Connect with us

Politics

Taking on the Left: My interview with Erin Cruz, candidate for US Senate in California

Published

on

I recently got to have an hour-long phone conversation with Erin Cruz, a youthful and energetic California conservative who is intent on challenging Dianne Feinstein for her Senate seat.

In an era when most Republican candidates seem intent on either embracing the craziness of the Alt-right or embracing the do-nothing politics of the establishment, I found it refreshing to speak with a staunch conservative who put principles first, but who is also willing and able to face the reality of the polarization of our nation’s politics.

BW: So, first thing’s first: What made you decide to run for the Senate?

EC: As I looked at the field of candidates, there was simply no one there I could vote for. There was no one who could bridge the gap between conservatives, libertarians, and moderate Democrats. I feel that my beliefs and my policies can bridge that gap and best serve the people of California.

BW: What unique qualities do you have that you could bring to the Senate?

EC: Well as I said, the ability to bring people together toward common goals and not get bogged down in partisan political gridlock.

BW: What challenges do you think you have in running in deep blue California, and how do you plan to overcome them?

EC: Well my biggest challenge is name ID. Many people vote for Feinstein just because she is the incumbent and has name recognition. Getting my name, and even more importantly, my ideas, out there is going to be the key to winning. I’m going to need a “big get out the vote” effort. President Trump got 4 million votes in California. I need all of those and more to make this happen.

BW: If elected, what would be your legislative priorities?

EC: Well, I think President Trump has done a great job of rolling back regulations and rolling back overly intrusive and unnecessary departments, but there is only so much he can do with executive authority alone. I want to legislatively roll back agencies and with them unnecessary spending, which is something neither party has been willing to tackle.

BW: What other changes would you like to see to the federal budget?

EC: I think there are a lot of obvious ways to save taxpayer money. Foreign aid to countries who actively work against us is low-hanging fruit and should be cut immediately. There is also extensive fraud, waste, and abuse across every department in the federal government, and we owe it to the taxpayers to make certain their money is being spent efficiently. Further, there is a lot of fraud in federal welfare programs, such as disability.

BW: California has fairly strict gun control laws. What would you do at the Federal level to strengthen the rights of gun owners?

EC: I would support the 2nd Amendment and its intent, which has nothing to do with hunting or sporting. It is about the right for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves, even potentially from an oppressive government.

BW: California has one of the largest populations of illegal aliens in the country. What would you do to help stem the tide of illegal border crossings?

EC: We MUST secure our border, and that includes building the wall. We must also work to keep welfare programs from spending taxpayer money on the illegals here, and we must work to remove criminal aliens.

BW: Turning from policy to politics for a moment, what help, if any, do you expect from the RNC?

EC: I’m already working on the California Republican Party The RNC can help or not, but it won’t change my position on issues. That goes the same for anyone who donates to my campaign. Donors will be donating to me and the principles I hold. They shouldn’t expect special favors because they won’t get any.

BW: Would you favor a change of leadership in the Senate or would you support Mitch McConnell’s continued leadership of the Senate?

EC: What is important to me is supporting President Trump’s “America First” policies. Someone who is willing to push that agenda forward is who I would support for Senate Majority Leader, whoever that might be.

BW: Attorney General Jeff Sessions has decided to crack down on states that have legalized marijuana, of which California is perhaps the most prominent. Do you feel he is doing the right thing?

EC: I don’t believe Sessions is cracking down on California so much as he is enforcing the law the way it is written. Congress needs to step up and change the law if they don’t like it.

BW: So, would you support a bill that would decriminalize marijuana at the Federal level?

EC: Yes, I would, but with the same restrictions as alcohol. We need personal responsibility but in all aspects of our lives, and driving and other activities while high is dangerous. What people do in their own homes is their own business.

After our interview concluded, I told Ms. Cruz that if things didn’t work out in California, I would love to have her move to Texas and run against John Cornyn. Texas would then have two staunch conservative senators named “Cruz.”

If you want to learn more about Erin Cruz, you can go to her website here.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. RG

    January 12, 2018 at 10:13 am

    HELP!!! Someone? California has become a shithole

  2. Donald M. Flippin

    January 13, 2018 at 12:24 pm

    I don’t think the lady has a snowball’s chance in California, but I do like the idea of having two senators in Texas with the last name of Cruz!

Leave a Reply

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

Guns and Crime

Will the left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe?

Published

on

By

Will the Left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe

Shouldn’t the gun confiscation crowd admit that depriving the people of the right of self-defense hasn’t kept people safe?

That didn’t take long. In many cases it’s easy to predict how long a news story will stay in the headlines. Yesterday, December 11, 2018 a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar” attacked a Christmas market in the French city of Strasbourg.

French police release image of Christmas market attack suspect

https://news.sky.com/story/one-dead-in-french-christmas-market-shooting-11578206The killer, who opened fire with a handgun and used a knife to stab people, is still on the run after he was shot in the arm during a gunfight with police.

He escaped in a taxi and there are concerns he may have fled to Germany where vehicles are now being checked at the border.

Chekatt has 27 convictions in France, Germany and Switzerland, said prosecutor Remy Heitz.

In less than 24 hours, the story has almost dropped from the headlines. Had this taken place stateside, the liberty grabbers on the left would have exploited the tragedy for maximum political gain within minutes. The problem is this didn’t take place in the states, but rather in a locale with strict controls on freedom. The perpetrator also used a handgun and used a knife instead of an evil black rifle. Finally, the killer made his motives clear by what he shouted.

Therefore, it was adverse to the left’s ‘gun reform’ agenda of gun confiscation. Nothing that could be construed at least at present as being an ‘assault weapon’ or whatever the term is this week. Lastly, the evidence points to this being Islamic terrorism. Even though the manhunt continues as this is being reported, the point remains. This was an obvious failure of the left’s gun confiscation agenda and it shows the threat of Islamic terrorism so the story has virtually disappeared.

Location, location, location

Compare the coverage of this story with a similar situation of a shooting in the states. Most likely the refrain would have been this only happens in the states because of the NRA or GOA wants to keep liberty and the right of self-defense. Most assuredly, they wouldn’t have phrased it that way, since they still have to keep up the fiction that they are ‘liberal’ in some form or another. It would have been couched in terms of ‘gun reform’ or ‘gun safety’ or whatever the terms happens to be this week.

Liberty grabber plans after their take-over of the House of Representatives

Since we’re on the subject, take note of the plans of the leftist liberty grabbers to denigrate the common-sense human right of self-preservation come January when they take-over the House of Representatives. As reported in the Hartford Courant:

Gun control advocates optimistic new Congress will act on their agenda

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-blumethal-murphy-newtown-guns-20181206-story.htmlBut now Democrats will seize the reins and plan to press for votes on measures that would tighten federal gun laws after the new Congress begins work in January. Once ignored, key proposals, including the expansion of FBI background checks of gun purchasers, are now likely to pass the U.S. House with its new Democratic majority.

On Thursday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who hopes to be the next House speaker, said “we will pass common sense gun violence prevention legislation soon, and … it will be bipartisan.”

Why does a failure in government overreach have to mean even more government overreach? From now on, it should be incumbent on the politicians to carefully explain why they need even more control over our lives. They need to show their work in just how some new ‘solution’ is supposed to solve the problem. This would include citing examples of unbiased reportage on similar ‘solutions’ from other locations that have actually worked.

Rapid firing rifles, oh my!

Then in the same article, a chilling turn of phrase on the issue of ‘the rapid firing of rifles’:

Other bills that will be keyed up for votes include … bans on “bump stocks” that allow the rapid firing of rifles and “3D” guns made with special printers and limiting magazines to no more than 10 bullets.

[Our emphasis]

Did everyone catch that? They are no longer referring to terms that have specific definitions such as automatic or semiautomatic fire. They are now referring to the speed of the operation of a weapon, not its functionality in select fire modes. We already know that they want to push the issue down the infamous slippery slope of government overreach. This means that they are signalling a change in rate of fire as a way of controlling our basic human Right of self-defense, as predicted by those opposed to Trump’s ‘meaningless’ surrender on the ‘Bump-Stock’ issue.

In other words, now that Trump and the NRA gave up an important point for absolutely no credit from the Liberty grabber community, they will use that inch’ and take it a mile. Instead of discussions of Automatic or Semiautomatic fire, the talking point will be on the ‘Rapid firing’ of guns as being too deadly. It should be patently obvious were the Liberty grabbers on the left will take it from there.

The Takeaway.

For too long the Left has taken the ‘throwing…papers up against a wall technique’ hoping that something will stick i.e. something will finally work. Meanwhile, the extent of our Liberty shrinks each time.

There is always a cost to every new idea of the Left. For every piece of legislation, there is an accompanying cost in Liberty and dollars. For the case of Leftist steps to gun confiscation, we citizens have a right to know how these measures will supposedly keep people safe. For far too long the Left has taken credit for making everyone safer without actually proving it. We are rapidly reaching the tipping point to gun confiscation, so from now on they have to prove that their draconian controls will work as promised. If they cannot, they shouldn’t attain more control over our lives.

Continue Reading

Politics

What classical liberalism is, briefly

Published

on

What classical liberalism is briefly

The progressive left and the Democratic Party have undergone many transformations over the last century. They’ve masterfully spun American understanding of language and labels to the point that history has been in a constant state of being rewritten to conform to their machinations. One of the most perverse examples of this is how they now claim the mantle of “liberalism.”

Sadly, those who embrace Natural Rights, limited government, and individualism have been forced to amend our label as liberals to become “classical liberals” for the sake of escaping confusion. Most Americans today would assume if we call ourselves “liberals” that we must be big fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

This video by classical liberal Dave Rubin at The Rubin Report breaks it down in less than two minutes.

Liberty-loving proponents of personal responsibility and self-governance have had our label taken from us. Today, a liberal is a progressive. It’s like saying a hamburger is a vegetable, but that’s the state of American understanding today.

This is, of course, part of the political war. Words have meaning, as leftists love to say, so they’ve done everything they can to change the meaning of many words. “Liberal” is one of them. They started with a lie and repeated it over and over again until it became… politics.

Liberalism

Over the next few weeks I’ll be going into much more detail about the ideology of classical liberalism, its history, and how it should play a role in modern politics. We’ll be asking (and answering) important questions surrounding the resurging movement, including:

  • Should classical liberals attempt to retake the “liberal” moniker from leftists?
  • Why true liberals should embrace limited government
  • Is classical liberalism really making a comeback or has it been here all along?
  • Why the progressive “liberal” left is neither liberal nor champions of progress
  • How did liberalism, born to defend individualism, become synonymous with collectivism?

Is it possible to wrest the “liberal” label away from leftists? Is it necessary? Would it simply add more confusion to the polarized political atmosphere in America? Would that be a bad thing?

Continue Reading

Democrats

Kevin McCarthy: GOP can investigate Democrats, but Democrats can’t investigate Trump

Published

on

Kevin McCarthy GOP can investigate Democrats but Democrats cant investigate Trump

When my friend and fellow talk-show host Shannon Joy refers to the Republican and Democrat duopoly in Washington as the #UNIBROW, she does so to show how there is no difference between the two parties when it comes to their agendas.

Another trait they have in common is their obvious display of hypocrisy when it comes to manipulating the rule of law to protect political parties for partisan purposes, especially if you’re a member of the party that was soundly defeated recently, placing you in the minority.

The latest example of what this looks like comes to us courtesy of the new GOP leader in the House, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), in his latest defense of Donald Trump. In a recent interview with Trump Pravda (FOX News), McCarthy mentioned that he thinks it’s time for the Democrats to surrender their subpoena power to investigate the president.

“It looks like what [Democrats will] focus on is just more investigations. I think America is too great a nation to have such a small agenda.

“I think there are other problems out there that we really should be focused on. And my belief is, let’s see where we can work together. Let’s move America forward.”

Ironically, as Obama’s re-election got underway after the Democrats lost the House in the 2010 midterms, Pelosi sounded a lot like McCarthy concerning the need to work together. Funny how the losing party interprets their defeat as a call for “bipartisanship,” isn’t it?

It’s also ironic how the losing party in these two midterm elections, in large part, lost due to the unpopularity of their representative in the White House after two years of broken promises.

McCarthy’s disingenuous plea for bipartisanship is a different tune than the one he was singing in 2015 during the Benghazi hearings. Not only did he support never-ending investigations of Obama and Hillary, he openly admitted in an interview with Sean Hannity that his primary motivation was finding ways to take down the Democrat nominee.

“What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

“But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.”

I wonder whatever happened to that “conservative speaker” and that “conservative Congress.”

In the end, McCarthy is playing the same role in 2018 that Pelosi played in 2010: protect the president and the party instead of America while making partisan demands to serve as fodder for the next election.

Hopefully, true conservatives will see through this masquerade of self-centered scoundrels and reject the reprobate “representatives” dwelling in D.C. from both parties.

And yes … that includes the Democrat with an “R” after his name currently occupying the White House.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


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 Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report