Connect with us

Democrats

Be careful: Conspiracy theories will only help Wasserman Schultz

Published

on

Politics is a business of trust and credibility. The object of a political debate is not to convince your opponent of the error of his ways but to persuade the audience not to listen to your opponent; that he is wrong and you are right; that he cannot be trusted but you can be. That doesn’t mean subscribing to ad hominem character assassinations, but your argument should always increase your own public reliability while simultaneously sowing distrust in your opponent.

But be careful not to become overzealous in your attacks. Above all, never exaggerate unless it is clear that you are doing so. Overselling your opponent’s misdeeds will actually weaken your argument, as the mainstream media have failed to recognize in their coverage of all things Trump/Russia.

If Democrats had simply pointed to some odd circumstances and said, “Hmm, that looks suspicious,” they might have led a compelling campaign against President Trump. But by conflating Trump’s actions as treason, treachery, and a volatile threat to our republic, all without evidence, they’ve set the bar impossibly high for any satisfactory payoff. And as a result of the media’s endless obsession with the admittedly “mostly bulls**t” story, not only are most Americans sick of the narrative, but even a potentially devastating bombshell like the Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner meeting fell on desensitized ears because — though not good — it wasn’t nearly as bad as the scandal the media have been building up to.

The MSM’s implosion may give us all a hearty laugh at their expense, but beware: Republicans are dangerously close to committing the same grave error in the Wasserman Schultz case.

For a quick recap, Florida Representative and former Chair of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz is under fire for the mysterious situation surrounding Imran Awan, a Pakistani man who worked as one of Wasserman Schultz’s IT staffers for about 12 years. Awan was blocked from the House IT system several months ago and was thus unable to perform any work for the Florida Democrat, yet he remained on Wasserman Schultz’s payroll until Monday, when he was arrested for bank fraud after wiring almost $300,000 to himself in Pakistan and attempting to flee the country. He stole the laptops of several Democratic congressmen and had access to some of their passwords, including that of Wasserman Schultz, who allegedly threatened the Washington, D.C., Chief of Police to hand over her laptop even though it’s now evidence in an ongoing investigation.

Literally everything in this story reeks of suspicion and corruption. There are many theories circulating that Awan could be the true source of the DNC Wikileaks — which would devastate the Left’s narrative of Russian obstruction — or that this might have something to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. Many are demanding that obstruction of justice charges be brought against Wasserman Schultz for her clear attempts to hide whatever’s on her laptop, and others suggest that Awan must have been blackmailing his boss over some untold scandal.

Each of these angles is plausible, but none is sufficiently substantiated to move forward with right now, and we need to be careful not to overstep the information. If the Right pulls out the big guns and hammers a narrative of election hacking, terrorism, and blackmail, all without actual evidence, anything less will pale in comparison and let Wasserman Schultz off the hook. For right now the best offense is subtlety.

Press at the wound, but don’t diagnose it yet. Say things like, “I wonder why Awan received so much money despite not being very good at his job,” or “It’s strange he was still being paid months after his access was revoked,” and “Do you think he had access to all those leaked files?”

Follow Andrew McCarthy’s example with National Review by planting seeds of doubt: “Did the swindling staffers compromise members of Congress? Does blackmail explain why they were able to go unscathed for so long? And as for that sensitive information, did the Awans send American secrets, along with those hundreds of thousands of American dollars, to Pakistan?”

Then let that uncertainty sink in and don’t press any further: “We don’t know if these allegations are true, but they are disturbing.”

The ball is in the Democrats’ court to defend themselves, not in ours to speculate. The information we already have is more than enough to arouse distrust and whittle away the credibility of the Left.

Even without knowing what Wasserman Schultz is trying to hide, she’s clearly trying to hide something. That’s all we need to keep pushing. This might have nothing to do with tampering in the election, but with the media so afraid to cover the story, that’s enough to suggest that they think it could debunk their Russian narrative, and thus that they know the whole thing is garbage.

This should be an easy win if we play it smart. Let’s not spoil this one. This story is catching fire well enough without our smothering it by adding too much wood prematurely.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards, Co-Host of The New Guards Podcast, lifelong fan of the Anaheim Ducks, and proud Hufflepuff. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in English from Brigham Young University in 2017. One day later, his wife gave birth to a beautiful daughter. Richie is a constitutional conservative and doesn't see any compassion in violating other people's rights.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Gay Americans speak out in support of Christian Baker, against the gay lobby

Published

on

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

-Patrick Henry

As the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Now, however, after years of radical LGBT activist domination over the nation’s dialogue surrounding civil rights, liberty-loving gay Americans are pushing back.

All wheels have begun to squeak.

Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled (7-2) in favor of Jack Phillips, a devout Christian and confectionary artist. In 2012, after declining to lend his artistry skills toward the custom adornment of a cake intended for the celebration of a same-sex wedding, Phillips was sued for discrimination and was later found guilty by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Although the Commission had deemed Phillips’s art – confectionary art is a subset of sugar art – as expression under the First Amendment, his religious views were publicly attacked by commissioners. It was this blatant governmental bias which persuaded the Supreme Court to reverse all previous rulings against Mr. Phillips.

Despite of the Supreme Court ruling’s narrow scope, by mid-day on Monday, freedom-loving gay Americans had begun to speak out in support of Jack Phillips’s Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech, and celebrate the Supreme Court ruling in Mr. Phillips’s favor.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must… undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine

Pushing Back: Live on the Radio

Speaking with Rush Limbaugh on Monday, a Seattle woman who identified herself, saying, “I’m gay, I’m Hispanic, I’m female, I’m middle-aged, and I’m conservative,” stated:

I wanted to comment on the cake thing, on the Supreme Court judgment ruling on the cake matter. I wanted to say that I am so pleased to hear that, because I just don’t understand how people in this country can keep fighting against having their negative rights, against having what makes this country great, and against that which are the people that came to this country and come to this country, come here for. I just don’t get it… we are the country on this planet that stands for everyone to come and have liberty.

…[P]eople want to have freedom. But what they don’t understand is that freedom never needs to be defended. It’s liberty that needs to be defended. God gives us our freedom. God gives us the right to be free. We have to defend our liberty.

Another Limbaugh caller who identified himself as a wedded gay man, expressed disdain for the radical LGBT activists, describing them as “militant,” asserting:

…[I]t does not make our situation any easier when these militants are on the news because they do not represent me.

His {the husband’s] family didn’t show up at our wedding because they believe a marriage is between one man and one woman. And I don’t want to brand them a bigot or a homophobe for the rest of their lives when I could have an opportunity to have a relationship with them. I’d rather understand where they’re coming from and try to build off of what we have in common than brand them over a decision like a cake and then not have a relationship with the man I love’s family.

The caller continued his frank criticism, stating:

I think these militants make it worse, not better, and they don’t have me — in mind when they’re out there doing it… I just think they’re really loud and obnoxious, and so they get on the news.

They went on TV, and they said what their case was. They said it was never about the cake; it was about making them do what they wanted them to do. 

And I would rather go get a cake from somewhere else and not be on the news and have a chance at understanding where other people are coming from than force my will on them any more than I want them to force their will on me. I know a lot of people don’t accept gay marriage. However, it’s a lifestyle choice I made. They choose not to bake me a cake. I’ll get one somewhere else.

My sexuality makes up so small of who I am as a person; it really shouldn’t matter.

Pushing Back: Speaking Out on Twitter

Other non-totalitarian, liberty-loving gay Americans chose to push back by making their voices heard via social media.

Pushing Back: The New Squeaky Wheels

The phenomenon of gay Americans, fellow freedom-fighters, pushing back against the radical LGBT lobby isn’t unique to the Masterpiece Cakeshop court case. Since 2013, Chad Felix Greene- a wedded gay man – has “been writing in favor of religious freedom for those asked to participate in gay weddings.”

After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Mr. Greene stated:

LGBT’s hysterical denunciations and hair-on-fire rhetoric has not changed. Fortunately the argument has. We must continue fighting the rhetoric.

This case is not over.

Back in December of 2017, a gay duo – T.J. and Matt – made headlines for their open support of Jack Phillips and all who wish to exercise religious liberty and freedom of speech.  In a video for the Alliance Defending Freedom, the pair, standing outside the front entrance of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, explained:

We’re here to buy stuff from him and support him, because we don’t think any artist should be forced to create for something that violates their beliefs.

On Monday, echoing the same sentiment, Mr. Greene explained to his followers on Twitter:

The LGBT movement needs to understand that tolerance goes both ways. They have been behaving as though they are entitled to special treatment from everyone under the guise of ‘equality.’

We have equality. But we don’t have the right to demand others violate their beliefs for us.

The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages is what every part is entitled to and ought to enjoy.

-Benjamin Franklin

Reason to Hope

The trappings of authoritarian identify politics are being rejected and the walls are beginning to crumble. Liberty-loving Americans representing a plurality of circumstance and lifestyle, often hidden from the limelight of the media, are joining together in good will.

As a Christian and an artist, I count the mounting acts of ideological divergence – examples of bravery – from those in the gay community, as true blessings!

Alas! The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 

Continue Reading

Democrats

Forget Democratic Socialism and make way for Conservative Socialism

Published

on

Early last month, I wrote an article warning my readers that, based on the current political climate, we could be on the verge of witnessing the rise of the United Socialist States of America. In that article, I documented how the Democrat party’s embrace of Marxist ideology was fueling the rise of Democratic Socialism, particularly where capitalism and the free market are concerned.

I also shared how a majority of millennials favored the idea of completely rejecting capitalism and replacing it with the economic policies of murderous communist dictators like Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, and Chairman Mao. No surprise, really, in light of the fact that today’s public schools have become indoctrination centers where the Bible and the Constitution have been banned only to be replaced by the politically correct agenda of social justice warriors passing as teachers.

Obviously, those who bear the moniker of Democratic-Socialist are easy to target as being the greatest threat to liberty when it comes to advancing socialist policies. But as I stated in the USSA article, the GOP has abandoned the Constitution and conservatism, so they can’t be counted on to protect America either.

Unfortunately, the advance of socialism has reached its way into the faux conservative remnant of the GOP and is now being promoted as a conservative value.

In an article from NewsMax.com, Lee Mercer, the president of Healthcare for All Oregon-Action, is making an appeal to Donald Trump to make the “conservative case for single payer healthcare.” While Mercer is more on the Democratic-Socialist side of the aisle, he quotes “conservatives” from Canada and the US to Trump to make his case.

Using the recently released healthcare documentary “Fix it: Healthcare at the Tipping Point” as a reference, Mercer quotes Dann Konkin, President of AMPCO Manufacturers in British Columbia, who gave his views on business and healthcare.

“I am a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. We stand for removing waste, being more efficient and finding ways to grow our own businesses and one of the ways we can grow our business is to reduce cost. That is why we embrace the Canadian healthcare system. What I don’t understand is why my fellow conservatives in the United States tend to fight this.”

And from the US, Mercer quotes former GOP Rep. David Steil (PA):

“Business when they look at the single payer model, will come quickly to the conclusion that it is the least expensive and most supportive of a free market and will have the most direct effect on their cost of operations. As a business owner and as a former Republican legislator I have said conservatives should be supportive of single payer because it costs less.”

So, according to these so-called conservatives, socialized medicine is a free-market solution to the healthcare crisis . . . and it’s conservative.

Democratic Socialism has brought America to the brink of becoming the United Socialist States of America, but it looks like Conservative Socialism will finish the job.

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

Democrats

Stockton, CA mayor introduces program to pay killers not to kill

Published

on

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece about how the Democrats have adopted the Marxist ideals of Democratic-Socialism, officially adding them to the party’s agenda heading into the 2018 and 2020 elections in their effort to move the country closer to becoming a post-Constitutional America.

Vital to their agenda is a belief in big government, the surrender of liberty and self-determination, and the destruction of free-market capitalism—an agenda that is growing in acceptance with the next generation of voters.

The list of socialist “solutions” to America’s “problems” is long . . . and getting longer. From government-run health care to newer ideas like government-funded universal basic income and government-guaranteed jobs for life, nothing is off-limits when it comes to creating a world where government provides everything it believes we need.

This brings us to the latest example of Democratic-Socialism from the laboratory of socialist government—California.

In the city of Stockton, CA, where Mayor Michael Tubbs is already preparing to launch a living wage program—at $500/month, it’s more like a government-provided allowance for recipients to spend however they wish—comes word from the 27-year-old Stanford graduate of a solution to the growing gun violence and gang problems in his city.

Tougher prison sentencing? Get serious. This is a California socialist we’re talking about.

Mayor Tubbs wants to solve the gun and gang problems the same way Democratic-Socialists always do—with a government check. The city of Stockton is considering issuing a check of up to $1,000/month to residents identified as “most likely to shoot somebody” under a program called “Advance Peace.”

Tubbs, a Stockton native and Stanford graduate who is all of 27 years old, wants to give at least $500 a month to a select group of residents. They’ll be able to spend it as they wish, for 18 months, in a pilot program to test the impact of what’s called guaranteed basic income.

If the very sound of that knocked you half off your chair, this next initiative might finish the job.

Stockton is about to award stipends of up to $1,000 a month to residents deemed most likely to shoot somebody. This program is called Advance Peace, and it’s modeled after a crime reduction program in the Bay Area city of Richmond.

What Tubbs is proposing is essentially paying criminals not to commit a crime, at least not a crime using a gun. Which begs the question, why stop there? If you actually believe you can pay a gang-banger not to kill, why not pay them not to rob or rape? Ridiculous, right?

In the interest of better marketing, I have a suggestion for a new name to give his program. I realize that this is California, but “Advance Peace” sounds a bit too 1960’s for me.

How about Cash for Criminals? Or Cash for Killers? I’ll let the mayor decide.

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

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.