Connect with us

Politics

Freedom Caucus says goodbye to conservatives and hello to Trumpservatives

Published

on

For quite some time now, it’s been clear that the Republican party has been the party of RINOs, or if you prefer, Republicrats. Lacking any semblance of conservative convictions and concerned only about keeping their jobs, the GOP has completely abandoned their principles, exchanging them for political power.

While in years past this betrayal was concealed beneath the conservative costume they wore like a kid dressed for trick or treat, the election of Donald Trump provided the avenue for Republicans to throw away their conservative disguise and don the attire of nationalism and populism.

However, fully aware of the reality that conservatives are still a vital voting bloc, the newly formed Trumplican Party has worked with Donald Trump to destroy any remnant of conservatism still present in Washington. And unfortunately, it’s working.

You’ve heard of the Christian conservative and the Constitutional conservative, but have you heard of the Trump conservative? According to House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows, that’s a real thing now.

In next week’s Republican primary ahead of an Ohio special election to fill the 12th Congressional District seat vacated by Pat Tiberi—where 19 candidates have filed to run—a race is heating up between Freedom Caucus favorite Melanie Leneghan and GOP-establishment favorite Troy Balderson. According to their websites, Leneghan and Balderson are both Christians, conservatives, and all-in for Donald Trump.

With support of Donald Trump now considered an essential ingredient of this new brand of conservatism, it’s no surprise to see Balderson garner the support of Trumplican PACs like the Republican Main Street Partnership. This coalition of so-called moderates have been twisting conservatism since the John Boehner days.

While you would expect the Freedom Caucus to support a conservative, you wouldn’t think that the name Trump and the word conservative would be tied together and then presented as a reason to offer an endorsement, but that’s what Meadows did with his endorsement of Leneghan:

“Melanie is a Christian conservative, a Constitutional conservative, and a Trump conservative. She is a fighter who won’t back down.”

It was Trump sycophant Rush Limbaugh who confirmed our fears that Trump would destroy conservatism when he said during the 2016 GOP primary that Trump’s success occurred because “nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism in terms of appeal.”

The nationalism and populism of the “new American right” has given rise to the Trumplican Party. Consisting mainly of RINOs and other Republicans, this rebranded version of the GOP has added conservatives to the ranks. We call them Trumpservatives.


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

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative, your source for opinion that's politically-incorrect and always "right." His articles can also be found on RedState.com. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Guns and Crime

College professor wants Trump to use troops as police to end gun violence in Chicago

Published

on

Earlier this week, I wrote an article about how school shootings could lead us to the creation of a nationalized police force. In that piece, I documented how groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and race-baiting activists like Al Sharpton teamed up with Barack Obama to lay the foundation for the federal government to assume power over local police using the DOJ and a Police Czar.

Always willing to use the color of a person’s skin as a basis for creating policy, Obama had some limited success in moving the country toward a police state, but he stopped short of using America’s armed forces to accomplish his goals. However, if a professor of philosophy at De Paul University in Chicago has his way, Donald Trump may end up going where Barack Obama has never gone before.

In a public plea to Trump, published at TheHill.com, Jason D. Hill—whose specialties as a professor include ethics, social and political philosophy, and the philosophy of education and race theory—wants to bring an end to “genocide among black Americans” in Chicago.

To do this, Hill wants Trump to send in the military to “quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.” Hill is suggesting that Trump “use his powers to suspend the Posse Comitatus Act” to free up the military resources “necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.”

“I implore you to use your powers to suspend the dated Posse Comitatus Act, which unfairly limits your ability to use domestic militarization to respond to crises, and send in the resources necessary to stem the violence overrunning Chicago.

“Posse Comitatus makes no mention of the use of the militia, the National Guard, the Navy or the Marines. You can suspend this law and send in the forces necessary to quiet our streets and restore safety to at-risk neighborhoods.”

The Posse Comitatus Act is a federal law signed in 1878 by Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes, designed to limit the power of the federal government to use the military to enforce domestic policies within the US. Though updated since its inception, and even though there’ve been a few tweaks since 911, the original intent of the act remains in effect.

Can Trump override PCA? Yes and no. It can be suspended for things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks, but it can’t be overridden for the purpose of enforcing state laws. This question is secondary, however, to the disturbing suggestion that we create a militarized home front.

By the way, Trump has already shown a willingness to use federal power to deal with gun violence in Chicago.

Besides being inconsistent with the values of liberty and freedom we enjoy as a Constitutional Republic, Hill’s request perpetuates a growing acceptance in America that we should voluntarily surrender our Constitutional rights to the federal government in exchange for safety.

Additionally, Hill holds a position of power as a teacher where he is free to spread Democratic-Socialist ideals such as this to the next generation—a situation made more dangerous by Washington politicians who have made destroying the Constitution standard operating procedure in order to increase their power over us.

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

Politics

Thanks to spineless conservatives, DACA is about to be saved

Published

on

In yesterday’s Conservative Conscience podcast, Daniel Horowitz shared how the recently passed “Willie Horton jailbreak bill” by the GOP-controlled House is the latest example of why conservatives are losing the war against liberals like Trump’s son-in-law and Senior Advisor, Jared Kushner, who was the force behind the so-called “prison reform” legislation.

The reason for this sad state of conservative affairs, according to Horowitz, is the lack of leadership from so-called conservatives who have elected to make decisions based on their political self-interests instead of the values they claim to share with us.

I completely agree with his conclusion.

Outside of the jailbreak bill, these faux conservatives are joining hands with Republican “moderates” on another important issue—immigration. For example, last week Rep. Mark Meadows of the House Freedom Caucus led a revolt to block passage of a major farm policy authorization bill. Not because it was bad policy, but because Mark and his gang wanted the House to vote on fixing DACA first—a vote which could be coming up very soon.

Blue state Republicans and the Democrats they love are attempting to get enough signatures on a discharge petition—a majority is required—to force a DACA vote by the full House. This effort is opposed by Speaker Paul Ryan and the man likely to replace him, Kevin McCarthy, not because they disagree with the idea of saving DACA, but because they want to work with Trump to create a bill he will sign—a given since Trump has always favored saving DACA—and they are afraid of backlash at the polls in November.

Too bad they didn’t have those concerns when it came to repealing Obamacare and defunding Planned Parenthood.

Clearly, the GOP has lost its way, and so-called conservatives are doing nothing to get things back on track, a reality Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) pointed out yesterday. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Sasse was asked about the Republican vision concerning trade considering Trump’s disjointed trade policies:

“I don’t know what the Republican party is right now, in general. Much more broadly, it’s hard to articulate a clear Republican vision.”

Actually, the Republican vision is quite clear if you’re talking about the November election because the GOP has “clearly” abandoned conservatives in an attempt to save their jobs.

That’s why conservatives always lose, and it’s why DACA will be saved.

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

Today’s Red Pill: There never was a “Palestine”

Published

on

Woooo-dawgie! Ever since the commemoration of the move of the United States’ embassy to Jerusalem, which coincided with Israel’s 70th anniversary as an independent state, and the corresponding Palestinian violence on the ground, there has been a fierce, vitriolic uproar of competing narratives.

Observing the spectacle, I’ve reached an unpleasant conclusion: there is an inexcusably large number of people operating under false information, an indefensibly great number of people inflicted by historical illiteracy.

The most obvious manifestation of the historical ignorance of our body politic is the belief that Palestine was once a sovereign country, the land having been wrongfully stolen by the evil Israeli stormtroopers…. or something.

Is there any truth to this?

Well, if you answered this question with, “Yes,” you need to grab a glass of water and prepare to swallow today’s Red Pill.


First, it is important to know that there has never – not ever – been any autonomous country of Palestine.

Second, it is important to know that, since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, the Arab Palestinians have obstinately, doggedly, repeatedly refused a multitude of generous offers of compromise, including the establishment of their own independent, Arabic country.

As Allen H. Luxenberg of George Washington University explains the above two points [1]:

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews. 

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God.  Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

…In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine.  There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time.  Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

I’ve compiled a timeline of events, complete with maps, to elucidate the pertinent history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1880-1946). (For the sake of brevity, a follow-up piece will cover the 1947 United Nations passage of the Two-State Solution and the Establishment of Israel.)


SEGMENT 1: OTTOMAN RULE

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
16th Century The Middle East, part of North Africa, and parts of Europe belong to the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
1880 Jewish population one again becomes the majority in Jerusalem.
1891 By 1891, the number of Jewish immigrants into the area known as Palestine (referred to by the local Arab population as Lower Syria) equaled the number of Jews moving out of the area.
1891 Disturbed by the rising number of Jewish citizens, local Arab notables called upon their Ottoman administrators, demanding Jewish immigration to the area be banned and that the sale of land to Jews be prohibited. “In response, the Turks briefly suspended Jewish immigration, a ban lifted only when Jews agreed to pay a per capita bribe.” [2]
29 Oct. 1914 The “Ottoman Surprise Attack” – The Ottoman Empire enters WWI with an attack on Russia’s Black Sea coast. This attack and the series of events that followed would ultimate lead to the defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
1 Nov. 1914 Russia declares war on the Ottomans.
5 Nov. 1914 Britain and France, Russia’s allies, declare war on the Ottomans. Swaths of Ottoman land were quickly captured. [3]
(See the map below.)
1917 British capture Jerusalem, ending Ottoman rule. [4]

SEGMENT 2: BRITISH MANDATE

BRITISH-CONTROLLED MANDATE OF PALESTINE

1917

The Balfour Declaration: The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Arthur Balfour, issued instructions for what was to be done with the former Ottoman Empire territory known as Palestine, now controlled by Great Britain.
(See the map below.)
1919 Versailles Peace Conference decides that the Ottoman Empire’s land which had been conquered during the war would not be returned to Ottoman rule.

 

1919 The League of Nations was established as to prevent further war.

1921

Arab Executive Committee demands the British halt all Jewish immigration to the territory which the British now label “Palestine.” The committee also demands the British rescind the Balfour Declaration and, then, appoint a national Palestinian legislative parliament controlled by the Arab population. [5] Arabs riot in Jaffa and other cities.
1921 The British temporarily halted Jewish immigration in response to the Arab Executive Committee’s demands. I addition, the British convened the 1921 Haycraft Commission of Inquiry to examine Arab violence which had broken out across the area. The Haycraft Commission rules that the Arabs had been responsible for the intense outbreak of Arab-on-Jew violence.

1921

In the fall of 1921, Winston Churchill invited Arab and Jewish Palestinians to come together in hope that a peaceful coexistence would be negotiated between the parties. For months upon months, the Arab Palestinians doggedly refused to join any discussion involving Jews. [6]

Feb. 1922

Winston Churchill offered to establish a legislative body as the Arab Palestinians had requested. However, the Arabs refused, because the legislative body included provisions for Jewish representations. [7]

July 1922

The League of Nations officially entrusts Britain with as the administrator of the Palestinian Mandate. [8] Britain was called upon to facilitate the creation of a Jewish National Homeland as was ordered by the Balfour Declaration. [9]
(See the map below.)

Sept. 1922

The very first plan for the partition of Palestine is proposed, often referred to as The Churchill White Paper: Great Britain, along with the League of Nations, attempts to strike a compromise in Palestine by dividing the single state into two territories: one Jewish Palestinian Home Land and one Arab Palestinian Home Land. [10]
In an effort to forge a compromise, the British chose to divide the “Palestine” Mandate into two halves (east and west) along the line of the Jordan River.

The terms of the partition were as follows:

The Jewish Palestinians agreed to the terms of the Churchill White Paper. The Arab Palestinians, however, vehemently rejected it

The terms of the partition were as follows:

“Jews were prohibited from settling in 77 percent of Mandate Palestine—all the territory east of the Jordan River . They were allowed to settle anywhere in western Palestine (including today’s Israel proper, the West Bank and Gaza .) Thus, Eastern Palestine, renamed Transjordan , was removed from the area that was set aside for the Jewish National Home in the historic Balfour Declaration and handed over to the Emir Abdullah. This split was viewed as the “definitive Palestinian Settlement,” with Transjordan as ‘the Arab National Home,’ parallel to the Jewish National Home on the West Bank of the Jordan River all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (from the river to the sea).” [11]

(See the map below.)

1923

The British administration suspends the Palestinian constitution due to the Arab Palestinians’ refusal to cooperate.

 

1930

British authorities organize and invite Arab and Jewish Palestinians to a “roundtable discussion,” hoping to reach and agreement regarding Palestinian-Mandate constitutional issues. The Arabs boycotted the efforts and the plans were shelved. [12]
 Jan. 1935 A fatwa (religious declaration) is issued by 500 Muslim religious notables prohibiting Muslims from selling land to Jews. Muslims caught selling land to Jews could face death.

1936

The Arab Higher Committee (AHC) is created after six Arab political factions joined forces.
The AHC’s first resolution called for a general strike until 3 demands were met [14]:
1) All Jewish immigration into Palestine must be banned.
2) Land sale and land transfers to Jews must be banned.
3) An Arab national government must be established with no representation – none – for Jews.  This would ensure Jewish disenfranchisement.

 

1936-1939 The Peel Commission is formed to investigate the Arab riots. The Commission was also tasked with making recommendations for a peaceful coexistence of Arab and Jewish Palestinians in Western Palestine.

1937

The Mufti presents Arabs’ demands to the Peel Commission. The demands were as follows [15]:
1) the abandonment of all plans for a Jewish Home;
2) a cessation of and prohibition on all Jewish immigration to the entire territory, as well as a ban on all land purchases to Jews;
3) and the immediate end to the British Mandate, to be replaced by a pro-British, Arab regime.
4)*There was a fourth condition desired by the Mufti: a decrease in the number of Jews already living in the Palestine Mandate.
After a Peel Commission member questioned the Mufti about decreasing the number of Jews, the Mufti frankly responded to the commissioners that some Jews would simply have to leave, either “kindly or painfully.” [16]

July 1937

The Peel Commission “issued its recommendations: to abolish the Mandate and partition the country between the two peoples. Only a zone between Jaffa and Jerusalem would remain under the British mandate and international supervision.” [17]
“The Jewish state would include the coastal strip stretching from Mount Carmel to south of Be’er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee. The Arab state was to include the hill regions, Judea and Samaria, and the Negev. Until the establishment of the two states, the commission recommended, Jews should be prohibited from purchasing land in the area allocated to the Arab state.” [18]
(See the map below.)
The British authorities accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, the Zionists, displeased, requested the opportunity to negotiate further, and the Arabs immediately rejected the committee’s report in its entirety. [19]

Sept. 1937

Meeting in Syria, 450 delegates of the Arab National Congress officially reject the Peel Commission’s plan.
The Arab Revolt was resumed. Those targeted with violence included Jews, as well as moderate Arabs who were open to compromise.
Approximately 25% of the Arabs who lost their lives during the 1936 to 1936 revolts were killed by their fellow Palestinian Arabs. [20] The plan was then shelved.

 

17 May 1939

Hoping to gain backing from the Arabs amidst the dawning of WWII, the British issued the 1939 White Paper, in which, “The Peel Commission’s partition plan on the grounds that it was not feasible. The document stated that Palestine would be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab one, but an independent state to be established within ten years. Jewish immigration to Palestine was limited to 75,000 for the first five years, subject to the country’s “economic absorptive capacity”, and would later be contingent on Arab consent. Stringent restrictions were imposed on land acquisition by Jews.” [21]
A scathing report was issued by the Jewish Agency for Palestine regarding the 1930 White Paper, exclaiming, “It is in the darkest hour of Jewish history that the British Government proposes to deprive the Jews of their last hope…” [22]
Delegates from all Arab states, following a September meeting in Syria, proclaimed all of Palestine to be “an integral part of the Arabian homeland and no part would be alienated with Arab consent.” [23]

 

Oct. 1945 The United Nations is founded.
23 Oct. 1946 The first ever United Nations meeting is help in New York.
1946 Two more plans are proposed for the establishment of peace and stability and British Mandated Palestine. Both plans rested as single-state solution, and both called for increased Jewish immigration to alleviate the plight of displaced Jews, a result of the Holocaust. Both plans are explained below:

Apr. 1946

1) The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Plan (April):
This plan called for equal representation and equal powers for Jews and Arabs. It called for the issuance of “100,000 certificates for immigration to Palestine be issued immediately and that the U.S. and British governments try to find new places for the Displaced Persons, in addition to Palestine. Future immigration to Palestine should be regulated by the Mandatory administration, and the land transfer regulations of 1940, which forbade the sale of land in certain parts of the country to Jews, should be annulled.” [24]
(See the map below.)
“The White Paper of 1939, and the drastic limitation of Jewish immigration and of land sales to Jews which followed, met the Arab view only in part. The Arabs would have gone much further. The demands voiced by their leaders are for immediate independence, for the final cessation of Jewish immigration and for the prohibition of all land sales by Arabs to Jews,” the report explained. [25]
Failure:

The Jewish Agency for Palestine accepted the plan; the Arab rejected it. The report notes that, since the very beginning of the British Mandate, the Arabs had vocally and firmly held a stance in opposition to all possibilities of allowing a Jewish Homeland. [25] Furthermore, the British continued the White Paper’s strict immigration limitations. [26]

July 1946

2) The Morrison-Grady Plan (July):
The scheme called “for the division of Palestine into four provinces: an Arab province, consisting of about 40% of the area; a Jewish province, with 17%, and two British provinces – the Jerusalem district and the Negev – covering 43% of the area. A British high commissioner, assisted by a nominated executive council, would head the central government. The Arab and Jewish provinces would have elected legislatures, with executives appointed by the high commissioner from among their members. The powers of these executives would be very limited…” [27]
(See the map below.)
Failure:

The plan was rejected by both Arabs and Jews.

It was after the failure of these talks that the British then handed the “Palestine Problem” over to the United Nation for final resolution.

From there, this story really gets interesting… but that’s for next time.

(To be continued…)


Citations (in order of usage):

[1] “The Ironic History of Palestine,” Alan H. Luxenberg, George Washington University, retrieved at: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168

[2] Avraham Yaari, The Goodly Heritage: Memoirs Describing the Life of the Jewish Community of Eretz Yisrael from the 17th to 20th Century , Jerusalem, ZOA 1958, pp. 215-16.

[3] “History of the Ottoman Empire”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_during_World_War_I

[4] Unrest & Realignment in the Middle East (1914-1918 CE) : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/timeline-for-the-history-of-judaism

[5] Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel – Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, Collins London 1965, p. 59

[6] Ibid. pp. 71-72

[7] Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel – Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, Collins London 1965, p. 81.

[8] “League of Nation,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/league-of-nations

[9]  “British-Palestine Mandate,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-british-palestine-mandate

[10] “The Churchill White Paper,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/churchill-white-paper-1922

[11] “Rejectionism,” retrieved at: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/6/rejectionism.htm

[12] Christopher Sykes, p. 128.

[13] “The Arab Revolt,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-1936-arab-riots

[14] See [11]

[15] Christopher Sykes, p. 174.

[16] Ibid. p. 174.

[17] “British Palestine Mandate: The Peel Commission”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-peel-commission

[18] Ibid.

[19] Christopher Sykes, p. 185

[20] Christopher Sykes, p. 188.

[21] “British Palestine Mandate: The British White Papers”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-british-white-papers

[22] “British White Papers: Zionist Reaction to the White Paper (1939)”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/zionist-reaction-to-the-white-paper-of-1939

[23] See [20].

[24] “Pre-state Israel: The Anglo-American Committee (1946)”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-anglo-american-committee

[25] “Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/psychological-analysis-of-hitler-s-life-and-legend

[26] See [24].

[27] “Palestine, Partition and Partition Plans”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestine-partition-and-partition-plans

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.