Connect with us

Democrats

Hillary is an easy target

Published

on

Hillary is an easy target

In 2017, it does not require a significant dose of courage to declare yourself homosexual or transgender. It isn’t risky to spout socialist talking points in your college economics class.

It’s not socially dangerous to say things that you know will be accepted or even praised.

What does takes guts in an increasingly polarized and tribalistic political climate is to speak out against the whited sepulchres on your own side and clean out the rot.

But that’s apparently too uncomfortable for many on the Right, particularly the Trump cultists who’ve abandoned all reason in order to defend our fearless leader no matter how far to the Left he flies. Instead, we play a game of “whataboutisms” and deflection.

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg hilariously referenced this tribal hypocrisy in a tweet following Trump’s move to enshrine DACA legislatively:

And speaking of Hillary, she’s back! Her book tour has been a continuation of everything we’ve come to expect from the would-be Wicked Witch of the West Wing: oblivion about why she lost, condescension toward deplorables, and allegations of Trump’s white nationalism. Unsurprisingly, many right-wing commentators have rallied to cackle at the chief cackler, myself included.

But let me just throw this out there: it’s not brave or difficult to bash Hillary Clinton. Everybody hates her, including many on the Left. She has no more power in politics thanks to her own implosion.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the reactions to her ravings and any much-deserved blowback that comes her way. But if you’re going to go there, be sure it’s just a pitstop on your trek to a more substantial landmark.

Take Ben Shapiro’s lead from Tuesday morning’s podcast: rip into Trump for his latest uninhibited concession to the Left, badger Hillary for a while, then springboard into a larger critique of the Democratic Party. Perfection.

When Trump has abandoned his base for the umpteenth time, failing to secure wall funding for the second time, pushing for DACA legislation reminiscent of Jeb Bush or Lindsey Graham, and tweeting comfort to DREAMers per request of Nancy Pelosi, your lead story should not be Hillary’s never-ending spiral into the abyss of irrelevance. Yes, it’s hilarious that she didn’t plan a concession speech. But please provide more depth to your analysis than that.

And certainly don’t get distracted by the Hillary herring at the expense of weightier issues, like Trump’s return to his party of 50 years, or his desertion of principles he never had, or his devotion to pragmatism over his loyal supporters, none of which is actually surprising yet surprisingly few of his followers seem to care.

Talk about how Trump keeps telling Ryan and McConnell to handle immigration, healthcare, and tax reform without giving any direction or hands-on assistance, then abandoning them when they can’t read his mind. That’s dismal policy with any Congress, let alone one as incompetent and inactive as this one.

At this point, take a break and chuckle as you remember that no matter how bad things get, at least Hillary Clinton will never be president. Allow yourself to sigh.

Then jump back to the newly amassed $20 trillion debt with a push by Democrats to almost double it by enacting Medicare-for-all.

Seriously, I know it’s tempting to beat a dead horse, particularly a mare as nightmarish as Hillary Clinton, but we have bigger things to worry about, and we can only cover one story if we’re willing to ignore another. Choose wisely.

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.

Democrats

Sen. Chris Murphy head-fakes Bernie Sanders on single-payer

Published

on

Sen. Chris Murphy doesn’t want us to think that Bernie Sanders is using the Republican dumpster fire over Graham-Cassidy to promote his single-payer plan. So it must be exactly that.

On Friday’s Morning Joe, Murphy said “I know that Republicans want to make the announcement of Bernie’s single-payer the excuse for why they’re moving this bill forward, but that’s not true.”

Now that Sen. John McCain has all but ensured Graham-Cassidy’s death, watch Bernie do exactly the thing that Murphy denies he’s doing.

Perspectives

The push for single-payer healthcare just went national. What does that mean for the California effort? | Melanie Mason, LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-bernie-sanders-single-payer-20170922-htmlstory.htmlThe push for single-payer, in which the government pays for residents’ medical care, has already rattled California’s political landscape. Now, the Sanders measure brings an additional jolt, elevating the issue to a national debate that has implications for the future direction of the Democratic Party and early jockeying in the 2020 presidential race.

Sanders’ single-payer bill causing headaches for Dems in 2018 midterms | Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/21/sanders-single-payer-bill-causing-headaches-for-dems-in-2018-midterms.htmlNot so long ago, moderate Democrats avoided single payer at all costs. Now, to use the parlance of the left, it has been “normalized.” The bill, introduced last week, already has been cast as a litmus test for Democrats eyeing a White House run. And well before 2020, Democratic candidates will face pressure from the liberal flank to get behind the bill in exchange for support in the 2018 midterms.

Reactions

Reactions

Doesn’t look like Bernie is avoiding single-payer talk to me. Or to anyone except Chris Murphy.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Elizabeth Warren would never use faith to pander to the faithful, and other incredible myths

Published

on

Earlier this month, the Boston Globe published an article touting the depth of Elizabeth Warren’s Christian faith. While I won’t question the genuineness of her faith (or lack thereof, whatever the case may be), I do however question the timing of the Globe’s release of the article. Far too often, politicians have used faith to pander to the faithful for votes. Legal Insurrection’s William A. Jacobson explores this point in his piece:

Why this sudden focus on Warren’s Christianity? I consider it the start of the Warren rebranding for 2020. While a lot of potential Democrat candidate names are mentioned, Warren is at the top. Running hard left will help Warren win the primary, but will hurt in the general election. She’s going to have to appeal to those God-fearing Christians Democrats have long mocked as bitter clingers and deplorables.

He may well have a point. Those who have their eyes on either 2018 or 2020 may well start laying the foundations of their campaigns in the here and now. The New York Times pointed out Warren’s robust fund raising in their piece:

Ms. Warren has built a formidable online fund-raising operation, which has brought in $5.1 million this year for her 2018 re-election campaign and allowed her political action committee to donate $270,000 to other Democrats. Yet she also has joined a parade of would-be Democratic presidential contenders who have paid visits to the wealthy summer enclaves that serve as A.T.M.s for the party’s candidates.“I think Elizabeth is laying the groundwork for a run. She won’t admit it, but it looks like that,”

I admit that it may well be mere coincidence that stories about Warren’s “deep faith” are coming out around the same time as the New York Times is publishing articles about her “formidable online fund-raising operation. However, call me a cynic, but I doubt it. “Rebranding” oneself in the political sphere as a “devout follower of Jesus” may be a great ploy to woo naive Christians into casting a ballot for them.

Sadly, the use of religion as a tactic to sway the votes of the faithful has been used since time immemorial and it seems to work; otherwise, politicians wouldn’t keep doing it. The fact of the matter is a large portion of the country still identifies as religious in some form. Roughly 80% (depending on what poll you refer to) of America still identifies as some sect of Christianity. Practically speaking, it’s smart for a politician to dust off “The Good Book” and wave it around as if they’ve been a true believer all their lives. Many politicians have been guilty of this. From Trump’s now iconic “Two Corinthians” speech to Hillary Clinton waxing poetic in regards to being a Methodist while also stating that religious people need to “change their beliefs.” This is a phenomenon that is found both on the left and the right ends of the political spectrum.

Using Faith As A Prop

During the past presidential election, I didn’t support either candidate from the two major political parties. However, as a small-L libertarian, I was drawn to then Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen. I remember sharing a video clip with then-presidential candidate Petersen to my Facebook with words of approval. A fellow Christian commented on the video by saying, “Be careful. He’s an atheist.” My response was essentially one of, “Who cares?” Frankly, I found Pertersen’s honesty refreshing. Instead of pandering to me for my support with lies about his “deep faith”, he frankly admits that while he doesn’t believe as I do, he’ll fight to uphold the constitution, which includes my religious freedom.

However, I feel as though there are many among the faithful who would prefer the comfort of empty professions of faith, rather than hear truth: many politicians who claim to have faith, really have no faith at all. To that point, Jacobson is right to state that “…there’s very little historical evidence of Warren’s ‘deep’ religious faith, other than in a political context.” To contrast her professions of Christianity, he rightly recalls that proof Warren’s claims of possessing Native American heritage remain obscure at best:

…weaving stories from people completely unrelated to Warren as to their own experiences with Native America family lore or growing up as Native American in the 1950’s and 1960’s with bits and pieces of Warren’s story.  The end result is an attempt to paint Warren as a victim of circumstance and the times she grew up in, as a means of explaining away the many inconsistencies in her story.

Yet when one digs down into the actual facts in the Globe story, it actually is quite devastating to Warren, proving that contrary to her many recent accounts, Native American ancestry was not central to her life at any time prior to the mid-1980s when she claimed “Minority Law Teacher” status in a national law faculty directory.

The fact of the matter is, that many already see Warren’s truthfulness as questionable due to the sketchy circumstances regarding her supposed Native American heritage. People of “deep faith”, particularly the Christian faith, should never allow themselves to be put into a position where their integrity is questioned. As Philippians 1:27 states, “Whatever happens, conduct yourself in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. (NIV)” That includes honesty about one’s own heritage.

Putting Faith In Its Proper Place

Our faith should inform our politics, not the other way around. That is not to say that as followers of Jesus, we must completely remove ourselves from the political sphere. Dr. Vincent Bacote points out in his book, “The Political Disciple“:

“While it is vitally important to proclaim the gospel, introduce people to Jesus, and help them move toward faithful discipleship as they participate in church life, it is also tremendously important for Christians to see that it has always been our responsibility to care for the world, cultivating the flourishing of life through our activity in culture, politics, education, medicine, business and every public area.”

 However, he reminds readers:

 “Even if we live in a country like the United States that, as G.K. Chesterton suggested, in some way has ‘the soul of a church,’ our loyalty to country can never be confused with our prime allegiance to the tribune God with whom we are in covenant relationship. “

It’s important to remember that our politics shouldn’t overshadow the faith. Our faith must come first in all things. That being said, we should also practice better discernment. As 1 John 4:1 suggests, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (NIV)”. True, John was speaking of religious leaders, but I think that same healthy skepticism should and must be applied to our politicians.

Whether Elizabeth Warren is a woman “of deep faith” as the Boston Globe claims or not, I don’t pretend to know. People of religious faith should not simply take politicians at their word when it comes to professions of faith; but they should look closely at their voting records, their stance on various issues, and hold their feet to the fire should those same politicians fail to deliver.

Ultimately the question shouldn’t be why politicians continue to use faith to pander to religious voters, the question is: why do we as religious people keep falling for it? I only hope that one day the throngs of the faithful will stop buying into the empty words of politicians as they hollowly wave Christianity around for votes.

 

 

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democrats support DACA for one reason: It’s their only hope for new voters

Published

on

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a commodity in the Trump Stock Exchange and the wall may never have a single brick laid. In 2016, then candidate Trump ran on building a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. He said he would be tough on illegal immigration. After a rough start, the U.S. Supreme Court finally allowed a majority of the second effort end to the flood of illegal immigration to stand. Many cities decided to rebel against President Trump’s executive order. In fact, they have strengthened their stance as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.

Peel back the humanitarian effort of the Democratic Party and DACA has a single purpose: to provide a voting base.

In SB-54, CNN reports California seeks to “[bar] state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources, including money, facility, property, equipment or personnel, to help with immigration enforcement.” This only emboldens those who would stand against President Trump’s move to end DACA. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) seems to feel that breaking the law is okay. Yet, Pelosi will rant and rave about being a nation of laws ruled by law; the latest example being that of President Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio. Right or wrong, how can Pelosi (or anyone else) argue rule of law when she so fervently advocates illegal immigration?

Peel back the humanitarian effort of the Democratic Party and DACA has a single purpose: to provide a voting base. Pelosi doesn’t care that DACA undermines the American worker with dreams. She doesn’t care for the individuals who have stood in line to pay their dues to become American citizens following legal procedures. Let’s face it; Pelosi doesn’t really care for the rule of law unless it suits her purpose.

On September 5, 2017, President Trump seemingly ended DACA. Or did he? There have since been numerous protests mostly by illegal immigrants. Here is something those illegal immigrants don’t seem to know or care about: the U.S. Constitution is for American citizens and while all individuals have rights, it is incumbent upon the individuals’ countries to protect those rights. As of now, those here under the pretense of DACA are here illegally and should be sent home. Yet President Trump might be making deals that may keep them here.

Trump wants to get some economic and tax reforms under way. The Administration needs to make good on his promise to build a wall. He still wants to do something about Obamacare. And he thinks DACA might be his golden ticket. He can dangle this like a carrot in front of Pelosi and Schumer (D-NY) to get just about anything he wants. In 6 months, President Trump will begin phasing out DACA’s protections, the NYTimes reported. While we cannot be entirely certain what that means, the Trump Administration has put the onus on Congress to replace DACA with a piece of legislation before March, 2018. Apparently, Trump is willing to keep parts of DACA in play in order to achieve some of his other goals.

According to CNN, at a dinner in which Pelosi and Schumer attended with President Trump, “… the parameters of any deal, including a potential pathway to citizenship for [DACA] participants and funding for his marquee campaign promise of a wall along the US-Mexico border are up in the air …” Some see this as reaching across the aisle. Or, maybe some even feel like cozying up to the master of the deal. I don’t find it appealing at all, but rather a way to grant amnesty in return for being allowed to follow through on a campaign promise. I believe the numbers have shown that if our budget is not strained with illegal immigrants, those funds can easily pay for the wall.

As if Pelosi and her wayward state of California’s grandstanding against Trump’s orders to curb illegal immigration were not enough, corporations are now following the lead. Uber, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook are among the tech giants moving to support DACA participants sympathetically called Dreamers. Uber and others have even vowed to defend these individuals from being deported. Mark Zuckerberg and other tech CEO’s say that Dreamers, some 800,000 individuals, are vital to technology and are here to reach their full potential. Here is my question to them: what about the millions of Americans who have the same desires and potential?

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Advertisement Federalist Party

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.