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.

Benjamin Wilhelm served as a commissioned officer in the United States military for 10 years, serving one combat tour in Afghanistan. He is a recipient of the Bronze Star and Combat Action Badge among other military awards. Ben has worked in a variety of private sector businesses both large and small. He is a former military and civilian firearms instructor and an advocate for veterans issues. Ben is a strict Constitutionalist who sees the Federal government as an out of control leviathan, and the federal debt as a burden that will break the country. Ben is a divorced father of two boys.

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 *

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

Foreign Affairs

Trump’s trade war faces resistance from GOP, but it probably won’t matter

Published

on

While the government-contrived immigration “crisis” at the border involving forced family separations has captured the headlines—effectively giving Trump and the GOP the cover they need to save DACA and create a pathway to citizenship for millions of illegal aliens—Trump’s trade war was the topic of the day during hearings with the Senate Finance Committee yesterday.

Following recent announcements of retaliatory tariffs being leveled against the US by Canada, China, Mexico, and the EU, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appeared before the committee to defend what the committee referred to as Trump’s “knee-jerk impulses” with his trade policies.

Senators from both parties blasted Ross over Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs—which Ross once defended as “no big deal” because any impact they might have on consumer prices would be “trivial”—following recent economic data indicating that tariffs were indeed having a negative impact on the US economy.

After pointing out that tariffs were responsible for raising prices by 20 percent or more for certain US manufacturers, Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch questioned the administration’s claim that Trump’s trade war was a matter of national security.

“These tariffs do not support US national security; instead, they harm American manufacturers, damage our economy, hurt American consumers, and disrupt our relationship with our long-term allies, while giving China a free pass.”

As regular readers of the Strident Conservative already know, Trump has been particularly soft on China after receiving favorable treatment for his and Ivanka’s business interests in China from the Chinese government.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), who attempted to get a law passed that would return the power to levy tariffs back to Congress as the Constitution requires—it was shot down by Mitch McConnell—also pointed out that Trump’s trade war has nothing to do with national security.

“I wish we would stop invoking national security because that’s not what this is about. This is about economic nationalism.”

“We’re picking winners and losers.”

Hmm… picking winners and losers. Isn’t that something Obama did?

Despite Trump’s misguided optimism, it’s important to remember that there are always casualties in war—even in a trade war—and he is personally responsible for them because he will have caused them.

While news that there are Republicans willing to take a stand against Trump’s disastrous trade policies should be something to cheer, the GOP has become the party of Trump where loyalty and undying devotion to the NY liberal has replaced conservative values. It was just yesterday that I wrote about Sen. Dean Heller’s conversion to Trump conservatism and how as a Trump loyalist, he would be giving Trump “a wide berth” concerning tariffs.

With the GOP adopting a Trump loyalty test when it comes to enacting policy and running elections, it’s likely that we’ll see more Republicans giving Trump a wide berth on tariffs and pretty much everything else Trump wants.

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

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Colorado Primary

Published

on

There isn’t too much action in the Colorado Primary, but the race to watch seems to be out of District 5. Colorado is a state that can embrace the grassroots. Doug Lamborn seems to have lost touch with the grassroots due to his struggle at getting on the ballot. As a result of temporarily not being on the ballot, he finds himself in a contested field and is a more vulnerable incumbent. If Lamborn’s reputation can’t recover, Darryl Glenn is poised to capitalize.

Best Pick: Darryl Glenn
Worst Pick: Doug Lamborn
Best Race: District 4
Worst Race: District 3, District 6

District 1

Casper Stockham is the only Republican in this race.

District 2

Peter Yu is the only Republican in this race.

District 3

Scott Tipton is an incumbent RINO. He is unchallenged.

District 4

Ken Buck is Colorado’s most Conservative Congressman. He is unchallenged.

District 5

The first impression from this race is that incumbent Doug Lamborn badmouthed Trump. But rather, Lamborn is in a fight because he had some ballot issues because he was using nonresident signatures or something like that. He survived that court battle but that is only the first battle for in this swamp creature’s quest to stay on top. Looking at his record, he was more Conservative under Obama.

His most serious challenger is Darryl Glenn. Glenn is a candidate with a strong grasp on federalism and separation of powers. He is also running as a fiscal hawk who seems as though he would align with the Freedom Caucus on spending issues. It’ll be interesting to see if Glenn’s Youtube campaign is matched by his ground game. If so, he just might have this.

Conservative Pick: Darryl Glenn

District 6

Mike Coffman is an unchallenged RINO.

District 7

Mark Barrington is the only Republican in this race.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.