Connect with us

Opinions

“Conservative” con men

Published

on

Every conservative who has ever engaged in politics on social media has, at one time or another, felt the wrath of a full blown hissy fit from a member of the Left. They’ve been called racists, sexists, Islamophobics, and any other word that liberals can think of as an insult.

Nowhere was this more evident than during the 2016 Presidential election. However, the sources of the online attacks during the 2016 Presidential election were different in that these attacks were also coming from those who claimed to share our ideology and our values. Some of them were new to politics. Others had involved themselves in political debate for years.

Then there were the long-time conservative talk show hosts and writers who, inexplicably, decided to put the full weight of their celebrity behind a life-long Democrat with no accountability record in real politics. They threw their support behind a man who had been a long-time friend of and donor for the woman who he would ultimately face in the general election; a man whose politics had aligned with a plethora of other politicians who didn’t even come close to sharing the values these conservative talk show pundits have claimed to themselves hold.

Of course, the man I’m writing of is Donald Trump: a man who wrote a book named “The Art of the Deal,” (more appropriately titled “The Art of the Con”). In the book, Trump details how he lures people into believing that he will fulfill their fantasies, all the while knowing he never would.

The conservative talk show hosts I speak of began with a correct premise, and that was the allure. They believed that Washington was thoroughly corrupt and that the GOP was really far more aligned with the Democrats than with the GOP’s espoused conservative principles. These hosts weren’t wrong. The problem for the rest of us, however, started when these hosts wanted us to support a lifelong Democrat. To follow their logic: the solution to hollowing out a corrupt GOP who worked for the Democrat agenda was supposed to be a guy who had been a Democrat most of his life. What? They wanted us to support a man whose daughter was close friends with Chelsea Clinton, and a man whose wedding to his current wife was attended by the Clintons? This should have given everyone – and I mean EVERYONE – who had ever listened to these people, a moment of pause.

For some of these “conservatives,” their support of the “latest thing” wasn’t surprising in the least. Take Ann Coulter, for example. She had already sided with every liberal Republican that had come along in a decade: Christy, McConnell, Romney. During the 2014 mid-terms, when asked about Matt Bevin running against McConnell in the primaries on Sean Hannity’s radio shown, she said “This isn’t the time for primaries,” and “McConnell is a conservative.”

Frankly, if you cared at all what she had to say after that statement, then I own a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you.

I could write an entire article breaking down just those two statements and how utterly asinine each statement is, but I’m going to give my readers the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re smart enough to understand this on their own. The only thing I WILL mention is that during that election McConnell had a PAC who’s aim was to destroy conservative opposition to him.

Do you know who donated $50,000 to that PAC? Donald Trump.

What about Lou Dobbs? I certainly hope the Fox Business News host is better at financial analysis than he is at political principle, but that’s obviously not true. His knowledge of Trump came, naturally, from their mutual presence in the business world. Dobbs should have known from this experience alone that Trump was a con man and that Trump didn’t mean a word he said. Yet, Dobbs led his viewers down the primrose path anyway.

As for Rush Limbaugh, the “Mayor of Realville,” he seemed to become completely disconnected from reality as the 2016 election progressed, diving deeper and deeper into the insanity of the inexplicable: Trump popularity within the GOP.

Sean Hannity too. Perhaps no one dove off the deep end more than he. Though he claimed impartiality all throughout the GOP primary process, his manner toward Trump verses the other candidates revealed the fallaciousness of that claim. To anyone who observed Hannity, even casually, it was clear that he was in the bag for Trump. Worse was Hannity’s insistence that anyone who was conservative MUST vote for Trump once he won the nomination. This came after years of arguing with liberal callers to his radio show that “I’m not a Republican, I’m a registered conservative.” Yet, now Hannity had become a mouthpiece for the GOP he had claimed to not be a part of for years.

Hannity, and others, told us we HAD to support Trump just to stop Hillary Clinton. This was a legitimate, yet pointless argument coming from someone like Mark Levin who reluctantly boarded the Trump Train. This argument wasn’t only coming from those like Hannity. On a tray of 17 sandwiches of various appeal, Hannity et al picked the crap sandwich and then expected us to eat it just to avoid eating the crap sandwich the Democrats were serving. No thanks. Those of us who don’t like crap sandwiches decided to keep our integrity and wait for the next meal.

Back to the present, the reactions of all of these pundits to Trump’s recent collusion with Democrats over his signature campaign issue of immigration has been varied, but equally hilarious.

Ann Coulter has tweeted some revisionist history in the last week. She claimed that there was no alternative to Trump, that there was no one who had his ideas and was more trustworthy. This of course was a flat out lie. Rubio, Cruz, Walker – any of these would have been far superior to the lifelong Democrat and Clinton supporter. The truth was that Coulter saw an opportunity to use Trump’s popularity to write and sell books, making herself a quick buck in the process.

Hannity and Limbaugh blame Congressional Republican leadership. While, yes, men like McConnell and Ryan definitely share the blame for not pushing a conservative agenda, Trump has hardly had the laser like focus it takes to push through an agenda opposed by nearly half the country and most of the mainstream media.

Fourth rate commentators like Bill Mitchell and Mark Simone have maintained the fiction that Trump is a genius who is luring Pelosi and Schumer into a false sense of security, and that this is all part of an amazing strategy we’re all just too stupid to understand.

Then, there is Mark Levin and a few others who feel like they have been betrayed. I, and others like me, have no sympathy for them. They have not been betrayed in any way. Trump made no secret of who and what he was. Yet, Levin, after reluctantly throwing his support behind Trump following the GOP convention, became hostile toward those who would not follow him in supporting Trump.

We knew who and what Trump was. It wasn’t difficult to know. You didn’t need to listen to hypocritical Left-wing media types going on and on about his womanizing while ignoring Hillary’s enabling of her husband’s sexual assaults. You didn’t need to listen to hilarious ramblings about how Trump wasn’t a real Republican from Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham, two politicians who have only just barely held a conservative position their whole lives.

Really, you only needed to listen to Trump himself. “Everyone is going to be covered and the government is going to pay for it,” Trump said of healthcare. His protectionist trade policies sounded good on paper. So too did Bernie Sanders’ policies. They were exactly the same, after all.

Hannity, Ingraham, Dobbs, Coulter, Limbaugh – All of them, and more, were wrong from the start and, now, they are desperately trying to place blame elsewhere in the hopes that you won’t notice how wrong they’ve been.

So, here’s my recommendation: Don’t be fooled. When the next set of elections comes around, figure out who was right last time and listen to them. Plenty of great political opinions are out there who didn’t sell their souls for Trump. Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck, Kimberly Ross, and, dare I say, many of those who are now staff writers here at NOQReport, were right about Trump from the start. Decide for yourselves who might be worthy of listening to and stop listening to those who just want your money, but who lack the conservative principles to back them.

I understand why some might have been fooled by some of these voices in 2016. Those who, like Coulter, have been wrong for so long deserve no benefit of the doubt. Then again, given the display that many of the others have put on since 2016, they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt either. Why would you want to listen to those who have been so horribly wrong, especially when it was so obvious? That’s for you to decide, readers.

I, for one, don’t watch or listen to any of them anymore. I see their tweets and that’s enough to know they’ve lost their minds and their principles, assuming they ever had any. Oddly, even people who have recognized that these pundits are wrong seem still to continually give them attention by watching and listening to their programs, even if it’s just to hate on them. Why do it? That’s what they want. Attention. Attention equals advertising, which equals money in their pockets regardless of what kind of attention it is. That’s all they really care about. That much, they’ve proven.

It’s unreasonable to ask people who have jobs (often more than one), families to raise, and houses requiring upkeep to fully know the details of every politician. We all need reliable political analysis to make informed decisions. Everyone now knows, or at least should know, that some of the biggest names in political commentary, and plenty of people you never heard of before Trump (looking at you Bill Mitchell) aren’t the ones to listen to the next time an election comes ‘round.

Benjamin Wilhelm

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Doug Olson

    September 18, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Excellent commentary, Mr. Wilhelm. I am proud to say that all those mentioned above, that I gave money to in the form of purchasing their books, going to their concerts, et. al., will not get another dime or another moment of attention from me.

    I don’t even call them sell outs, because in reality, though they never were about anything but the money.

    Hopefully, we can say “good riddance” to the lot of them.

    • Patriotrocker

      September 18, 2017 at 10:34 am

      I agree completely. I had many books by all these shallow money-grubbers. Conservatives? pffftt! They fell for Don the Con hook, line and sinker and I haven’t listened to or watched them since early last year. I gave my books to charity. My library needed a clean-up anyway! lol. Seeing trump for who he is was no-brainer. So we know what that means for all those who fell for him. Cultists.

  2. Jack Krevin

    September 19, 2017 at 9:36 am

    These sort of articles by Never-Trumpers always amuse me. They always, and I mean always, have to signal they are 100% right, virtuous and principled. It is never them whose wrong or who has to change.

    The simple truth of the matter is that until you come to grips with why the base preferred a “life-long Democrat” over the sixteen or so alternatives, why for many Republican voters they were the “crap sandwich” not Trump, you faction of the so called conservative movement is doomed. Whining about it isn’t going to help nor is failing to realize that things like Free Trade are at best peripheral to the Republican/Conservative base if not anathema.

    As for the small part of this article which wasn’t just whining about 2016,Trump is Trump. He’s, at best, an unprincipled deal-maker who never met a position he wasn’t prepared to trade away to his advantage. Saying that, I voted for Trump and have no regrets. He was the best choice to advance my goals, about the only one who wanted to bring Immigration front and center. And I would take a thousand Trumps over any backstabbing Never-Trumper who were so eager to abandon and betray the party/its voters. At least with Trump I might get the odd bone thrown my way.
    -Jack Krevin

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Why abortion must be fought politically AND culturally

Published

on

Why abortion must be fought politically AND culturally

Last week, I jumped in on a heated Twitter debate between a conservative writer and a pro-life policy wonk. Though they both wanted to reduce or eliminate abortions in America, they were fighting over whether it was practical or even fair to charge women who get abortions with a felony. Obviously this debate was set within a hypothetical world in which abortions were already illegal, but it’s worthwhile to plan steps that need to be taken if Roe v Wade were overturned, or if some other laws at the state or national level made abortion-on-demand illegal.

Both sides made pretty epic arguments supporting their side, but both missed the bigger picture. Abortion is, at the very least, a two-front war. There are a few smaller fronts where the war can be waged, but the two primary battlefields are political/legal and cultural. Most pro-lifers fight the political battle. They may invoke faith-based arguments or post videos from the womb to pull at the heartstrings, but when they do so within the framework of the law, they’re still making a political argument.

The pro-abortion side is focusing on the cultural side of the debate… and they’re winning. It’s not because they have the better argument. It’s because the pro-lifers are neglecting this front, and the few that are actually addressing it are doing so with a generally poor strategy. Most are relying on judges and legislation as the way to stop abortions. Meanwhile, they’re losing ground on the cultural front.

How is the left so adept at fighting the culture war? Because they’re framing their arguments within a bigger picture. Their focus on the collective rights of people groups has made their willing sheep abandon what they once knew in their hearts, that killing preborn babies is fundamentally wrong.

The left’s message is that if you believe in equal rights, then you MUST believe in women’s rights. Not too long ago they called it “reproductive rights” but they abandoned that when they realized they could position abortion within the greater women’s rights narrative and get away with it. We’ve seen some pushback by prominent pro-life women, but it’s not enough. To win the cultural war against the womb will require utilizing a variation of the same tactics used by the left.

There are three fundamental truths that pro-lifers must understand if we’re going to win the culture war as it pertains to abortion.

  1. Statistics are counterproductive. I cringe every time I see or hear someone spouting out statistics like there are 125,000 abortions worldwide every day or that over 50,000,000 Americans have been murdered through abortion since it was made legal. It’s not that the statistics are wrong. It’s that they only have an impact on those who already oppose abortion. Those who support abortion do so knowing that many abortions happen and they don’t really care because to them, these weren’t people. Whether they think of them as fetuses or potential humans or parasites or whatever, they’re not going to be swayed by arguments that abortions are rampant.
  2. Science is on our side. Every week, there are new stories highlighting certain attributes of preborn babies that need to be communicated to the masses. They feel pain. They dream. They’re often viable at a much earlier stage of development than previously believed. There’s still a large portion of the population that believes a baby’s heart starts beating when they leave the womb. So much effort is made to use the science on the political side, we often forget that it works from a cultural perspective as well, perhaps more so. We need to educate the people so they understand that preborn babies aren’t just potential humans. They’re humans.
  3. Framing is everything. Just as the left has framed abortion as part of women’s rights, so too must pro-lifers frame the right to exist as a human right. This may seem like a political argument instead of a cultural one, and it is, but when we do so from the perspective of right versus wrong, we can allow the argument to transcend into the part of consciousness that touches on cultural ethics. But framing doesn’t just end with making it a human right to live. We have to frame abortion itself with other topics that people may find despicable. Here are three examples of talking points that frame the abortion debate in a culturally favorable way for pro-lifers that have the potential to reach those who are either pro-abortion or indifferent.
    1. Planned Parenthood was born from the tenets of racism and population control and continues those missions today.
    2. Pushing for gun control to save lives while endorsing abortion-on-demand is a contradiction.
    3. The elite promote abortion knowing it is far more rampant among the poor and minorities. This is no accident. It’s by design.

The war on the womb cannot be won through political means. It cannot be won through cultural shifts. It can only be won when both fronts are addressed simultaneously. Pro-abortionists are doing it. It’s time pro-lifers learn a lesson from the enemy.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Democrats

Tucker on new NJ gun ban: Venezuela banned gun ownership before country’s collapse

Published

on

By

Tucker on new NJ gun ban Venezuela banned gun ownership before countrys collapse

Tucker Carlson makes the point that the Leftists opposing Liberty should target criminals instead of the innocent.

Letting Tucker Carlson speak for himself, But we’re emphasizing two important points:

  1. Gun Confiscation has nothing to do with ‘safety’ or ‘protecting the children’ but empowering the Socialist Left. Crime has skyrocket in the Socialist Utopia of Venezuela after the government disarmed the people. Just as the Left wants to do in the states.
  2. He also made the point that indicates the other party is arguing in bad faith.  If they really were concerned about gun violence, then they would go after that small segment of the population that is committing this violence. Instead they are going after innocent gun owners.
Tucker on New NJ Gun Law: Venezuela Banned Gun Ownership Before Country’s Collapse

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/17/new-jersey-gun-law-bans-magazines-more-10-rounds-tucker-carlson-bernard-kerik-reactHe said that in Venezuela, the point was not to make people safer, but to “disarm the public.” Now, it is a felony in New Jersey for ordinary citizens to “defend themselves,” Carlson added.

Bernard Kerik, who was Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s NYPD police commissioner, said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that the law is a “cunning way to attack the legal gun owners.”

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Economy

Nearly $5 billion being sent to Mexico while border wall languishes in political hell

Published

on

Nearly 5 billion being sent to Mexico while border wall languishes in political hell

Talk about adding insult to injury. Not only are we nowhere nearer to getting the wall built on our southern border, but now taxpayer dollars are actually being sent to Mexico to fund development.

This is not a joke, though it’s actually pretty funny.

Today, we learned the White House may be backing down on shutting down the government to get Congress to fund the down payment on the border wall.

Is the White House backing down on the government shutdown?

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/18/white-house-backing-government-shutdown/The White House seems to be in damage-control mode as it shifts from claiming the President will shut down the government if he doesn’t get $5 billion in wall funding to now saying the President could find other ways to get the money for the border wall if DHS budget isn’t sufficient.

This is a clear departure from the bold words during last week’s public standoff between the President and his friends on the Democratic side, Senator Chuck Schumer and Representative Nancy Pelosi. At that point, the President was willing to “carry the mantle” of “Trump’s Shutdown” if he didn’t get a CR that included $5 billion for DHS.

Now we’re learning that the United States is sending over $10 billion to Central America and southern Mexico in an aid package designed to stimulate economic growth in the impoverished region, including $4.8 billion to Mexico.

US pledges $10.6B aid for Central America, southern Mexico

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/18/us-pledges-10-6b-aid-central-america-southern-mexico/The plan was announced in a joint U.S.-Mexican statement released by the State Department and read aloud by Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard in the Mexican capital.

“In sum I think this is good news, very good news for Mexico,” Ebrard said.

Newly inaugurated President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador waxed poetic about the plan to provide jobs so people won’t have to emigrate.

I wasn’t one of those who fell for the idea that the President was going to get Mexico to pay for the border wall, but I never thought I’d see the wall languishing in political hell while we’re sending nearly the exact amount needed to start the wall to Mexico instead. This isn’t the type of change we were promised. This isn’t draining the swamp.

Drudge encapsulated it perfectly with their current top headlines.

Drudge Report

Whether this is some sort of poetic justice against those who thought things would be different or a cruel joke on the nation, one thing is certain. We’re not seeing the progress on stopping illegal immigration that we were promised. Not even close.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report