Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Where did all the liberals go?

Published

on

From the extreme left of the political spectrum to center, you have communists, socialists, progressives, liberals, and moderates. Hillary Clinton has long identified as a progressive, Bernie obviously popularized modern socialism in America, and we have the increasing presence of anarchist communists in the form of Antifa. But where did all the liberals go?

Ben Shapiro has often distinguished between liberals and the Left. Liberals support big government, but within the republican process and with respect for natural rights such as free speech. They push for the gradual expansion of government, but they do so civilly, with intellectual debate and discourse.

The Left, on the other hand, subscribes to victory by any means necessary, ultimately endorsing fascistic violence and totalitarianism. They refuse to debate and in fact equate counter-arguments with actual violence, meaning they view their escalated actions as justified self-defense.

Such physical assault has recently come almost entirely from the Left, albeit from far-left fascist communists like Antifa. But while Antifa consists of violent extremists, is the group’s philosophy (and subsequent methodology) really that radical?

If it is, no one on the Left seems to feel the need to say so.

In fact, following Antifa’s attacks against right-wing protesters in Berkeley on Sunday, many left-wing leaders have defended the fascist group and justified its violence.

It’s easy to denounce the KKK, Nazism, and white supremacy. They’re evil scum. It’s that simple — no skinhead off my nose. So why can’t the Left do the same about Antifa? Because they actually support it.

The right-wing group at the heart of Sunday’s protest was Patriot Prayer, which has expressly condemned racism, white supremacy, and violence, specifically forbidding white supremacists from participating in their free speech rally. They don’t even have ties to the Alt-Right as far as we know. Predictably, that didn’t stop Leftists from lumping them in with neo-Nazis and Confederates in order to rationalize Antifa’s response.

Nancy Pelosi labeled the event “white supremacist” and an “Alt-Right demonstration.” Counter-protest organizers excused and even praised Antifa, including one pastor who said,“We have no regrets for how they left our city. We do not want white supremacists in our city. We do not want neo Nazis in our city. We do not want the alt right in our city.”

Another organizer agreed: “Our experience on the streets was that we were defended by people who came — as anti-fascists — to do that.”

Our pastor friend concluded, “Why is Antifa all of a sudden becoming labeled as the most violent element when they were literally here with a buffer between those who were here to harm us?”

I don’t know, maybe because only one group at that rally was clobbering peaceful demonstrators and innocent reporters with signs that read “No More Hate”?

While quick to condemn the abhorrent murder in Charlottesville, the Democrats on the United States Commission on Civil Rights refused to issue a similar rebuke against Antifa’s violent tactics.

And finally, instead of insisting his chief of police rescind the department’s repeated stand-down orders, Berkeley’s mayor now suggests that next month’s “Free Speech Week” be cancelled — which would probably go about as well as Baltimore’s “Don’t Kill Anybody” weekend anyway.

A few months ago, I wrote that the Democrat Party has been plotting for years to reveal itself as the haven for socialists, communists, and all kinds of gross Lefty radicals. Their embrace of Antifa is a partial fulfillment of that prediction, and it’s only going to get worse. Antifa is no longer extreme; it is mainstream Democrat.

That brings me back to my initial point: where are the honest, decent, intellectual, virtuous, peaceful liberals? Do they exist in any significant numbers? Someone who’s willing to defy the Democrat Party and speak out for free speech and peaceful assembly, for respect for the Constitution and our nation’s republican system? Dave Rubin is looking pretty lonely right about now.

Liberals, I disagree with you completely, but we need you. This country needs you because it needs sensible debate. If you won’t separate yourselves from the modern Left, then we’ll never find common ground; one side will inevitably obliterate the other.

I don’t want that. This country did it once before, and it was likewise split along party lines. Let’s not repeat history.

Sensible liberals, if you still exist, make your voices heard.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards, Co-Host of The New Guards Podcast, lifelong fan of the Anaheim Ducks, and proud Hufflepuff. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in English from Brigham Young University in 2017. One day later, his wife gave birth to a beautiful daughter. Richie is a constitutional conservative and doesn't see any compassion in violating other people's rights.

Culture and Religion

Evangelicals prostitute themselves to a pimp running for Nevada state assembly

Published

on

Regular readers and listeners of the Strident Conservative are no doubt familiar with my views when it comes to the so-called leaders of the evangelical community and their goose-stepping loyalty to Donald Trump. Spreading the same “cheap grace” theology that gave rise to Hitler and Nazi Germany, this Fellowship of Pharisees peddle moral relativism and lukewarm Christianity as they gleefully accept the crumbs falling from Trump’s table under the delusion that they have a seat in his dining hall.

In an article I wrote back in March about how “God’s man” in the White House was fundamentally transforming the GOP and America into his own hedonistic image, I issued a warning about how this compromising attitude by evangelicals would give rise to an army of “mini-Trumps” across America who would not only be completely sold-out to Trump, but who would be equally lacking in moral character.

In that piece, I introduced you to Dennis Hof, a self-proclaimed pimp who owns a strip club and five legal houses of prostitution, who had just announced his campaign for a state assembly seat because he was just like Trump.

“We’re both famous and infamous. We’re both high-profile. We’re both successful businessmen. We both have reality television shows. We both have written books. We’re both rich and can’t be bought. There’s a lot of similarities.”

Hof left out other things they have in common–multiple divorces, serial adultery, and sex with porn stars–but you get the idea.

I joked at the time how, since Hof was exactly like Trump, evangelicals would eventually support the man who campaigned as the “Trump of Pahrump,” the Nevada town where Hof’s notorious Love Ranch Cathouse is located. Unfortunately, as so often happens when discussing Trump and evangelicals, Hof’s primary victory proved that it wasn’t a joke after all.

As we learn in a recent Reuters article, Hof is sitting pretty and is likely to win the seat in the Nevada legislature thanks to the support of evangelicals willing to set aside morality and religion–just as they did for Trump. Ironically, Hof recognized evangelical hypocrisy as the reason for his success while simultaneously praising Trump for his “honesty.”

People will set aside for a moment their moral beliefs, their religious beliefs, to get somebody honest in office. Trump is the trailblazer, he is the Christopher Columbus of honest politics.”

And the evangelicals shouted in unison, “Amen!”

Evangelical pastor Victor Fuentes, in a calling evil good and good evil sort of way, boldly declared his support for the Nevada pimp.

“People want to know how an evangelical can support a self-proclaimed pimp. We have politicians, they might speak good words, not sleep with prostitutes, be a good neighbor. But their decisions, they have evil in their heart. Dennis Hof is not like that.”

Robert Thomas, a retired prosecutor and evangelical who voted for Hof in the primary and will support his election in November, essentially agreed with Hof about evangelicals laying aside their morals to embrace Trump’s brand of morality. Even though Hof’s prostitution business bothered him “a lot,” Thomas promised to support the self-proclaimed pimp because he “seems to be a man of his word and he does what he says.”

Trump’s fundamental transformation of America is only a symptom; evangelical transformation of America is the real disease; and the prognosis for America’s future is terminal.

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

Culture and Religion

Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory: ‘Writing out’ Most Guns with the Bump-Stock ban.

Published

on

By

Bump Stock

The latest Liberty grabber wave has crested, but Trump is about to give them a tremendous victory over the 2nd amendment.

Now that the Sturm und Drang of the March for gun confiscation has ‘died down’ it has become evident that, much like previous movements of the past, it came to nought aside from some localised suppressions of Liberty. The problem is there a vestige of this assault of freedom that is still rearing it’s ugly head, that of the infamous ban on so-called “Bump-Stocks”.

Those who are rightly concerned about this assault on Liberty can still inscribe their opposition with the Moonshine, Cigarettes and Fire-sticks bureaucracy [Better known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – BATF]  pushing through a new ‘law’ that all by himself, Trump has taken to “Writing Out”.  The deadline is June 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET for everyone to post their opposition to this ‘Law’.

First they came for the Bump-Stocks.

For those who may not care about someone else’s concerns over freedom, just be mindful of a reprise of Martin Niemöller Poem starting with the line: “First they came for the Bump-Stocks, and I didn’t object – For I didn’t care about Bump-Stocks…. Soon enough, they get around to coming after the firearms everyone else cares about, and eventually that will be hunting rifles or shotguns. If you chose to remain silent those guns will be “written out” as well.

But don’t just take our word for it, listen to what the Liberty grabbers have stated in bragging about the subject:

Delaney Tarr [March for Our Lives]

When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.):

Upon being asked if the bill was a slippery slope toward further gun restrictions, she said, “So what? … I certainly hope so.”

Apparently we’re not supposed to notice when the Liberty grabber Left broadcasts their intentions to the world. We’re supposed to let them get a foot in the door of a pretext for further bans before objecting.

Giving up the question.

David Deming over on the American thinker, Made the very important point that sacrificing one more time to the Liberty grabbers of what seems to be nothing is in essence:

If we agree to ban bump stocks because they facilitate rapid firing, we have given up the question. We have agreed in principle that any dangerous gun can be banned and confiscated by an arbitrary executive order. All guns are capable of rapid fire, and all guns are inherently dangerous. Pump-action shotguns can be rapidly fired and reloaded. Jerry Miculek can fire five shots from a double-action revolver in 0.57 seconds. High-capacity magazines most certainly facilitate rapid fire, so they also will have to go. A writer who wants to ban all “private individual ownership of firearms” recently argued that “even bolt-action rifles can still fire surprisingly fast in skilled hands.” He’s right. All magazine-fed guns will be outlawed.

Automatic redefinition.

In point of fact, the ATF previously ruled that Bump-Stocks [and presumably other ways of ‘bump-firing a gun – Fast fingers, Rubber bands and Belt-loops] don’t actually convert ordinary semi-automatic firearms to a “Machine gun” because the trigger has to be pulled for every shot. Now with the President’s authorising this linguistic legerdemain, this definition codified in the law has been blurred to the point that any gun that can be ‘Bump-fired’ could also be banned. However, they can’t very well ban fingers, belt-loops or rubber bands, so they will just ban each and every gun that can fire too fast.

Just ‘Write-out’ this legal requirement and Voila! Any gun that can be fired too fast for the sensibilities of the Liberty grabbers can be thought of as a “Machine Gun” and banned instantly – converting most of the 120 Million gun owners into instant felons. With a bit of training,  most guns can be fired faster, so in essence, letting them change this legal definition could have them ban just about every gun in existence.

The Takeaway.

One might not care about the fate of thousands of inert pieces of plastic or what happens to those who have them. One might not care if someone won’t be able to bump-fire a weapon in this particular way. But we on the Pro-Liberty Right will rue the day that we let this go through in exchange for nothing.

If we let the powers that be arbitrarily proclaim that some guns with these pieces of inert plastic are “Machine Guns’, the day will soon dawn when ALL guns are dishonestly ‘written out’ as the same. It will then just be a slippery slope to everyone having to undergo a background check, registration and of course – TAXES – on guns that we already own. Followed by the inevitable confiscation of those guns.

Those who remain silent now will only have themselves to blame when this happens – so now is the time to stop this dead in it’s tracks. The comment window is only open for a few more days [Jun 27, 2018 11:59 PM ET], make the best of it.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Is Mike Pence too political for church?

Published

on

There have been a lot of talk lately about Mike Pence speaking at the SBC. Many complained claiming it was divisive and political. Jonathan Leeman wrote an article for The Gospel Coalition criticizing the very idea of Mike Pence speaking. I will address this article in greater detail on the points that I agree and disagree with. But first, let me answer the very question I posed: Pence isn’t too political to address a congregation, but his speech was.

In short, Mike Pence’s address offered zero substantive theological content. It was merely about his privilege as serving as Vice President. While acknowledging this privilege merited a short section in the beginning, it needed no more continuation. Instead, Mike Pence droned on and on about his experiences and the administration’s accomplishments.

I think there’s only one way you can sum up this administration: It’s been 500 days of action, 500 days of accomplishment. It’s been 500 days of promises made and promises kept. 

Pence’s address followed a pattern of praising Trump with loosely intertwined references to God and praising his hosts as guest speakers often do. The intertwined religious language while praising the accomplishments, not of God, but of the President is the briefest summation of Pence’s speech to the SBC that can be offered. The only biblical passage cited was Psalm 126 in reference to a story that served as praise to the Trump administration. God wasn’t working though Trump in Pence’s speech. Instead, Trump was working. At the end of his speech, Pence did offer a superficial message about praying for America with a quoting scripture.

Mike Pence had an opportunity to address the leaders of many churches. He blew it. But would all politicians do the same?

Politicians Should Be in the Pew, Not the Pulpit?

Jonathan Leeman’s article for The Gospel Coalition draws this conclusion. He has five reasons for not allowing politicians to address a church event.

  1. No reason to give attention to a politician’s words over a plumber’s or an accountant’s, at least not in our assemblies or associations.
  2. Having a political leader address our churches or associations of churches tempts us to misconstrue our mission.
  3. Undermines our evangelistic and prophetic witness.
  4. Hurts the unity of Christ’s body

Reason one is most certainly true. However, I believe we ought to separate the person from the profession. On the basis of spiritual maturity and calling should a politician or any notable guest address an assembly. This first reason is the one I believe to have the most merit in regards to the situation at hand. Inviting a politician to address a Congregation is wrong if the only reason is that they are a politician. However, if the politician is a member of the church, what is wrong with having a fellow member speak?

Reasons two and three are certainly tied together in there logic. I believe these reasons hold merit for Pence’s sacrelidgious speech but are not inherently true of all politicians who accept such similar offers. Reasons two and three open a multitude of separate issues both independent and dependent on the circumstances. Meaning, yes this could happen, but the degree in which we can mitigate the temptation are limited for Satan is the tempter. In the case of Pence, reason three was definitely true. Many would see that the SBC tied itself to Trump. But that is not the fault of the SBC per se. But that is Pence’s fault for giving a campaign rally speech instead of a message. If Pence gave a theologically sound speech there should be little temptation to misconstrue the mission. The third reason is inevitable. Since the beginning, Christians witness has been undermined by the lies of Satan. The original Christians were thought to be cannibal and even atheists. We can’t always prevent these lies, but it would be good not to validate them which Pence did.

Now hurting the unity of the body of Christ is a weak point. Leeman’s fourth point is basically saying that Pence is too polarizing, because Trump is… Trump, on a National level to address a church. Pence is polarizing, but he was polarizing before Trump. The polarizing premise is true but, assuming Pence is indeed a follower off Christ, this would be the result of living a Christian life. Here’s another polarizing figure: Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cake Shop. Would polarity disqualify him from speaking? If we are to apply national likability to our church speakers, we’re going to end up with a lot of TV personalities who don’t comprehend dyophysitism.

Like Jack Philips, Pence has taken a lot of flak for being a devout Christian. Isn’t this the kind of person who may have a good message to the assembly? Seemingly so. Again Pence under-delivered. To be fair, Leeman clearly states he doesn’t blanket outlaw politicians from speaking.

I can envision a few circumstances where there is some measure of mission overlap that could justify it. Maybe a group of Christian college presidents asks the secretary of education to address them. Or a Christian conference on work asks a Christian congressman to talk about working as a Christian on the Hill, so that attendees can apply the principles to their own settings.

But while it’s not an outlaw, such an unwritten policy places constraints on the church that are not inherently necessary. Leeman supposes some similar justification was used when The Gospel Coalition had Ben Sasse speak. In 2017, Ben Sasse addressed The Gospel Coalition and gave a theological speech. He was noted for sounding more like a pastor than a politician.

To me only two things matter:

  1. Theological substance
  2. Correct theological substance

On these two requirements I think the body of Christ would remain unified with a clear picture of its mission.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.