Donald Trump takes command, and “Empty talk is over.”

donald_trump_official_portraitThe 45th US President of these United States, Donald J. Trump, has assumed his position of leadership for America, and there are already signs that our long American malaise may finally be lifting.


It all ended today.


As protesters and malcontents wailed in the streets and smashed windows in the streets of Washington DC, they did so because they realized their time has passed.  They finally had to come to terms with the realization that it’s not just about them. It’s about all of us.


We’re done with the patronization. We’re done with the pampering. Dad has finally come up to their room and said, son, it’s time to go to work.


The economic furnace that has been our nation will no longer sit cold and idle. As idle as the men who made America great through their labor were forced to be idle, while politicians dickered over how they’ll be able to find jobs in the new solar or wind economy. While these people’s families starved and went without.


President Trump began his administration with words of hope for a renewed America, free of the shackles that held it back. No more will we reject the notion of American exceptionalism.


“The American Carnage stops here and now.”


When Donald Trump uttered those words, he was speaking for those of us frustrated that the dreams we held for our children were slowly robbed from them by the red tape of regulation and the shackles of poverty, fueled by a government who wanted to raise up the poor by lowering us all.


The long eight-year winter of our nation is over. Eight years of increasing community unrest. Eight years of our resources for growth being strangled and stymied at the call of special interest groups. Eight years of unprecedented growth in government programs, creating a new generation of those dependent upon others. And eight years of treating one of our most trusted allies in the most turbulent part of the world – Israel – as an enemy.


We’re done with all of that. And today is a brand new day.


Our organization, Rushmore PAC, liked a lot of what we heard today. Similar to our new  president, we holds core values of energy independence, peace through strength, and balancing our budget


Donald Trump announced to the country that we will bolster our infrastructure. We will rebuild our country with American hands and American labor.  We will be a strong economy, and we will lead the world.


As Trump noted to the country today

“We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.


A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.


Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.


Together, We Will Make America Strong Again

It’s a good way to start an administration. all about pulling a fast one on South Dakota voters.

Right now in South Dakota a battle is being waged on the Internet, in mailboxes, and in the newspapers by, a liberal Massachusetts group who just completed spending over a million dollars in the state to pass a measure to appropriate 12 million in taxpayer dollars from the state treasury and give it to politicians for their political campaigns.

deb_peterscroppedIn response to the ballot measure passing, several state legislators, including Blake Curd (R- Sioux Falls) and Deb Peters (R- Hartford), responded by asking the state courts to rule on the constitutionality of the measure, as the new law was so restrictive that it was requiring people to quit their jobs or divorce spouses if they wanted to continue to serve in their legislative seats.   In addition, South Dakota law requires expenditures to go through the appropriations process, but the ballot measure bypassed that procedure.

Upon the many questions that the measure brought up being submitted to South Dakota Circuit Court Judge Mark Barnett, the Judge enjoined the measure from going into effect on the basis that he felt several parts would ultimately be found unconstitutional.  Ironically, many of the same issues Barnett brought up were not new. Issues of constitutionality had been identified to the sponsors by the State Legislative Research Council prior to the measure being circulated. Unfortunately, the sponsors chose to ignore them.

In the face of ignoring the legal warnings of unconstitutionality given to them, and subsequent court findings of likely unconstitutionality bringing the measure to a screeching halt, what has the response of the measure sponsors been?

Attack the messengers, of course. has been blithely ignoring their own complicity in their measure’s problems, and has launched personal attacks on two of the legislators who brought the lawsuit questioning the measure’s constitutionality – Republican Senate Majority Leader Blake Curd, a United State Air Force Veteran and Orthopedic Surgeon, and Senator Deb Peters, the President Elect of the National Conference of State Legislatures and one of Governing Magazine’s Public Officials of the Year for 2016. is attacking the Senators for asking the courts for definitive confirmation of what was alluded to before – that there were some big problems with Initiated Measure 22.

Think about it. They attacked them for going to court, and asking a judge to settle problems that the measure sponsors had known about for over a year. That doesn’t sound like the deep pockets of are mad over something that’s wrong. That sounds like they’re upset they got caught in their own deception, as they prematurely celebrated almost succeeding in pulling the wool over voters’ eyes.

But, this shouldn’t come as a shock. The people involved in are all about pulling a fast one on voters.

Tired of the negative attacks designed to divert attention from the real issue – their unconstitutional measure?  Call in your support for Senators Curd and Peters to the Senate Lobby at 605-773-3821, or send a letter to the editor to your local newspapers.  Let everyone know that the bad guys trying to buy South Dakota don’t get to win!

Sen. Mike Rounds: Time for a real strategy to keep Americans safe from cyber threats

Sen. Mike Rounds: Time for a real strategy to keep Americans safe from cyber threats

It is alleged that in recent months, the Russian government conducted  cyber hacks of the Democratic National Committee  (DNC) server and attempted to hack  the Republican National Committee  (RNC) email system.


In October 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence stated that the cyber hackers “intended to interfere with the U.S. election process” – a very serious charge.


On Dec. 16, 2016, President Obama informed reporters that he told Russian leader Vladimir Putin to “knock it off” in 20120913-174851.jpgSeptember after hearing of the attack on the DNC and that no further hacking attempts were made after that. Two weeks later on Dec. 29, President Obama imposed sanctions against Russian intelligence services and kicked dozens of Russian diplomats out of the country. 


Meanwhile, voters of varied political viewpoints are rightfully distressed. Some Clinton supporters believe the hack swayed voters toward the president-elect, while some Trump voters assert that the publicity of the attacks stems from yet another post-mortem excuse from the losing side.


No matter which camp one is in, it should be apparent to all Americans that the United States is not immune to damaging cyber-attacks from hostile foreign nations and other bad actors. We must update our national security policies to deter such attacks before a future debilitating attack occurs, possibly on civilian critical infrastructure.


Senior officials at the Pentagon have been warning about a “Cyber 9/11” or “Cyber Pearl Harbor” for years. We already know that foreign actors have attempted to access the cyber domains of critical infrastructure in the U.S.


Imagine what would happen if a foreign actor interfered with the operations of a nuclear power plant, or shut down the communications that control aircraft operations, rail operations or water releases from large dams. Such an attack on our critical infrastructure could threaten our entire economy or – worse – lead to loss of life. Without an appropriate plan in place to stop or respond to these cyber-attacks, we put ourselves at increased risk for a catastrophic attack to occur.


As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, broadening our national defense policies to adequately address cyber-attacks on civilian critical infrastructure has been a priority of mine. I am glad that Congress included a provision in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which would begin the process of defining when an act in cyber space constitutes an act of war. With language similar to my Cyber Act of War Act, the NDAA will require the administration to determine when a cyber-attack on the United States requires a military response. This is vital because, while current policies permit the Pentagon to respond to a cyber-attack against military forces, our nation does not have a clear policy to govern our response to attacks on civilian infrastructure. The NDAA seeks to change that.


Now that the NDAA is law, the administration will have until December 2017 to give Congress a report on when a cyber act would warrant a military response. In preparing this report, the administration must consider (1) the ways in which the effects of a cyber-attack may be equivalent to effects of an attack using conventional kinetic weapons, including with respect to physical destruction and casualties, and (2) intangible effects of significant scope, intensity or duration.


Defining when a cyber-attack requires a military response is but one in a series of steps we must take to deter our enemies from attacking the United States with this new, sophisticated form of aggression.


While our national focus may be on whether the Russian hack allegations warrant an investigation and Obama’s recent retaliation will deter future attacks, we must not lose sight of the fact we need a defined strategy for how to keep Americans safe from cyber-threats.


We cannot know if the alleged hacks in 2016 would have been thwarted had the provisions of my Cyber Act of War Act had already been in law. What we do know is that, absent a clear message to our adversaries as to when a cyber-attack may warrant a U.S. military response, we will not have done all we can to deter devastating attacks in the future. Recent events have shown that such action is urgently needed.   


(Note – this piece originally appeared on the Fox News Opinion website)

Noem, Sinema Introduce Bipartisan Health Insurance Tax Repeal – #stopthehit

Noem, Sinema Introduce Bipartisan Health Insurance Tax Repeal


noem-officialWASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Representatives Kristi Noem (R-SD) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) today introduced H.R.246, the Jobs and Premium Protection Act, a bipartisan bill that would repeal the Affordable Care Act’s costly Health Insurance Tax (HIT).  If enacted, the provision could save families as much as $400 per year in healthcare premium costs, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. 


“Many small businesses in South Dakota have faced a stunning reality since the passage of Obamacare: They can’t really afford to pay for the expensive mandated insurance, but they also can’t afford the HIT if they don’t provide insurance.  Essentially, they’re taxed if they do and taxed if they don’t,” said Noem.  “As a result, many employers have been forced to either cut workers’ hours or limit the small business’s growth.  The Jobs and Premium Protection Act would open new economic opportunities from South Dakota to Arizona while giving thousands of families the peace of mind that their financial independence won’t be jeopardized because of this regressive tax.”


“Arizonans continue to struggle with increasing health care costs,” said Sinema. “Eliminating the tax is a bipartisan, commonsense fix that lowers out of pocket costs for hardworking Arizonans.  I’m committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to provide relief for individuals, families, and employers and increase access to quality, affordable health care.” 


The HIT is a direct tax on health insurance providers for the services they provide to individuals, families, and other beneficiaries.  According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, this tax is passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs.  Additionally, the National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation found the HIT will cost between 152,000 and 286,000 jobs by 2023, with 57 percent of those lost jobs represented in small businesses.



Guest Column: Senator Mike Rounds – Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy Legacy

(I wanted to share this column with Rushmore PAC members, as it sums up the work we have ahead in undoing the damage that President Obama has done to our foreign policy – Dan)

Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy Legacy
By Senator Mike Rounds
November 10, 2016

Rounds_official_photoSince President Obama took office nearly eight years ago, the world has changed considerably. During his time in office, ISIL rose to prominence due to the administration’s determination to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq. Iran has ascended as a regional destabilizing power, and it remains on a path to acquire nuclear weapons. The U.S. effort to combat the Taliban in Afghanistan faces potential under-resourcing. Russia has increased its nuclear arsenal and continues its aggression against Ukraine. In Libya, the administration half-heartedly led a U.S. military intervention, only to abandon the mission prematurely, which has created another destabilized country within which terrorists seek safe haven to plot attacks against our homeland.


Recently, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), John Brennan, testified to Congress that “Despite all our progress against ISIL on the battlefield and in the financial realm, our efforts have not reduced the group’s terrorism capability and global reach.” It is clear that the president’s current course to defeat ISIL and terrorism abroad is not working. We need more proactive efforts and not more delayed, reactionary half-steps if we are to truly defeat the terrorist organization, stop the terrorist group’s online radicalization and keep Americans safe from ISIL-inspired attacks here at home.


A side effect of the instability and chaos in the Middle East is a dramatic increase in refugees. In Syria alone, the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner on Refugees estimates that nearly 4.8 million Syrian refugees have fled the country and another 6.6 million are internally displaced within the country. In Libya, nearly 2.5 million are in desperate need of humanitarian aid, according to the UN News Center. Russia, , recently indicated that it would not consider a humanitarian ceasefire to allow refugees, anti-government fighters and injured citizens to escape Syria safely, or allow aid vehicles to deliver food and medical supplies to those unable to flee.


While most refugees are being relocated in Europe, many Americans are concerned about the prospect of a terrorist slipping into the United States, taking advantage of the refugee program. Refugees have been coming to America for generations seeking safety from war-torn regions of the world. I support efforts to help others seek shelter from persecution. However, we must be cautious to protect our own national security. While we as global leaders should take steps to assist in humanitarian efforts when possible, I believe our current refugee admission program needs further safeguards to make sure the refugees we admit have no ties to terror organizations and make sure refugees properly assimilate into American society.


As events continue to unfold around the world, many have wondered from where our foreign policy problems stem. I agree with other elected officials and experts that many foreign policy failures are a symptom of this administration’s “leading from behind” mentality. In less than three months, a new president, with the guidance of experts with new ideas as well as a new Congress, will have an opportunity to reset our foreign policy. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I look forward to working with the new administration and my colleagues on a new direction for our country which includes stronger leadership to protect our citizens, advance our global interests and support our allies abroad.

New Words for a New World

IMG_4550.JPGText of speech outline delivered by Newt Gingrich at NDU on December 1, 2015.

Posted with permission of Speaker Gingrich

We are living in a world rapidly evolving away from the mental constructs and language of the last 375 years. These ideas can be traced to the Treaty of Westphalia ending the 30 Years War in 1648 and  Grotius proposal of a system of International Law in the same era. The ideas were then extended through the development of state warfare culminating in the Napoleonic Wars.

This intellectual framework was applied and reapplied through two World Wars and the Cold War. It is the framework within which academic and bureaucratic careers were made and are still being made.

It is now a framework which distorts reality, hides from uncomfortable facts, and cripples our ability to develop an effective national security and foreign policy.

The gap between the old world in our heads and the new world we now find ourselves in is so large that the very language of the past blocks us from coming to grips with an emerging future that will be radically different.

Consider these challenges to the old intellectual order:

  1. We are in a Long War which could easily last 100 years or more, which will transcend all national boundaries and which ignores or rejects a century of work trying to routinize and tame warfare.
  2. There are technological and doctrinal breakouts on the horizon which will challenge our very survival. ElectroMagnetic Pulse, cyber war, loyalties to religiously inspired movements transcending traditional concepts of patriotism, militarization of space, are examples of breakouts which will reach require new thinking and new organizations and doctrines.
  3. The Chinese system of strategic competition in a world of “no war,no peace” ( see Sun Tzu’s the Art of War with its injunction that the greatest of all generals win bloodless victories as an initial starting point for Chinese strategies of blending war and peace into one continuum) as illustrated by the nine dash line and the long project to assume sovereignty over the entire South China Sea is an example of how different that competition will be. The ongoing cyber competition is a good example of the blurring of war and non war boundaries. This pattern is actually historically more normal than the American effort to draw a sharp line between war and peace.
  4. Russia is re-emerging as an opportunistic,predatory state with loyalty to its self defined national interests rather than to any theory of international legality. The Russian nuclear arsenal requires us to think much more deeply about how we communicate with and seek to negotiate with Russia. Managing the evolving Russian challenge may require more 19th century Real politick in the Bismarck-Disraeli tradition and less reliance on legalisms.
  5. The sobering reality is that we are at the end of the 70 year strategy of attempting to contain the spread of nuclear weapons and at the beginning of a dangerous new era of coping with the threat of nuclear weapons. The gap between the new dangers and the old thinking can be seen in the totally inadequate design of the Department of Homeland Security. As originally proposed in the Hart-Rudman Commission’s work in 2000 this department should be sized to handle simultaneous nuclear events in three different cities. Today, 15 years later, it could not adequately handle one nuclear event. Yet the spread of nuclear capability to North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and elsewhere virtually guarantees weapons could be used in the near future. We now have to develop a two prong strategy which both focuses diplomatically on minimizing their spread and the danger of their use and focuses national security and homeland security assets on surviving nuclear events if diplomacy fails.
  6. Lawfare combined with ubiquitous regular media and social media coverage is creating new ground rules for the effective use of force in defense of American safety. For two generations we have allowed lawyers, media members, and non governmental organizations to define an ever more complex and more unwieldy set of ground rules. The efforts to turn war into criminal justice and to find “humane” methods of waging war have largely come at the expense of American national security. Confronted by enemies like Islamic Supremacists who don’t care about either the rule or law or the public opinion pressures created by visible violence, the United States will find itself at increasingly one sided disadvantages.  The notion of “bringing to justice” those who attacked us on 9/11 or Paris this November is absurd. Not only do we need to move the lawyers, NGOs and media to the side, but our new leaders must communicate directly and bluntly the nature of the threats we face, and make it plain that we all must sacrifice something if we want this nation to endure. We have to cease treating our enemies with the kind of disdain (the “J.V. team” comment, for example) that allows our leaders to demand little of themselves and nothing of us.
  7. As I noted at the beginning, we are engaged in a Long War. Hollywood began recognizing that war with movies like Black Sunday 38 years ago (1977) in which a Palestinian group sought to kill thousands at a Super Bowl. Today, 36 years after the Iranian illegal seizure of the American Embassy and year long hostage crisis, 22 years after the first bombing of the World Trade Center, 17 years after the bombing of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, 15 years after the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, 14 years after the attack of 9/11killed 2,996 people, we need to have the courage to face the facts. We are losing the Long War. Our elites in America and Europe have an enormous resistance to dealing honestly and effectively with the Islamic Supremacists who seek to kill us and destroy our civilization. Until we can find accurate words to describe the realities of the Long War we have no hope of even beginning to win it.  We have to recognize that this Long War may require totally new approaches completely outside the American historic experience. Furthermore the enemy’s ability to adapt may force us to dramatically shift away from the traditional “American Way of War”.
  8. The Long War will last at least 50 to 100 years unless there is a disaster so large the West is compelled to mobilize with ruthless efficiency and destroy the capacity for Islamic Supremacists to function. We have no language or doctrine for sustaining a century long struggle in a free society. We have no serious efforts underway in our national security community to even begin thinking about such a long war. We certainly have no plans or systems which enable America to cope with technological breakouts, Chinese scale and complexity, Russian opportunism and a Long War simultaneously. We also have no plans to communicate with the American people and organize understanding among Americans to sustain a century long effort which will inherently be both foreign and domestic. Since we can’t talk with ourselves it is no wonder we can’t build support among our allies.
  9. As i outline in my new novel, Duplicity, Islamic Supremacism is a virus and has to be seen as an epidemiological phenomenon. Seen in this context the internet and social media are the centers of gravity for the Long War. Any effort which focuses on geographic campaigns, such as defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, is by definition a misunderstanding of the Long War. Our efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the last 14 years have failed in large part because we have no larger strategic context of defeating Islamic Supremacists within which to orient them. Imagine we had confused Guadalcanal for World War Two and you can see how far we have to go to rethink our current activities. It will be extraordinarily hard to get our national security bureaucracies and professionals to admit how big the failures are and how deep the change has to be. It will be even harder to get our political elites to understand how badly we are losing and how much we must rethink our current analyses, strategies, and activities.
  10. The biggest zone of controversy will be the inherently transnational nature of the Long War. Because Islamic Supremacism is a virus and because it spreads through the internet and social media it will require strategies and institutional relationships which have both domestic and foreign operating capabilities. We have to study the American struggle against Nazis in the 1930s (the House Un-American Activities Committee was established in 1938 to go after Nazi penetration of the United States). We have to study the frighteningly effective Soviet penetration of the American government in the 1930s and 1940s and the systematic government response to eliminate Soviet spies, agents and sympathizers. The history of other countries and their campaigns to eliminate penetrations by foreign enemies also should become part of such a study.
  11. Unavoidability is the first key to understanding the scale of the national security challenge we face. Whether we want to fight Islamic Supremacists or not is irrelevant. They intend to fight us. Whether we would like to live in a world of extreme nuclear danger or not is irrelevant. Every year countries like North Korea, Pakistan and Iran get more nuclear capability. Whether we want to deal with domestic subversion and domestic enemies or not is irrelevant. As Paris just proved once again, ignoring your enemies doesn’t mean they will ignore you. In fact it may create space for them to become more dangerous and more lethal.
  12. The sheer range and complexity of challenges and the speed with which any one problem can erupt requires a new approach to monitoring threats and managing responses. Just as we had to develop fleet and theater information integration systems to cope with speed and complexity we will have to build national command systems that integrate all departments and all sources of information.the Army Training and Doctrine Commands new emphasis on complexity is a welcome step in this direction. Their new doctrine manual “Win in a Complex World” is an important step in the right direction,a
  13. Rethinking national strategy on this scale takes time and inevitably involves very intense arguments. The emergence of the American response to the Soviet challenge after World War Two is a good example. George Kennan wrote his 8,000 word “long telegram” analyzing the Soviet’s as a global threat in February, 1946. It set the stage for a four year process of policy development culminating in the April, 1950 adoption of NSC 68 outlining the containment strategy for the Cold War. If it took the generation who fought in World War One and led the country in World War Two four years of thinking we shouldn’t be surprised if it takes us a lot of argument, thinking and innovation to develop a grand strategy for the 21st century. It has to be done but it wont be done easily.
  14. Our first assignment is to look at facts and develop new words and new constructs to accurately describe what we are facing. Until we have done that we will be crippled by the very words we use and the obsolete ideas we are trapped in.

John Kerry and Lies About Iran

From my email box from Newt Gingrich and originally published at the Washington Times.

John Kerry and Lies About Iran

Photo credit: The Telegraph: MARTIAL TREZZINI / POOL


Secretary of State John Kerry entered politics 45 years ago on a platform of opportunistic anti-Americanism and false peace with totalitarianism. Then as now mistaking dishonor for political heroism, Mr. Kerry lied to the American people to justify his preferred policy of weakness and surrender. And as he proved this week, he’s still at it, with Mr. Kerry the “peacemaker” in the leading role.

Mr. Kerry himself drew the Vietnam connection at the close of the negotiations in Vienna, when each of the officials had the chance to speak about “what this meant to them.” According to Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, Mr. Kerry told the room he saw the Iran deal as a part of the anti-war activism he has been engaged in since he was 22 — “that’s what this was all about.”
Is it any wonder, then, that a 1960s activist who told Congress, without evidence, that he had witnessed U.S. soldiers committing atrocities in Vietnam (and later conceded he hadn’t) now appears on Sunday shows as secretary of state to make utterly untrue claims about the administration’s surrender to Iran?

Indeed, almost every key point Secretary Kerry made in defense of the Iran deal on political talk shows this week was untrue.

Mr. Kerry claimed that Iran’s breakout time (the period required to have a full nuclear weapon) will “never go to zero.” But as Fox News Sunday pointed out, President Obama himself said in April that by the later years of the agreement, Iran’s breakout times “would have shrunk almost down to zero.” Mr. Kerry, apparently, is relying on some technicality to evade a fact even the president openly admits.

Mr. Kerry repeatedly claimed that “there is no country anywhere on this planet that has anywhere, anytime [inspections]. There is no such standard within arms control inspections,” as he put it on Fox News. “This is a term that, honestly, I never heard in the four years that we were negotiating,” he said on CBS. “It was not on the table.”

This is a shameless lie. “Anytime, anywhere” access has been a widely discussed component of the Iran negotiations. It is simply impossible to believe that Mr. Kerry has never heard the term. And in April of this year, a senior aide to the president on national security matters told Jake Tapper on CNN that “under this deal, you will have anywhere, anytime 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.” The secretary of energy (with whom Mr. Kerry made several appearances on Sunday) told Bloomberg in April that “we expect to have anywhere, anytime access.”

This is just the beginning of an outrageous parade of untruths and dishonesty from Mr. Kerry about what the Iran deal actually says, what the U.S. initially sought, what concessions the administration made, and what officials have said in the past about their negotiations.

But what of Mr. Kerry’s closing statement in Vienna that the Iran deal is a triumph for peace — that it was about making sure a war like Vietnam never happens again? Well, his negotiating partners obviously do not see the deal the same way.

As the Middle East Media Research Institute reported, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reaffirmed in a television address last week that when Iran says “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” it really does mean it.

“The slogans of the Iranian nation on Al-Qods Day show what its position is,” he said. “The slogans ‘Death to Israel’ and ‘Death to America’ have resounded throughout the country, and are not limited to Tehran and the other large cities. The entire country is under the umbrella of this great movement [of ‘Death to America’].”

It is beyond alarming that Mr. Kerry — or anyone else in the Obama administration — can fail to take at their word fanatics who openly seek nuclear weapons while chanting “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” on national television. The deal is no victory for peace. It’s a surrender to a violent and dangerous regime.

Your Friend,


Rushmore PAC helps to secure a win again!

Since it’s inception, the Rushmore PAC has worked hard to ensure success in electing conservative pro-growth candidates to office at all levels through both our Federal PAC, as well as our State PAC. And the recent city elections in South Dakota continue to show that the Rushmore PAC can make it happen.


allenderSteve Allender – Mayor Elect, Rapid City.

Mayor Elect Steve Allender of Rapid City was in an uphill battle to become mayor of South Dakota’s second largest city against an entrenched incumbent. And Rushmore PAC is proud to note that we were able to step in and make a difference.

Through donations and technical advice, we stepped in behind the scenes to help make sure that the campaign had adequate funding to get a message of growth and conservative values out throughout the election.

In the final days, the race tightened, and Allender began moving ahead. And he was able to raise his hand in victory on election night when he won 54-46%


Swanson_9157-150x150Laure Swanson – City Council, Aberdeen, SD.

Aberdeen City Councilwoman Laure Swanson was unexpectedly challenged in one of the years’ oddest elections when she faced an opponent from the far left. One of the state’s most liberal bloggers, Cory Heidelberger, who once supported a convicted felon who committed crimes against the elderly for office because they ran against a Republican, took out papers to challenge Swanson within a day or so of moving into her community.

Rushmore PAC put out a call to raise $1000 for Swanson’s local race, and quickly assembled a number of small donations from the area to help her get her positive message of economic development and community growth out.

After Laure hit the campaign trail and pushed hard the entire election, with less than a week to go before the election, Heidelberger curiously announced his withdrawal from the contest. Despite the fact it was too late to remove his name from the ballot.

Swanson handily captured the victory 78-22%.


Operating from the halls of Congress to City Council chambers, those are just two of the recent elections where Rushmore PAC was able to make a difference.   When you make a donation to Rushmore PAC, you can be sure that we continue to elect conservative Leaders for today, and for the next generation.

Donate to Rushmore PAC today!


Rushmore PAC seeking South Dakota Candidates. Experience a plus. Carpetbaggers can just forget it.

Tonight, the Rushmore PAC started a campaign to aid a candidate for a small local race for City Commission in Aberdeen, South Dakota. 

And you might be asking “Why?”.  We get involved in big races, we get involved in fierce races, we get involved in legislative races.

And here was a good public servant in no office of that type, Laure Swanson, in Aberdeen who was minding her own business, doing her job, and representing her district. All of a sudden, a liberal crusader who writes a a liberal attack blog, and spends many of his waking moments over the last half-decade attacking conservatives just because they are of a different party than he, decides to move into the state, into Ms. Swanson’s district, and run for the office to try take her out after living in the area an entire 6 weeks.

6 weeks? That just doesn’t sound right, does it? 

So, we’re going to raise $1000 for her in solidarity. There’s no big reason behind it. Except that being involved in the political process, you get a sense of right and wrong. And it’s wrong for a bully to move into the district from out of state to try to take her out. 

Click to help us reach our goal

If you’re so inclined, we hope you’ll help us out on this. For no other reason than it’s the right thing to do.

Click here to keep good conservative public servants in office – and keep liberal carpetbaggers out.

It’s time for America to support her allies in the middle east. Not her ‘frenemies’

Do you know what I’m referring to when I mention the slang term ‘frenemies?’  It’s referring to someone who is a false friend; someone who says what you want to hear to your face, but turns around and attacks you at every turn.   That’s not someone who you want to put a lot of trust in. Because it will come back to haunt you in the end. 

That’s why I’m confused at President Obama’s treatment of Israel, a longtime ally of the United States, versus how he is behaving with Iran, a long enemy of the state, who we’re only recently talking with in order to curtail their nuclear ambitions. 

With our long-time ally, the Obama administration has done everything it can to undermine the current Israeli administration.   They rebuked Israel when President Netanyahu came to address our congress to express concern over a potential nuclear nightmare if Iran were to get the nuclear weapons they’re actively pursuing. Previously, the administration had went so far as to threaten to shoot down Israeli planes in 2014, according to reports attributed to a Kuwaiti newspaper.

Yet when it comes to Iran, who has attacked our interests, been a state sponsor of terrorism, has a dismal record of human rights, and is pursing nuclear weapons, what does the president do?   He intentionally omits Iran from the United States’ terror threat list despite being consistently included as a threat in previous years.


According to Israel, it’s believed that it comes as a result of the United States’ talks with Iran about a nuclear deal.  

Possibly because there are those in the Obama administration that think if Iran suddenly talks nice to our face, they’ll magically become nice. Why, they may even stop sponsoring terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, who blow up American embassies, attack American military barracks, and kill American servicemen.  

People who believe such things also believe unicorns will sprinkle fairy dust over the land, making us all like each other.  Unfortunately, people who believe in such things are not dealing in reality.

The truth is that we need to trust our allies, and be very wary of those who attack America. When Netanyahu says there cannot be a two state solution for Israel until the Palestinians unify, demilitarize, and commit to peace, we should trust the man who lives there, and is charged with keeping Israelis safe from attack.

When our Senators, including US Senators John Thune and Mike Rounds, sign a letter to the Iranian government putting them on notice that not everyone in Washington believes in unicorns and fairy dust, and that they fully intend to ensure any agreement will be subject to congressional approval , we should give them at least a minimal amount of consideration that they’re looking out for our best interests. 

This week, Israelis, faced with concerns that the president of their best ally in the west, the United States, might be heading down the wrong track, even though his hard line had been under criticism, they opted for their nation’s safety, and re-elected Benjamin Netanyahu to be the Prime Minister of Israel.  

As Americans, that’s something we should not ignore. 

In deciding how to approach Iran, we need to decide which of our friends we should listen to when it comes to the stability of the region.  Should we listen to our friend Israel, who has been a strong ally since the state came into existence? Or should we listen to our new friend Iran who (still) ends Friday prayers with chants of “Death to America!”

I know which one I’m going to choose