, as he often tends to do, when he has tough questions that he doesn’t want to answer, disabled vet Langella will toss it back in his face, in spades. You can see my quandary. They are all far more dedicated conservatives than Dan Crenshaw.

The important point is that conservatives must have a horse in the runoff race. Otherwise we lose. Since all three conservative candidates are great, we just have to keep Crenshaw below 50% in the primary, to force a runoff, where any one of the conservatives will win in a walk.

So my recommendation really is as simple as “A-B-C”.

This is not about support for any particular candidate. I don’t work for any of the conservative candidates. The first time I met any of them was when I interviewed them. All three of Crenshaw’s challengers are fine and honorable conservatives, who will respect their constituents and not throw hissy fits, like Crenshaw, when constituents ask tough questions. I asked tough questions and they all answered those questions with grace and politeness. They are all solid, dependable conservatives, who will take orders only from the voters of CD-2. Some time in the next few days, I may release a more specific recommendation. But, at this time, my recommendation for CD-2 voters is “A-B-C”.

Anybody But Crenshaw.

We, the voters of CD-2 should all be proud to have any one of the three conservative challengers, as our representative in Congress. I urge you to vote for one of these three conservatives in the CD-2 race (listed in alphabetic order). Click on the names to learn more.

Follow us on social media

In Texas CD-8, voters have an important decision and a clear choice.

As this is being written, there are still nine candidates vying for Kevin Brady’s open seat in Congress. But only three have any chance of winning.

When Congressman Brady announced that he would not seek re-election, a host of people registered as candidates for that seat. I think that, at one time, there were as many as 17 declared candidates. But lack of funds and popular support quickly eliminated several candidates. A few more hung in for a while, but one-by one, several more candidates who had no chance of winning, quietly dropped out of the race. But unfortunately, there are still six also-rans in this race, who continue to act as spoilers and their continued presence in the race could insure that a RINO wins this seat.

What bothers me is that at least two of them are fine conservatives, who I have met and spoken with at length. I would like to see both of those two candidates in some political office some day. But if they stay in the race, then any chance that they might ever have to win any office will go down in flames, right along with their CD-8 campaign. Neither what I think, nor whatever their reasons for staying in the race and handing the race to an Establishment RINO, will matter to the voters. The voters will simply see them as selfish spoilers, whose greed for power, overruled their desire to help the voters of the district. I’m sure that is not the case for all of them. But that’s what the voters will see.

I should mention here, one former candidate for this seat, who has gone against the grain and who I hope will some day run for another office. He is a strong conservative, who refused to become a spoiler. Not long ago, Ryan Jarchow, evaluated the race and the remaining candidates and saw a real need to withdraw from the race and endorse the single conservative candidate in this race, who could defeat the two well funded Establishment RINOs.

I commend Ryan Jarchow for his tenacity, in staying in the race as long as he did, for his dedication to the conservatives of CD-8, by withdrawing when he did, and for not just quietly disappearing from the scene, but for publicly endorsing Jonathan Hullihan, who is the only conservative candidate who has proven that his candidacy has the legs to not just keep up with the two Establishment RINOs, but to defeat them.

But let’s get back to the issue at hand.

There are two well funded Establishment RINOs in the CD-8 race – Morgan Luttrell and Christian Collins. Even without looking at who is behind each of them, you can tell that they are lackeys for the Establishment, simply by looking at their campaign finances.

Unless a candidate is an incumbent or is already a millionaire, with lots of millionaire friends, he will build up his campaign chest over a period of months. But both Luttrell and Collins saw an influx of large amounts of money, almost immediately upon announcing their campaigns. But neither one of them are multimillionaires. That tells us that there is a very good chance that they are both already bought and paid for. But you decide.

On the other hand, Jonathan Hullihan has managed to raise enough money, in small donations, to become a leader in the race, without Establishment money. He is the only one of the top three candidates who is definitely NOT owned by anyone but the voters of CD-8, because that’s where the vast majority of his support has come from.

All candidates, for all offices, tend to answer to those who provide the most campaign funds. So do you want a congressman who is owned by the Establishment and super PACs or do you want a congressman who answers to you?

Also look at the people who are behind each of them. Luttrell is endorsed by one of the biggest RINOs in Texas, former governor, Rick Perry. Collins is backed by Sen. Ted Cruz, who began kowtowing to the Establishment even before he was sworn into the Senate. Jonathan Hullihan, by contrast, has no such baggage.

So let’s take a closer look at the top three candidates.

Christian Collins (The “Kid”): 

“Kid” Collins

We’ll start with the one who is easiest to eliminate. Christian Collins has spent his entire post college life as a political gopher and gate keeper for politicians and candidates. He has zero real-world experience. However, the Kid has made plenty of political contacts. Unfortunately, they are all within the GOP Establishment and Super PACS.

Many years ago, Gov. John Connally told me that “In politics, success is not about who you know, but about who owes you.” He told me that most politicians owe favors to hundreds of people and organizations, which means they are “owned” by the people to whom they owe favors and those people usually don’t have the best interest of that politician’s constituents at heart. He emphasized that, if you want to serve your constituents, you have to have others owing you favors, not the other way around.

Now, with that in mind, ask yourself this. Is a political gopher one who is likely to collect favors or owe favors? Hint: A political gopher has nothing to offer, in the way of favors.

Then think about the fact that when Collins announced his candidacy, he had lots of large donations to his campaign in very short order. Those two facts, alone should tell you that he is obviously already owned.

One of the most disconcerting issues with Collins, is that, although he is now running on a hard-line immigrations platform, Breitbart recently uncovered the thesis that Collins had tried to hide, in which he suggested that Republicans should be less opposed to Amnesty, in order to attract more hispanic voters. Click on the link. Read it for yourself. But don’t get me wrong. What bothers me is not that he once wrote a paper, in which he advocated that Republicans should be softer on immigration, but that he did his best to try to hide that fact. People change their positions all the time. But when a politician tries to hide what he said in the past, it’s usually because he has not really changed his past opinion and doesn’t want voters to look too hard at his current statements.

Has Collins changed his position on Amnesty or is he just following the instructions of those who own him? I can’t say for sure. Maybe he was just trying to hide it, because it was so full of grammatical errors. (It really was. I read all 88 pages and he should have failed on poor grammar, alone.) I just know that something about his trying to hide his thesis doesn’t feel right. So, you decide. However, before you do, read his thesis and watch the Kid in the debate. Then you decide if he has changed his opinion and if so, why.

In the debate, Collins came off as a kid, who felt entitled. It’s as though he thinks that, having been a political gopher for years, somehow entitles him to a seat in Congress. I encourage you to watch the debate. You’ll see what I mean. Collins spoke in sound bites and tried, unsuccessfully, to avoid answering several questions, while obfuscating several others.

One of my favorite attempts by the Kid, at dodging the question, was when all three candidates were asked, “Do you live in and own property in the district?” The other two candidates simply answered, “Yes,” as a single answer to both questions. Collins used a debating tactic that often works against inexperienced debaters. He answered only part of the question, by saying, “Yes. I live in the district”. This is a debating tactic aimed at diverting attention from the fact that he has no property ownership ties to the district.

That dodge might have worked, had he not been debating a lawyer. But Hullihan, being a former JAG officer, is an experienced debater and was not going to let that one pass. So he pointedly asked the Kid if he actually “owned” property in the district, to which Collins was finally forced to answer, “No,” to that part of the original question.

Watch the debate!

In fact, property ownership in the district is an important issue. After all, you don’t want a congressman who will do what so many others have done and go to Washington, get a place there, and have no ties back to District 8. For the record, Kevin Brady, who held this seat since 1997, owned property in the district, his family lived here, and he spent every possible weekend back in the district.

I strongly suspect that a Kid, who has been a political gopher since college and doesn’t own property in the district, would be the most likely of the three candidates in the debate, to become one of those DC denizens, who would be more interested in attending DC parties and making more contacts to further his political career, than to come home on weekends and talk to constituents about what they want.

Throughout the debate, Collins tried several logical fallacies and dodges, to avoid questions for which the answers might prove inconvenient or embarrassing to him. He even tried asking the audience questions, as a diversion. The moderator had to keep him on subject. Even when he was on subject, he spoke in conservative sound bites and showed no indication of having any ideas of his own. That means that, if he were go to DC, he would be easily manipulated by the Establishment… that is, if he wasn’t already owned by the Establishment.

Near the end of the debate, the candidates were asked if they supported the FAIRtax. Collins answered a simple, “Yes.” But this raises a question. His name does not appear on the website, as having signed the FAIRtax Candidate Pledge. Furthermore, it’s not because he doesn’t know about the Pledge. I personally contacted him at his campaign kickoff event, to ask him to sign the pledge. He told me, at that time, that he supported the FAIRtax. But when I asked him what features of the FAIRtax influenced his support, he was unable to answer. Worse, instead of admitting that he didn’t understand it, he tried to bluff his way through, proving that he knew little or nothing about the FAIRtax, that he said he supported. He then made a poor attempt at changing the subject.

Watch the debate!

So what we have is a Kid who wants to be our congressman, who supports a bill that he doesn’t understand. What’s wrong with this picture? The FAIRtax (H.R.25) is a great bill. There is not a thing wrong with it. But if this kid understood it enough to support it, he should have been able to come up with at least one thing he liked about it – just one. What if it was a different bill that had something bad in it. Do you want a representative who supports bills (any bills) that he doesn’t understand and then tries to run a bluff, when he is questioned about that bill? Do you want a congressman who votes for bills, before he understands them?

Fortunately, Collins did a very good job in the debate, of nailing his campaign coffin shut… at least where people watching the debate were concerned. One thing is certain. The more people who watch that debate, the fewer votes Collins will get.

Watch the debate!

Morgan Luttrell (The “Bouncer”) 

This is “Bouncer” Luttrell at his best.

This is “Bouncer” Luttrell at his worst.

Before we get to the real issues, I feel like I must get one embarrassing issue out of the way. Luttrell would be an embarrassment to the voters of CD-8. One commenter on the live feed expressed what many were thinking:

“Luttrell looks like someone drug him from the bar straightened his tie [threw] water on his face an pushed him on stage 😂 

Having someone like Luttrell as the district’s congressman would probably lower property values across the district, because decent Texans would be embarrassed to say they lived in a district represented by such a gauche person. OK. I’m kidding, there. But truthfully, the way he comports himself would definitely be an embarrassment to the voters of the district. He looks like he is angry all the time. But then, that’s probably a look he had to perfect, during his days as a bouncer (really). But that look and open anger that worked in the bar room, won’t help him get things done in Washington.

This does raise a question. If the Bouncer were to go to Congress, would the Speaker of the House be allowed to use a different phrase to address him. After all, Luttrell would certainly not fit the traditional term for a congressman, “the gentleman from Texas.”

Now that we have his appearance and abusive attitude out of the way, let’s get on to the real issues.

The first thing to note is that Morgan is running on his twin brother’s (Marcus Luttrell’s) name recognition. Morgan Luttrell was indeed a SEAL and I don’t intend to belittle his service. But, his brother, Marcus, earned the Navy Cross and had a movie made about him. His is the name you may recognize, not Morgan’s. My point is that you should not let his last name fool you. It was a different Luttrell, who won the Navy Cross. Although Morgan was a SEAL, for which he deserves recognition, the name recognition belongs to his brother.

Also, consider who has been Luttrell’s primary endorser and who has appeared with him at several events. Establishment favorite, former Governor Rick Perry, is Luttrell’s main endorser. That should be more than enough to shoo away most conservatives. But if that’s not enough, consider that Luttrell is endorsed by RINO and Trump-hater Extraordinaire, Dan Crenshaw (TX-02), who interestingly enough, also has an abusive attitude, when facing tough questions and who, as a result, has a history of being belligerent to constituents, in town halls. In fact, look at the endorsers on Luttrell’s website and you will see a who’s who of Establishment RINOs. As with Collins, Luttrell is also clearly bought, paid for, and owned by the Establishment and the super PACs.

But we’re just getting started. Luttrell claims that his SEAL background gives him the tools he would need in Congress. In actuality, in order to be successful in Congress, he would have to go against his SEAL training. That’s because SEALS are taught to think “tactically.” They have to think tactically, in order to stay alive. Tactics are all about the NOW. Tactics are about completing a single mission and getting back to base alive. To a SEAL, the mission is over when all of the team gets back to base.

But in Congress, we need someone who thinks “strategically.” Strategy is about the long view. It’s about planning an entire campaign and achieving an end goal that is the result of many missions, over an extended period of time. To a strategic thinker, it’s not over till every mission is complete and every asset is back home. SEALs are great people and they are the best at what they do. But their “tactical” training is exactly the opposite of what is required of a member of Congress.

Watch the debate!

One of the questions that was asked at the end of the debate was, “Do you support the FAIRtax?” Luttrell answered “Yes.” But this raises a question. As with Collins, Luttrell’s name does NOT appear on the website, as having signed the FAIRtax Candidate Pledge. Furthermore, it’s not because he doesn’t know about the Pledge. I personally contacted him at his campaign kickoff event, to ask him to sign the pledge. He told me, at that time, that he supported the FAIRtax. But, like Collins, when I asked him what features of the FAIRtax influenced his support, he was unable to answer. To his credit, he didn’t try to bluff his way through an answer, the way Collins had, when I asked him the same question. Instead, Luttrell told me he needed to learn a little more about it… Right!… Luttrell needed more time to learn enough about an issue he just claimed to support, to be able to tell a constituent why he supports it.

That’s rich!

Who wants a congressman who supports bills that he doesn’t understand enough to even recite talking points about, let alone speak knowledgeably about?

Watch the debate!

But I saved the worst for last.

I already mentioned the source of Luttrell’s campaign funds, as “suggesting” that he is owned. Well now, let me remove all doubt. While writing this article, I learned that today, The Congressional Leadership Fund, is making a $600,000 media buy, for Luttrell.

According to Fox News, “The Congressional Leadership Fund is closely aligned with House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy and has been described as the top super PAC backing House Republicans.” So considering this, ask yourself if is there any doubt left that Luttrell is bought and paid for and in the pocket of Establishment RINOs? Do you really believe that a candidate who gets that kind of super PAC support will be partial to the voters of CD-8 or will he kowtow to his Establishment donors and handlers? You decide…

All together, when you consider all of the above issues – his all too obvious anger, being owned by his Establishment backers, his tactical thought process, instead of strategic thought process, and his willingness to support bills he does not understand, not to mention that he always looks like “someone drug him from the bar, straightened his tie [and] threw water on his face” before pushing him in front of the camera – Luttrell is damage goods and not a good fit for any seat in Congress, particularly one representing a strongly conservative district, like CD-8.


Jonathan Hullihan (The “JAG”)

Jonathan Hullihan the “JAG”

Jonathan Hullihan is a former Navy JAG officer, who has lots of operational experience communicating with congressional committees and the White House. As a JAG, he was responsible for, among other things, approving individual missions. This approval essentially confirmed that the guys on the ground were targeting the right place and the right people. The main purpose of the JAG was to insure that U.S. political interests were protected.

In this regard, the JAG generally knows the strategic plan, so he can help to insure that the current mission fits within that larger strategic plan. So, where the Bouncer incorrectly claimed that his SEAL “tactical” training gave him the tools to be a good congressman, the JAG’s “strategic” training really did give him the tools to succeed in Congress.

Let’s talk endorsements. Unlike the two Establishment candidates, who’s endorsement lists are made up of some of the most moderate and despised RINOs in the GOP, including Trump-haters, Hullihan’s endorsers are some of the most recognized names among real conservatives. Every conservative should recognize the name of House Freedom Caucus member, U.S. Rep. Dr. Paul Gosar (AZ-4), who was an early endorser of Hullihan. The JAG is also endorsed by Blaze TV host, Chad Prather, conservative firebrand Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14), and local activist, Steven F. Hotze, among other strong conservatives, both local and national. His organizational endorsements include, Texans For True Conservatives, Conservative Republicans of Texas PAC, and Katy Christian Magazine. In short, the people whose job it is to identify real conservatives and who don’t owe any political favors, are behind Jonathan Hullihan.

In the debate held on February 7, Hullihan came off as the adult in the room, who stayed above the fray. The JAG presented real solutions, while the most meaningful things said by the Bouncer and the Kid, came in the form of recited conservative sound bites. Hullihan was the clear winner in that debate. Despite what the other candidates and their supporters may claim, you can tell what the other candidates really think. Of the three candidates, who appeared in the debate, only Hullihan has posted a link to the debate on his Facebook page. Moreover, he has it proudly pinned to the top of the page.

Think about it. If you were a candidate, who had just clearly won a debate, wouldn’t you be posting it everywhere, for voters to see. Jonathan knows he won that debate in a walk, just as the other two are ashamed of their performance in that debate. I could find no link to the debate on their official sites or any of their campaign-related pages. But The JAG has it pinned to the top of his Facebook page. Now you know who won the debate.

If every voter in CD-8 were to watch that debate, Hullihan would win the primary without a runoff.

Watch the debate!

Also, remember how both Luttrell and Collins said that they supported the FAIRtax, but how neither could give one reason why they supported it. Well, when I asked Jonathan Hullihan why he supported the FAIRtax, he began citing a whole list of things he likes about it and it was clear that he understood the subject. Also, Jonathan Hullihan is the only one of the top three candidates in this race, who has signed the FAIRtax Candidate Pledge

(This frame may be scrolled if it doesn’t fit your browser window.)

This probably explains why, when the moderator at the debate asked the candidates if they supported the FAIRtax, both Luttrell and Collins answered with only a simple, “Yes,” while Hullihan went on to say a few words about why he supports it.

But one of the most important things about Hullihan, is that, unlike his two Establishment opponents, his donations have been earned.

Just keep in mind that if any candidate who has never held office, starts his campaign with a ton of cash, it’s a sure sign that he is already owned by someone. When “the top super PAC backing House Republicans” spends more than half a million dollars on a campaign for someone who has never held office, it’s a sure sign that the candidate is already owned by the Establishment. When they spend that much on a primary, in a solid RED district, it’s a sure sign that they are afraid that the conservative is winning and that he will pay more heed to his constituents, than to their super PACs.

Jonathan Hullihan is the only one of the seven conservative candidates to raise funds in the six-figure range and all of those donations have been hard won, over an extended period of time, whereas both of the Establishment RINOs saw their campaigns infused with boatloads of cash, within a few days after announcing their campaigns. Then, the Bouncer just saw a $600,000 ad buy from one of the primary Establishment super PACs.

Clearly, Jonathan Hullihan is the only one of the top three candidates who will owe NO allegiances to anyone except the voters of his district.

Watch Jonathan’s skills in the debate!


The Last Six Candidates (The “Spoilers”)

Although there are some good conservatives among the Spoilers, not one has raised funds beyond the mid five-figure range. In fact, Hullihan alone, has raised more than 2.5 times what all six of the remaining candidates combined have raised.

The Spoilers are the same six candidates who did not qualify for the debate.

All that the Spoilers can do is draw votes from the only conservative candidate who has significant voter support, significant campaign funds, and endorsements from REAL conservatives. It’s time for the Spoilers in the CD-8 race to very publicly withdraw from the race and very visibly throw their support to Jonathan Hullihan, as did Ryan Jarchow.

If we don’t have a conservative in the runoff, conservatives of CD-8 lose.

This will be a tight race. That big Establishment media buy for Luttrell will sadly convince a lot of armchair Republicans, who don’t pay close attention to political races, that Luttrell is a conservative, which he clearly is not. Sure, Collins’ embarrassing failure at the debate has hurt his chances. But the important point is that Jonathan Hullihan could win or lose his spot in the runoff by just a few votes. That’s why we call the remaining six candidates “Spoilers.” They could spoil the primary for conservatives.

If you are one of those six spoilers, please publicly withdraw from the race. Please make a big deal about throwing your support to Hullihan. Offer to appear with Hullihan, to solidify your support for him. You can’t win. Hullihan can. Please, do the right thing.

If you are a voter, please don’t waste your vote on a Spoiler. Conservatives absolutely must solidify behind just one candidate, if conservatives are to have representation in CD-8. The only conservative in the race, who can defeat at least one of the Establishment RINOs and make it into a runoff, is former JAG officer, Jonathan Hullihan. So when you go to the polls, remember that a vote for anyone other than Jonathan Hullihan, in the CD-8 race, is a vote for RINO representation, which is NO representation for conservatives, at all.

Vote for Conservative Representation in CD-8!

Vote Jonathan Hullihan!


Follow us on social media