Connect with us

Politics

Paul Ryan’s retirement is good news/bad news for conservatives

Published

on

In response to a plan by a small band of so-called conservatives to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House back in 2015, I became a proud activist in the “Dump Boehner” movement. Needless to say, when the Democrat’s favorite Republican announced his retirement, it was a happy day for conservatives who were working to see the GOP return to its Constitutional roots.

Unfortunately, as so often happens in Washington, the courage to do what’s right fell to the cowardice of compromise as one Republican after another abandoned the plan for a new conservative leader. Instead of fighting for their principles, the invertebrate GOP surrendered to passivity and elected a new boss who was the same as the old boss in Paul Ryan—a move supported by even Barack Obama.

Based on Ryan’s track record of failure, I opposed him before he got the Speaker gig because I knew that he would be no different from Boehner, especially after he demanded that conservatives abandon their values and fall in line as a condition for his acceptance for the job.

My concerns proved to have merit as Paul Ryan waffled his way through issues, from the Obamacare repeal to abandoning GOP promises to fix the budget over the past two years, and now that his RINO-ness has collided head-on with the Trumplican rebrand of the GOP, Paul Ryan just announced that he is abandoning ship ahead of the upcoming Blue Tsunami.

Based on my jubilation when Boehner retired, you’d think I’d be happy about Ryan’s announcement, but I am not. When Boehner was forced out of office, there was a conservative plan to replace him, even though it failed, and with Ryan’s sudden retirement we don’t even have that.

The two leading candidates to replace Ryan are House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. You may recall that McCarthy was considered “next up” when Boehner retired, but he withdrew his name from consideration due to his inability to garner support from conservative groups like the House Freedom Caucus. And Steve Scalise is a ten-year veteran of the House who carries a 49% (F) Liberty Score.

Unfortunately, the so-called conservative members of the House Freedom Caucus appear ready to support McCarthy this time around, using a scheme where Chairman Mark Meadows would be elevated to McCarthy’s old job. In other words, the HFC will compromise conservative principles in the name of political opportunism, just like the Republican establishment currently in power.

Paul Ryan needed to go, but just as it was when Boehner retired, change simply for the sake of change is no change at all. It only perpetuates the status quo.

And here’s something to scare the bejesus out of you; if McCarthy gets the Speaker gig, the Republican leader and the Democrat leader, regardless of who’s in the majority and the minority, will both be Representatives from California.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be 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
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Politics

Mark Meadows on term limits

Published

on

Mark Meadows on term limits

Around 80% of Americans support term limits for members of Capitol Hill. Despite this super-majority, lawmakers have been reluctant to even discuss the possibility of such a move. It goes against the nature of career politicians which make up the lion’s share of people in the House and Senate.

House Freedom Caucus co-founder Mark Meadows (R-NC) has been a proponent of term limits. His push to limit members of Congress to three two-year terms and Senators to two six-year terms has been widely praised by voters, yet still remains a tough sell to lawmakers.

“Our founders never intended Congress to be a career–part of why Washington has become so dysfunctional is the shift away from this principle. Congressional term limits would do wonders toward addressing the problem.”

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

SNL cold open wasn’t funny and Robert De Niro shouldn’t do live TV

Published

on

SNL cold open wasnt funny and Robert De Niro shouldnt do live TV

There are plenty of people who do not agree with Saturday Night Live’s political satire who still find some of their skits funny. They often lampoon the President, and even though I don’t think they should they still make me laugh. The latest installment of the SNL cold open was another attempt at going after the President’s family.

It failed. Miserably. It wasn’t funny. The only thing worse than the premise of the skit and the failed jokes was guest star Robert De Niro’s performance as special counsel Robert Mueller. It was embarrassing. His trouble reading the lines on the teleprompter magnified his lack of humor.

You can watch it if you want, but I wouldn’t. It was the bad. Take my word on it.

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Louie Gohmert is right about Soros, but harmed our ability to combat his agenda

Published

on

Louie Gohmert is right about Soros but harmed our ability to combat his agenda

Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX) was on Fox Business Network’s Varney & Co earlier today when he shifted the conversation from George Orwell to George Soros. In the following segment, host Stuart Varney apologized for the comments.

“In the last hour one of our guests, Congressman Louie Gohmert, for some reason went out of his way to bring up George Soros and made unsubstantiated and false allegations against him. I want to make clear those views are not shared by me, this program, or anyone at Fox Business,” Varney said on-air.

Gohmert responded:

“Soros himself admitted in a 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft on December 20, 1998 that he had no regrets whatsoever about assisting the Nazis in confiscating property from the Jewish people during the Holocaust. That is a fact. Any person with any sense of empathy for their fellow human beings would regret the part they played in confiscating Jewish property during the Holocaust. My remarks were not anti-Semitic. Even the Israeli government has condemned Soros. They were about the horror of his lack of remorse over his actions. It was a pro-Jewish statement on my part and supportive of the statement that the Israeli government made last year that anti-Soros statements are not anti-Semitic because George Soros ‘continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.’”

To corroborate his claims, Gohmert linked to a 1998 interview with Soros on 60 Minutes:

He also linked to a statement made by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Clarification – Israel deplores any expression of anti-Semitism in any country and stands with Jewish communities everywhere in confronting this hatred.

This was the sole purpose of the statement issued by Israel’s ambassador to Hungary. In no way was the statement meant to delegitimize criticism of George Soros, who continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected governments by funding organizations that defame the Jewish state and seek to deny it the right to defend itself.

My Take

George Soros is not a friend of Israel. He and his many companies and organizations are the strongest catalysts for far-left progressive thoughts overtaking much of society.

With that said, Gohmert was picking the wrong fight. It’s clear from the interview that Soros did, as a child, assist in taking property from Jews during the Holocaust. He also expressed no guilt for doing so. But he explained that it was the Nazis who were taking the property and his participation as a child who didn’t understand what was happening is the reason he felt no guilt.

From a fact-checking perspective, Gohmert was correct. But the physical actions of moving property on orders from adults is nowhere near the scope of the real damage Soros would inflict as an adult. It’s a distraction from the real dangers he represents and harms the credibility of those who are opposed to Soros’ current agenda.

George Soros represents arguably the greatest threat to sovereignty, freedom, and self governance. Louie Gohmert’s attacks on his inconsequential actions as a child were a poor reflection on those who are fighting the real battle against this dangerous man.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report