Oh, and obviously he wants money from his supporters so he can fight it. Here’s the text of the email:

The U.S. Senate is nearing completion of its “universal background checks” gun control bill. Problem is, it’s not universal; criminals and madmen don’t comply with background checks.

This awful measure will also lead to the creation of a national database of gun owners. A leaked Obama Administration memo says that this is the most important step towards national gun registration!

Please, make an urgent donation of $25, $35, $50, $75, $100, $200 or whatever you can afford to help us beat back this all-out assault on your Second Amendment rights.

When Barack Obama declared that he wanted a gun control bill passed this year, he wasn’t kidding.

His campaign organization has mobilized their millions of left-wing grassroots activists to pressure the Senate to pass this bill. And it seems they will get exactly what they want:

A bill that effectively bans the private sales of firearms and begins the process of creating a national gun registry!

This is the most brazen and unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment in years. If it becomes law it could change our country forever.

We have to stop this bill!

That’s why I am mobilizing all of Patriot Voices’ resources to fight this, but I need your help.

Please make the most generous donation you possibly can. We need bombard Senators with calls and emails. We need to be prepared to launch waves of ads warning American gun owners about this bill.

Frankly, I had hoped Obama’s gun-control scheme would simply die in the backrooms of the Senate.

However, with the entire White House political operation working overtime for this bill, and millions of liberals bombarding Congress with calls and faxes, that’s not going to happen.

I expect that the Senate will vote on Obama’s gun grab within the next few weeks!

We don’t have much time. That’s why I am emailing you today.

Please make the very best contribution you can to help us beat back this attack on your gun rights.

Obama and his allies have been very clever. They are selling this proposal as a “commonsense” measure that will merely close some “loopholes” in the law.

That sounds fair to a lot of my former colleagues. And it appears sensible to many ordinary Americans, too.

But this proposal is so much more than it appears. It establishes the groundwork for a national database of gun owners!

Just imagine if Attorney General Eric Holder had a master list of the names and addresses of every single gun owner in America, and what types and numbers of firearms they possessed!

It’s terrifying to even contemplate what he would do with that information.

So, we must stop this bill in the Senate. Failure simply is not an option when our liberty is at stake!

Please make a generous donation of $25, $35, $50, $75, $100, $200 or whatever you can afford right away to help stop Obama’s gun grab.

Because the Senate is moving very fast, we don’t have much time to prepare to win this battle. Please do what you can right away.

Thank you, and may God Bless America.

Sincerely,

Rick Santorum

“It’s time that conservative Republicans build a new box and offer Americans a broader, bolder and more inclusive vision of freedom and opportunity, as well as provide the tools to achieve them.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Rick Santorum is now saying that the Republican party needs to be more inclusive.

“Inclusive” is not typically a word that has been associated with Rick Santorum. Though, this opinion piece brings to mind two words that we’ve often associated with him in the past: “irony” and “hypocrisy.”

Don’t laugh, but Rick Santorum is making the rounds of conservative dead-tree magazines (he already spoke to National Review and is reportedly heading over to the Weekly Standard after Thanksgiving), trying out his I-told-you-so’s and, one would presume, selling himself as the next great hope of the conservative movement. I know. It’s preposterous. (If you thought a 3-point loss for Mitt Romney was bad, imagine the blowout had Santorum been the nominee.)

With unintentional hilarity, he wags his finger at donors who “don’t know how to win.” Umm, look who’s talkin’. This comes from the man (with a sneer and a snarl) who is determined to root out gay marriage, who doesn’t want women in the military, who told a gay U.S. serviceman during a debate that we shouldn’t “recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege” (What the heck was he talking about??), who wrote a book scolding women for putting material desires and careers over stay-at-home-mothering, who declared American decline to be the work of the devil, who ridiculed mainline Christian churches, who decided to relitigate whether contraception is harmful to women, who was repulsed by John F. Kennedy’s speech on religious tolerance, who took a sledgehammer to Texas Gov. Rick Perry on immigration reform (as did Romney, and we know how that turned out); who advocates a tax code that plays favorites among sectors of the economy — and who wants to be taken seriously. Well, I guess we all need a hobby.

Santorum has been the prime example of a sclerotic right-wing mindset that thrills to the idea of setting back the clock 50 years, thinks the “Reagan coalition” is still there and is convinced that hollering at all but the most pristine conservatives is the way to go.

The problem, as I have said many times, is generational. Santorum speaks in a tone and presents views that are not the reflection of 21st-century conservatives dedicated to the expansion of liberty or to charting a new course (that would include winning presidential elections) in a diverse electorate. In my experience most of the under-40 crowd in the GOP and right-leaning media get that.

I don’t think that Santorum is going to get much footing (although his reappearance should be a reminder that Iowa needs to get booted out of the driver’s seat in the presidential primary process), unless Republicans decide to commit mass suicide. (More scolding! Less inclusion!) In tone and topic choice, he is where the Republican Party must not go if it is to stay in the game.

It would be helpful for constructive conservative media not to ingrain the preaching-to-the-choir (and lecturing everyone else) tendencies of the right. Perhaps if they challenge Santorum and others on their rhetoric and views, the go-right-go-harsh, hardest-line pols will show a glimmer of self-awareness or even concede that what hard-core conservatives have been doing hasn’t worked.

It is the holiday season, and most working GOP pols are stressing over the fiscal cliff, so Santorum is probably smart to get conservative outlets when others are busy. But as the right moves forward from 2012 , it would be a service to the conservative moment to, rather than featuring the dead wood from the GOP’s past, help call attention to promising stars and innovative lawmakers — so that print magazines can be contributors to a conservative renaissance and not undertakers for the GOP.

Read this at Washigntonpost.com

Pennsylvania State University has reportedly rejected a donation from former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, who tells National Review Online that he tried to donate his papers to the university, but the powers-that-be in Happy Valley turned them down.

“I don’t know where they are now,” Santorum tells NRO. “Off in a warehouse or something. They didn’t want ’em.” Penn State officials have not responded to a request for comment, but the university’s library lists “papers of alumni” as one of its major collecting areas.

The Penn State library system holds collections and papers that touch on a variety of controversial individuals and subjects, including a collection of posters that document student opposition to the Vietnam War; a special collection classified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer History, which contains the personal papers of a number of individuals; and the personal papers of former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno.

This is not the first time Santorum, a 1980 graduate of Penn State, has found himself at odds with his alma mater. In February, Santorum told a radio talk-show host that, as a college student, his grades were docked because of his conservative views. “I can tell you a professor who docked my grades because of the viewpoints I expressed and the papers that I wrote,” he said. “There’s no question that happened.”

Read this at NationalReview.com

West Palm Beach, Fla. — Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum is heaping blame for the GOP’s election trouncing on Mitt Romney and the Republican party’s biggest donors. In an address Thursday evening in West Palm Beach, Santorum said Romney’s failure to articulate a compelling vision of America that countered the president’s vision of a European-style social-welfare state cost him the election. “Was this race about big things?” Santorum asked rhetorically. “We didn’t trust the American public enough to give them a real vision.” He also pointed the finger at GOP donors, who he said put their money behind the wrong candidates because they “don’t know the first thing about what it takes to win.”

In accounting for the GOP’s loss, Santorum emphasized Romney’s inherent limitations as the GOP standard-bearer. “He ran the campaign he could,” Santorum tells National Review Online. That was a campaign focused primarily on the economy, rather than on the three major issues that fueled the tea-party movement in the wake of President Obama’s election and drove voters to the polls in 2010: Wall Street bailouts, Obamacare, and cap and trade. As the founder of Bain Capital, and having instituted a universal health-care program and proposed joining a carbon-fee regime as governor of Massachusetts, Romney was poorly positioned to capitalize.

Santorum pointed to the 2010 midterm election as a study in contrasts. When bailouts, Obamacare, and cap and trade took center stage, he claimed, voters delivered huge wins for the GOP. Republicans picked up 63 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate, a performance President Obama memorably described as “a shellacking.” This year, by contrast, the “issues that energized our base were not mentioned at all,” Santorum tells NRO. “We can win this argument, but not if we don’t make it.”

Santorum’s dissatisfaction extends beyond the general election to the primary process from which Romney emerged victorious. “What I found out in the Republican primary is that the donor class of Republicans are different from the donor class of Democrats,” he said, in that Republican moneymen are more reluctant to put money behind dark-horse candidates. (Though casino mogul Sheldon Adelson did spend $16.5 million backing former House speaker Newt Gingrich before donating millions to the Romney campaign.) Santorum said that Republican donors “want a return on their investment,” but that “most people who are giving that money don’t know the first thing about what it takes to win.” Santorum lamented that they take their cues from political pundits who are similarly ignorant and “live in big blue counties,” to boot.

Read this at NationalReview.com

Barely 24 hours after Americans reelected Barack Obama to the presidency, Rick Santorum sent a mass email to thousands of conservative activists.

Santorum, the former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania and the runner-up to Mitt Romney in this year’s Republican presidential nomination, was writing ostensibly to urge unity between Republicans and Democrats in the face of the looming fiscal challenges. But the real purpose of Santorum’s email was to signal that he’s gearing up for another run for the White House in 2016.

“As a result of this election,” Santorum wrote, “we now need to engage with even more energy and commitment not just in politics, but in our daily lives, to ensure that the values upon which our country has prospered will continue.” And here is the kicker: “Karen and I look forward to working side by side with you to make that happen.”

It is an open secret that Santorum intends to run once again for the GOP presidential nomination. Why? Because history tells him he should.

The history of the modern Republican Party suggests that the 2016 presidential nominee will be someone who has previously lost the nomination. Since 1980, five out of the six GOP presidential nominees had been runners-up at least once before: Ronald Reagan won the nomination in 1980 but had lost in 1976; George H.W. Bush won in 1988 but had lost in 1980; Bob Dole won in 1996 but had lost in 1976 and 1988; John McCain won in 2008 but had lost in 2000; and most recently Mitt Romney won in 2012 but had lost in 2008. The only exception is George W. Bush, who won the GOP nomination on his first try in 2000.

No wonder Santorum is optimistic about his chances for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. But at this early stage, the only certainty is that Santorum will have a lot of company in the race for the nomination.

The next time around the Republican Party has at least five strategies to select its 2016 presidential nominee and Santorum may not be the best fit for any of them.

First, The Republicans could opt to select a candidate of conservative purity, someone whose conservative bona fides are known and reliable. This category includes former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, South Dakota Senator John Thune, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker or the most recent GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan.

Second, Republicans could choose a moderate, a candidate who can appeal to the center and battle the Democratic Party for moderate swing state voters. In this category, the early favorites are New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, former Utah Governor John Huntsman, and former New York Governor George Pataki.

Third, the Republican Party could find a candidate who is neither ideological nor moderate but rather a pragmatic problem solver. Some prospective candidates in this category are New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, and former Tennessee Senator Bill Frist.

Fourth, the Republican Party could quite simply pick a big-name star who is already widely known, such as former Governors Jeb Bush or Sarah Palin.

But my guess is that the Republican Party will opt for someone in the fifth category: a youthful, energetic, dyed-in-the-wool conservative whose face represents the nation’s changing demographics. On this list are South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez.

Where does this leave Rick Santorum? He falls in the first category of ideological candidates. Opposed to abortion and marriage equality, he is a father of seven who sees himself as an uncompromising champion of traditional conservative values. But why not get double the value by picking someone who gives you all that Santorum gives you plus the great visual of a non-white GOP standard bearer?

The second strike against Santorum may be the narrowness of his support base in the 2012 GOP nomination race. While much of his committed voting bloc will stand by his side in 2016, it may not be large enough to put him over the top.

Still, it remains possible that Rick Santorum will win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. History tells us he has a great shot. But he will need more than an interesting historical trend to win.

Read this at WBUR.org

Help me elect Todd Akin to the U.S. Senate from Missouri.

Republicans absolutely must win control over the U.S. Senate, and Todd could be the 51st vote we need to do just that.

Please make an urgent and generous donation of $20, $25, $50, $100, $250 or whatever you can possibly afford to help Todd Akin defeat the ultra-liberal Claire McCaskill.

I am personally committed to doing everything I possibly can to help this good and decent conservative win this tough fight.

We need more staunchly pro-life, pro-freedom and pro-limited government conservatives in the U.S. Senate.

And Todd’s race could very well determine which party has the majority. Grassroots conservatives need to take a stand right now.

We must win this election!

Now, Todd made some comments that I know he regrets, and the liberal media has really beaten him up.

However, this race is still dead even.

Todd Akin can definitely win if conservatives across the nation will just rally to his side.

His opponent, Claire McCaskill, is one of President Obama’s most loyal foot soldiers in the Senate. She’s way, way too liberal for Missouri. Her negative ratings are sky high.

She supports ObamaCare, abortion on demand, more government spending and higher taxes.

She has to go.

And Todd Akin is just the man to send her packing.

I formed the Patriot Voices PAC in order to take our conservative message to every corner of America.

I’ve been crisscrossing the country helping Mitt Romney and all our good conservative candidates make the case for true limited government, forcing Washington to operate within its means and standing up for the American family.

However Todd Akin’s race is particularly important. Control over the U.S. Senate is at stake.

That’s why I’ve made winning this race one of my very top priorities.

Please stand with me now and help Todd Akin.

Todd’s got a great campaign organization. His campaign team is tough and tenacious.

However, he desperately needs the help of grassroots conservatives like you.

As you know, some establishment Republicans have given up on Todd’s race. They believe longshot races in Maine and Hawaii are a “better investment.”

I respectfully disagree. And the public opinion polls back me up.

This race is effectively tied and Todd Akin can win. But only if conservatives from across America rally to his side right now.

Please, as a personal favor to me, make the most generous contribution you possibly can to fund Patriot Voices PAC’s efforts to help elect Todd Akin.

We need to pay for get-out-the-vote drives, phone banks and mailings.

We need to rally every single conservative in the Show Me State to turn out and vote on Election Day.

This is most important Senate race in the country. And Todd Akin can win it.

However he desperately needs our help.

Please donate what you can.

Thank you in advance for all your help.

God bless you and may God bless America!

Sincerely,

Rick Santorum

Watch the video:

Rick also says that the definition of “happiness” was different in the late 18th Century, which, of course, is not true.

Watch the video:

As usual, we recommend drinking Communion wine for this game. We also recommend not driving anywhere for about 48 hours after playing.

Official Rules

Drink once if Rick says:

Welfare
Liberty
Freedom
Founding Fathers
Founding Documents
Constitution
Pursuit of Happiness
American Values
Marriage
Jesus
God
Christian
Judeo-Christian
Islam
Muslim
Satan
DOMA
Prenatal testing
Sanctity
Life
Sexual freedom
Contraception
Abortion
Obama
Obamacare
Romney
Ryan
Liberal
Conservative
Tea party
Iran
Homosexual
Europe
Secular
China
Grandfather
Coalminer
Coal fields
Global warming hoax

Drink twice if Rick says:

Black people
Gay friend
Mussolini
Fascism
Ahmadinejad
Radical environmentalist
Radical Islam
Terror is a tactic
9th Circuit
Theology
Bigot
Hater
World War II
Woodstock
Orgy
Christendom
The Crusades
War on Religion
Fracking

Chug the entire jug of wine if Rick says:

Etch-A-Sketch
Hitler
Blah People
Welfare Queen
Big Buck
Birth control is harmful to women
America is not a salad that you toss
My Grandmother came to this country against her will
They want to get you hooked and make you dependent
Drug dealer
You can call a napkin a car…
Man on dog
Gathering storm
Islamo-Fascist
12th Imam
Full spectrum conservative
The Father of Lies

If you plan on watching the speech and following our rules, we recommend calling in sick to work before the speech begins. Please watch Republican speeches responsibly.