Connect with us

Everything

Why we’re adding Breitbart back to the mix… for now

Published

on

When we first launched this website, we did so to be a counterbalance against two powerful right-leaning news forces: Drudge and Breitbart. Both were very much in the back pocket of then-candidate Donald Trump, attacking conservative candidates like Ted Cruz and making excuses for every liberal or idiotic notion proposed by their chosen one.

Things have changed. Drudge has been subdued in recent weeks, spending less space promoting Trump’s agenda but also ignoring stories that damage him; currently, Sebastian Gorka’s resignation/termination is conspicuously absent from the site, for example. That’s not to say we won’t call them out when they lurch left or promote an alt-right agenda, but for the most part they’ve been under the radar for a while.

Breitbart is different. There’s always been conflict about how to handle the site because of the diversity of thought. It’s easy to take left-wing propaganda sites like HuffPo or Buzzfeed and ridicule their attempts to manipulate minds through spun narratives, but sites like Breitbart are different. Sometimes, they’re posting outrageous articles that do damage to the small-government, freedom loving movement embodied by federalism. Other times they are on the right side of the argument, often leading the discussion and boldly exploring topics from angles others wouldn’t touch.

The removal of Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka from the White House and their subsequent returns to Breitbart are interesting. While both still represent a destructive element in conservatism – namely the “alt-right” – they are also correct on some issues. Moreover, they seem to be the “MAGA purists” that compelled so many people to vote for Donald Trump in the first place.

To be perfectly clear, our mission at The New Americana has not changed. We want to promote conservative and federalist messages to the masses in an effort to educate the general population about the need to rein in DC. We do not support Republicans or Democrats. We support America, which means that we will call out members of either party when they push for expanding DC’s overreach and we will cheer them on when they shrink government to fit better inside the Constitution.

We haven’t changed, but Breitbart might. We’re willing to give them that chance. If they’re going to focus on being defenders of freedoms, calling out corruption and government expansion in DC, we will post those stories. If it turns out they’re going to continue to be a mouthpiece for the Trump agenda of growing DC, economic isolationism, and alt-right principles, we’ll take them off just as quickly.

Bannon and Gorka learned that embracing a lifetime liberal Democrat as their vehicle for change was stupid. What they couldn’t do from within Trump’s swamp of Ivanka, Kushner, Tillerson, and Mnuchin, perhaps they’ll be able to do from Breitbart. In the coming weeks, we’ll learn whether Breitbart is an ally to the small-government federalist cause or not.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Patrick Cloven

    August 27, 2017 at 6:50 am

    I will watch with a very skeptical eye. The alt right has never been a Conservative or Constitutional element of the GOP. They are weak minded populists and in many cases blatant white nationalists. Steve Bannon intentionally gave them a platform. The cause of Liberty cannot be advanced by those who would deny the Liberty of others.

    • JD Rucker

      August 27, 2017 at 11:18 am

      I’m not hopeful, but willing to give it a chance. Won’t take long. Will reevaluate next week.

  2. Jill Kent

    August 27, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    As much as I would love to have the Breitbart of old, I cannot follow links to the Breitbart of today. They’ve done too much damage to conservatism and have become a home to those to far too many anti-semites.

    • JD Rucker

      August 27, 2017 at 3:05 pm

      Chances are pretty strong that we’ll come to the same exact conclusion. Funny… we were searching for good stories today and came up with exactly zero. Not giving up, but not hopeful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Everything

Frathouse Conservatism Sucks

Published

on

I’m going to do a lot of offending in this column so viewer discretion advised if you are a snowflake on the left or right. The problem in the Conservative movement that needs addressing is the number of young Conservatives rising to prominence who lack any real depth or articulate principles. I dub thee “Frathouse Conservatism” because the problem largely stems from campus organizations. I am 22, so this isn’t some Gen Xer ranting about Millenials and Gen Z. In fact, I do not boast about how much better I am. Rather I point out the cause of the problem and point to the solution.

Rejection of Worldview

Western civilization is founded on the intersection of Athens and Jerusalem. The founding father’s took ideas of John Locke. Read this excerpt from the Second Treastie Chapter 2:

that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends;
and, on the other side, ill-nature, passion, and revenge will carry them
too far in punishing others, and hence nothing but confusion and disorder
will follow, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government
to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant that
civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the
state of Nature, which must certainly be great where men may be judges
in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined that he who was so
unjust as to do his brother an injury will scarce be so just as to condemn
himself for it. But I shall desire those who make this objection to remember
that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be 

the remedy of those evils which necessarily follow from men being judges
in their own cases, and the state of Nature is therefore not to be endured,
I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better
it is than the state of Nature, where one man commanding a multitude
has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects
whatever he pleases without the least question or control of those who
execute his pleasure? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason,
mistake, or passion, must be submitted to? which men in the state of
Nature are not bound to do one to another. And if he that judges, judges
amiss in his own or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of
mankind.

The Conservative worldview is largely pieced together by John Locke. Mankind in fallen. Government can’t correct mankind’s fallen nature, because government is made up of fallen men. Fallen men, if given arbitrary uncheckable authority, will commit injustices. Therefore it is most ideal that government be limited in its purpose. It’s purpose is to protect inalienable rights and to navigate violations of said rights.

Conservative worldview hinges on accepting the premise that mankind is fallen. One need not be religious to accept this premise. Many Conservatives unknowingly accept fallen nature to be true while others fully embrace this premise. The Frathouse Conservative supplements this premise if not outright rejects the notion altogether. Instead of mankind being intrinsically flawed, the state is intrinsically flawed. This substituted premise often results in the same conclusions as far as policy goes, but rejecting a fundamental pillar of the Conservative worldview is the root of Frathouse Conservatism’s inferiority.

Rejection of Mission

Frathouse Conservatism confides Conservatism to simply small governance. This directly stems from the rejection of the fallen nature. Conservatism, in accepting mankind’s state, necessitates the pursuit of living to a higher standard. All of the founding fathers believed in living high moral standards, despite their diverse religious beliefs. The founding fathers wanted no part in debauchery. Frathouse Conservatism may instead celebrate immoral behavior under the guise of limited government. More distinctly, Frathouse Conservatism is ready to lampoon deviant moral behavior.

Frathouse Conservatism is not as purposeless as it may seem. The movement does contain a mission, however vein it may be. The best way to phrase it is in their own words “owning the libs!” In accomplishing this, there are no boundaries or lines not to be crossed. The use of personal attacks is often substituted for substantive argument. A classic example of this is Tomi Lahren who believes that social issues are a waste of time. Her column on social issues showed a very misinformed understanding of the last three presidential elections and a concern for only illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is an issue where conservatism favors one side. There are many worldviews that could come to the same conclusion that America needs to curb illegal immigration. Some people are concerned about security, others cost. There’s also a principled belief in rule of law. And of course nativism exists. Not all of these are necessarily conservative. But the mission of Conservatism isn’t to win elections as Lahren suggests it should be. The perpetuity of Republicans in office has shown to be a detriment to Conservatism. Rather Conservatism seeks to better society, largely through small governance. Jesse Kelly understands the mission in how he responded. Ben Shapiro’s response was also worth noting

One Trick Ponies

If were ranking top issues for the Conservative cause, opposing abortion is one of them. But not everyone on the side of life is a Conservative. In my experience arguing abortion with the pro-abortion, there arguments shift from logical fallacies to denial of moral personhood for all of the unborn.

These types of arguments do not have substantial logical backing, especially when placed in perspective with cultural practices and norms. The pro-abortion side is simply not the logical side of the debate. One doesn’t have to be a Conservative to come to this conclusion. Many people can articulate well thoughtout pro-life arguments. This doesn’t make them a great Conservative. A great Conservative can articulate Conservative positions on various issues with intellectual consistency. The Frathouse Conservative cannot.

Abortion is not the only trick these ponies may know. It’s similar to libertarians who are libertarian because of marijuana. There’s also immigration (back to Tomi Lahren) and race (Candace Owens). And then there are the snowflakes whose mission is to trigger the snowflakes. And upon being challenged, they hit that block button on twitter. And of course there’s the everyday Trump bandwagoners like CJ Pearson who wants to line his own Paypal account.

Tactics of the Left

Candace Owens is a classic example of a Frathouse Conservative. She is very capable of explaining why she walked away from the Left. There is nothing wrong with that. What I have issue with is two things:

  1. Her reliance and profiting from Identity Politics
  2. Smear on those who think differently

We get it, you’re black. Ted Cruz is hispanic. You don’t see him using his race to pander to “his” group. Conservatives should not be seeking attention for their race, rather, they should be seeking attention for their ideas and merits. Candace Owens has little of either. She can explain her life story. That’s fine, but she’s wrong to assume black people can’t freely be Democrats. Further more, her tactics are of the Left.

The Left has successfully employed identity based labels to attack those they disagree with. Owens employs the same. Conservatives should stay away from these tactics.

Solution

Frathouse Conservatism aims to own the libs. The libs do a good job at owning themselves and eating their own. The Frathouse Conservative places too much uniqueness in themselves. Demographically speaking, the coming generations of voters are likely to be more Conservative because Republicans are having more kids. The baby gap has been written about for over a decade now. After all, the Left supports abortion, gay marriage, and free birth control. These three things are not conducive to bearing children. Mathematically speaking, it is likelier for a child now to be raised in a Republican household. This doesn’t mean, they will grow up Conservative. However this does mean a young Conservative, like myself, is nothing special or surprising. Sorry to disappoint.

The solution begins by first realizing that a young Conservative is nothing unique, therefore not seeking attention for it. Don’t go to colleges that suppress free speech(yes this is something you can research), and don’t treat college like a summer camp. Work during school, and if you’re not working during school, you better be more articulate than Amanda Kemp and half the writers at Lone Conservative. You have the time.

With that said, everyone wants to be Ben Shapiro, but no one wants to put in the same work that Ben Shapiro put in. Shapiro is a hardcore writer and reader. The Frathouse conservatives on Twitter are typically neither. And through reading and writing, education and practice, the Frathouse Conservative can graduate to being an actual Conservative.

Continue Reading

Politics

Breaking free of the GOP Matrix

Published

on

If you’re a Facebook user, you’re no doubt familiar with the “memories” feature. Users who click this link can look back at posts and other activities made on a specific date in years past. For example, on July 18th, 2018, I was able to look at activity from July 18th, 2017, July 18th, 2016, and so on.

While I often find little value in these brief trips down memory lane, yesterday’s journey reminded me of why I do what I do as the Strident Conservative.

On July 18th, 2016, the Republic National Convention kicked off its coronation of a New York liberal as its candidate for president. As a #NeverTrump conservative at the time, I had great hope that the #FreeTheDelegates effort would save the GOP from itself.

Using the movie The Matrix as an example in a piece I wrote that day, I challenged conservative delegates attending the convention to break free from the Republican Party and to rescue others trapped in the GOP Matrix.

In the movie, we learn of a world created by machines that makes slaves of the human race and uses them as fuel to feed its existence. We also learn how “agents” of the Matrix hunt down and destroy those trying to escape, but how one man, Neo, defeats the agents and sets the captives free.

Likewise, I wrote how I saw Americans as slaves to the Washington machine to be used as fuel to feed its existence. I also observed how party leadership served as the agents working to destroy conservative who were trying to escape and how only being like Neo would we have any hope of escaping the GOP Matrix.

Obviously, the Matrix was victorious two years ago. And unfortunately, the machine world of the GOP has grown even more powerful as Trump, much like agent Smith in the movie, has seized complete control of the GOP Matrix. At the same time, party leadership continues to play its role as agents bent on destroying conservatives and protecting the machine.

So, why am I happy about this trip down memory lane? Because it’s a reminder to me that the fight’s not over. And as we approach the mid-term election in November, it’s also a reminder that today is an opportunity to free another conservative from the GOP Matrix.

That’s where this Neo is. Are there any other Neo’s out there who want to join me?

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Media

Trump failed with Putin due to anti-Trump Republicans and fake news

Published

on

Following Trump’s bizarre performance at the Helsinki Summit with his BFF Vladimir Putin, bi-partisan condemnation of his press conference was swift and severe after he expressed his willingness to accept Putin’s word that Russia didn’t interfere with the 2016 election, despite findings by US intelligence proving otherwise.

Not to worry, though. Following this backlash, and now that he’s home and a safe distance away from Putin, Trump’s false bravado was back on full display yesterday as he attempted to backtrack from his previous statements about Russian interference.

According to Trump, he didn’t reject US intelligence in favor of Russia; he simply misspoke. He’s always believed Russia interfered. He’s just a victim of the English language.

“The sentence should have been ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia,’ sort of a double negative. So you can put that in and I think it probably clarifies things pretty good.

“I have on numerous occasions noted our intelligence findings that Russians attempted to interfere in our elections.”

But Trump’s difficulty with contractions isn’t the only reason for this apparent misunderstanding. Not at all. The real culprit, as is always the case when the news is unfavorable, is the “Fake News” media.

Sadly, criticism of Trump’s Helsinki remarks has been noticeably missing in some so-called conservative circles in Washington and in the media. Not only that, they have joined the Trump echo chamber in defending him.

For example, according to Trump, Sen. Rand Paul agreed with his claim that the Mueller investigation was responsible for Trump’s troubling comments.

Additionally, in an interview with Trump Pravda (FOX News), Paul called out Republicans who criticized Trump, labelling them pro-war and/or anti-Trump for doing so.

“Republicans that are making the criticism are either the pro-war Republicans like McCain and Graham or the anti-Trump ones like Sasse … They are motivated by their persistent and consistent dislike of the president.”

In the House of Representatives, so-called conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus embraced Trump’s “Fake News” mantra, arguing that the media’s criticism of Trump’s statements had overshadowed his accomplishments concerning Russia. At least, that’s how Freedom Caucus member Rep Warren Davidson sees it:

“The reality is people are upset about what President Trump said, but they’re not giving him credit for what he’s done.”

Is it just me, or shouldn’t what you say jive with what you do? I think they call that walking the talk.

Meanwhile, sounding like he wrote Trump’s “Fake News” talking points, the conservative talk show host formerly known as Rush Limbaugh, also blames the media for Trump’s pro-Russia comments, saying that their “embarrassingly shallow and puerile, infantile questions” were responsible.

So, take heart, America. Trump didn’t mean what he said when he said it. He was simply playing 3-D chess with the Russian President, and anyone who thinks otherwise only does so because they are pro-war, anti-Trump, and they believe fake news.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.