Connect with us

Politics

Christian, conservative, and all-in for Trump Republicans race to lead House conservative caucus

Published

on

After years of compromising their convictions and trading their principles for political power, the GOP provided little resistance to Donald Trump and his nationalist populist ideology as he and the so-called new American right seized control of the party.

As I wrote in May, one of the casualties from Trump’s hostile takeover of the GOP is the conservative base of the party as a new kind of conservative was born, the Trump conservative–or Trumpservative as I call them—consisting of Republicans who identify as Christian, conservative, and all-in for Trump.

As the 2018 election dawns on the horizon, leadership positions within the GOP are up for grabs in groups claiming to represent conservatives, including the Republican Study Committee (RSC). Considered the largest caucus on Capitol Hill, the RSC has experienced a growing influence since Trump moved into the White House. While this would be good news if the RSC was truly conservative; in the Age of Trump and with the rise of the Trumpservative, it’s hard to see how it could be anything but bad news.

Currently, there are five House Republicans considering a run to replace outgoing RSC Chairman Rep. Mark Walker (NC), a man who falls short of being a conservative based on his very average Liberty Score® of 70% (C).

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the five contenders for Walker’s position are no more conservative than he is based on their Liberty Score®. Listed in order of their seniority, they are:

Discouraging how those who have been there the longest are some of the worst, isn’t it? But it gets worse.

As a Southern Baptist preacher-turned-politician, the departing Walker is a Trumpservative—Christian, conservative, and all-in for Trump. And as bad as the five contenders for his job are, the preferred candidate from the above list is Hartzler, who, despite being the least conservative of all, is also a Trumpservative—Christian, conservative, and all-in for Trump.

When asked about running, Hartzler replied, “I’m praying on it,” which I find to be the most troubling part of the Trumpservative.

It’s not that I don’t believe in the importance and power of prayer. My objection is with the casual way prayer is thrown around within the ranks of politicians looking to justify their actions and win votes. After all, if she “prays” about it, how can anyone question her decision?

Too often such prayers are simply an attempt to justify a decision the person has already made. Sprinkle a few of the right-sounding Christian words on the situation and bada bing, bada boom, instant “God’s will.” It reminds me of the scene in the movie Kingdom of Heaven where Guy, who is in line to become King of Jerusalem, seeks the blessing to go to war against Saladin, a war he had already decided he would wage.

By the way, Gov. Jerry Brown and Rep. Nancy Pelosi often sprinkle a little faith on their politics when it serves their purposes, as do many on the extreme-left. Obviously, that doesn’t make them conservative because “by their fruits you will know them.” In the same manner, when you take into account that she registers a weak 69% on moral issues on her Liberty Score®, I think it’s appropriate to ask what kind of fruit are we getting from Hartzler or any candidate with her track record.

If her GOP colleague in Missouri, Rep. Ann Wagner has anything to say on the matter, Hartzler should run based on her proven credentials as a Trumpservative. In an interview with the Hill.com, Wagner—Liberty Score® 53% (F)—endorsed her Show-Me-State friend:

“She’s a very active member of the RSC. She’s a solid conservative. And I would certainly love to see a woman like Vicky head up the RSC.

“That would be an excellent dynamic and I think Vicky would be well-suited for that position.”

During the 2016 campaign, pro-Trump talker Rush Limbaugh said that Trump’s success occurred because “nationalism and populism have overtaken conservatism.”

That may be the reason for Trump’s success, but it’s also the reason for the death of conservatism within the GOP. And it isn’t helping the “Christian” part of the equation very much either.

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
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

News

Brenda Snipes resigns as Broward County elections supervisor

Published

on

Brenda Snipes resigns as Broward County elections supervisor

The nightmare is over. Brenda Snipes, the Broward County elections supervisor who we believe is either incompetent, corrupt, or both, has submitted her resignation.

I think I have served the purpose that I came here for, which was to provide a credible election product for our voters,” she said in her resignation press conference.

Florida finalized election tallies earlier today after a hand count confirmed the original results. Rick Scott was confirmed as the next Senator, unseating Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL).

It may be a bittersweet end to the 75-year-old’s tenure. She seemed more at ease during the press conference than she has since entering the spotlight once again the day after the midterm elections when Broward County failed to report ongoing results as required by Florida law.

Brenda Snipes submits her resignation as Broward elections supervisor

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-brenda-snipes-resigns-20181118-story.htmlDuring the final days of the recount, Snipes looked exhausted to people who have known her for years. And she foreshadowed an early departure as elections supervisor when she said last week “it is time to move on” but didn’t specify a timetable, saying she wanted to talk to her family.

Snipes was appointed supervisor of elections in 2003 by former Gov. Jeb Bush, after he removed a previous supervisor of elections for incompetence. Bush became one of her critics last week, writing on Twitter it was time for her to go.

Depending on when her official resignation is effective, either Governor Scott or governor-elect Ron DeSantis will appoint her replacement. The position is coming up for election in 2020.

My Take

It’s good that she’s leaving, but at least a part of me was hoping she’d stay and come under the scrutiny of governor-elect Ron DeSantis before the 2020 election. If there was corruption, then it’s important we learn about it sooner rather than later.

Continue Reading

Federalists

What Stacey Abrams gets right about moving forward from the Georgia election

Published

on

What Stacey Abrams gets right about moving forward from the Georgia election

Democrat Stacey Abrams possesses some pretty radical political ideologies. I completely disagree with her far-leftist rhetoric or the agenda she hoped to bring to Georgia as governor. Republican Brian Kemp is the next governor, which even Abrams admits.

But she refuses to concede that she actually lose the election. She’s clear that Kemp is the governor-elect, but she falls just short of saying that his victory is illegitimate.

That’s all political theater. Here’s what she gets right. Georgia and many states need to clean up their election practices. Laws should be passed. Other laws should be removed. Ballot access for American citizens must be protected and the process must be made as easy as possible without jeopardizing accuracy or opening the doors to fraud.

Most importantly, this must be done through a combination of the legal system and the state legislature. At no point should she or anyone else try to turn this into a federal issue.

People on both sides of the political aisle seem to be leaning towards fixing election problems at the national level. This would be a huge mistake. The states must clean their own houses. The residents of the states must be the catalyst. Keep DC out of it.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Intellectual ammunition, part 3: Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition part 3 Armed with logic and a mistake by SCOTUS

Is nuclear annihilation less of a threat than purchasing a lower parts kit?

In the third part of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

Which is more intimidating: purchasing an inanimate object or the threat of gun confiscation?

In the beginning of the video, he asks the very pertinent question:

“Who engages in threats of gun violence, the civilian who owns, or attempts to own, a firearm, or the civilian or politician intent on passing ‘gun control’ statutes?”

Which is quite an interesting point in light of the comments from Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) who wants the government to make gun owners an offer they can’t refuse on their freedom. Rejecting said offer could see them and millions of other die in a thermonuclear style gun confiscation.

That threat being just the latest of the long list of over 70 instances of Leftists demanding gun confiscation. Note that number could easily be doubled or tripled if one were to account for the number of times those demands were syndicated or excerpted in other publications.

The video details the point that it is the people wanting to impose controls on freedom that are threatening violence – up to and including nuclear genocide. But perhaps if one if of the Liberty grabber set on the Left it’s possible that someone having a scary looking rifle is far more of an issue than the wiping out of an area via nuclear incineration with fallout contaminating everything down wind.

The illogic of so-called ‘Gun-free’ zones.

Further on he addresses question of whether the passage of more and more restrictions on freedom and setting up ‘gun-free’ zones keep people safe? Consider the scenario he proposes in how a mass murderer might select is his target:

And what of the idea that, practically, passing gun statutes will make areas safer? In Part One of this series, we looked at the real-world numbers on that question, but here is a logical argument to pose to gun-grabbers.

Suppose you are in a paintball game. You have a paintball gun, and you will win $10,000 if you enter one of three houses and, in five minutes, hit ten people with pellets. If you get hit by a pellet, you will have to pay $200,000… There are forty people in each house. In House One, you know that there is no one with a paintball gun. In House Two, you know that there are a few people with paintball guns, and in House Three, you know that there are many, many people with paintball guns.

Which house would you choose?

The answer is obvious. Let’s not be foolish about pretending that we would choose anything other than House One.

The logic of self-protection through firearm possession and use is irrefutable. The statistics of it are clear. The history of despots disarming citizens prior to destroying their lives is also clear, as is the history of what the Founders thought when they wrote the Second Amendment.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report