Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

Published

2 years ago

on

The Real Mitt Romney

Utah is abuzz with rumors and anxiety over the possibility of a Senate run from former governor of Massachusetts and Holladay, Utah’s own (according to his recent Twitter edit), Mitt Romney. Romney has yet to declare candidacy, but according to a poll on Thursday from radio host Rod Arquette, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee’s favorability among Utahns approximates 60%.

His intentions remain a mystery, but should he toss his hat into the ring, Utahns would face a far more compelling question: which Mitt Romney will we see?

That could depend entirely on his audience.

Utah is a strange place politically. The more I participate in local politics, the more I realize that most Utahns care little, if at all, about policy. Their main concern is personality — and I can prove it.

According to Conservative Review’s Liberty Scorecard, Utah’s federal representation boasts the largest spread within the same party: a 71% gap between Senator Mike Lee’s 100% rating and Senator Orrin Hatch’s dismal 29%. As for Utah’s remaining representatives, Chris Stewart comes in 2nd place with a 70% score, followed by Mia Love with 62% and Rob Bishop with 60%. Recently elected Representative John Curtis is too fresh to merit a rating, but his predecessor, Jason Chaffetz, amassed a score of 78%.

In other words, the same electorate is voting overwhelmingly for candidates with wildly differing philosophies. But the common thread is easy to find: niceness.

Utah may be a traditionally red state, but it’s also a caring state. And when the two come into apparent conflict, Utahn’s typically opt for the latter.

Mitt Romney’s image of clean-cut benevolence is deeply ingrained in the Beehive State’s collective psyche, which is why he can garner a comfortable majority in favorability without hinting at any policy whatsoever — besides his obvious disdain for President Trump.

In fact, Romney’s renewed prominence in Utah most notably stems from his 2016 speech at the University of Utah, during which he rightly condemned then-candidate Trump’s character and personal history. Trump’s lifelong moral despotism and his abrasive conduct on the campaign trail were deep causes of concern for stalwart Utahns, who accordingly panned Trump in the primary (13.82%) and reluctantly nudged him to victory in the general election (45.5%).

Now, a week following Trump’s “bleep-hole” comments about Haiti and African countries in favor of places like Norway and South Korea — comments Mia Love has already condemned — Mitt Romney is again perfectly poised to emerge as Trump’s foil.

But unfortunately, his chances in Utah have little to do with policy.

Now that we know our audience, we’re brought back to the initial question: which Mitt Romney will we see? Whether you like Romney as a person but dislike him as a politician, vice versa, both, or neither, his long-standing reputation as a flip-flopper is unarguably well deserved. From abortion and Reagan to guns and taxes, Romney’s history of political metamorphosis is scrutinously documented.

Not coincidentally, his progressive standpoints persisted throughout his governorship and Senate candidacy in left-leaning Massachusetts, while his conservative reformation occurred just in time for his presidential bids.

Of course, it’s possible that Romney was sincere in his numerous changes of heart — one thing people are entitled to is the evolution of their personal beliefs. But as this is politics, one should be very cautious in attributing motive, one way or another.

The problem is that while Romney painted himself as a Democrat Lite for Massachusetts and a red-blooded conservative for the RNC, there’s no telling what persona he might adopt for a Senate race in Utah beyond that of the “nice guy,” and in politics, words like “nice,” “caring,” and “compassionate” often mean social programs.

Ideological shifts aside, Romney is at best a pragmatist, not a constitutionalist, having proven his disregard for natural rights on matters of health care and abortion — Romneycare was as much a violation of rights on a state level as Obamacare is federally, and his “pro-life” position that states should have “the authority to decide whether they want to have abortion or not, state by state” exhibits ignorance of the sole purpose of the federal government: securing our unalienable rights, even in matters of state nullification.

Romney also experienced backlash from conservatives in August 2017 when he publicly defended Antifa, a domestic terrorist organization, following the horrifying neo-Nazi display in Charlottesville.

In short, Mitt Romney is not good for Utah, nor is he good for liberty. At best, he would establish an elevated moral compass in terms of personal lifestyle, but that’s no excuse to squander freedom.

Romney would most likely amount to no more than another Jeff Flake — a well-meaning, moderate, Mormon Senator, a good man with strong values, who blatantly misunderstands the role of government and the cause of individual liberty.

This has nothing to do with objective opposition to Donald Trump. I applauded Romney’s speech at the University of Utah, and I’ve had plenty to say about Trump’s shortcomings over the past two years.

But the cult of personality is just as dangerous in one direction as another, and if Romney has plans to run for office in Utah, he’s found the perfect base to latch onto a “nice guy,” whatever he stands (or falls) for.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Related Topics:
Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

The false narratives behind Portland’s Antifa versus Proud Boys

Published

32 mins ago

on

August 17, 2019

By

The false narratives behind Portlands Antifa versus Proud Boys

Depending on which news outlets you use, there are two primary narratives that are being pushed. Narrative one is, “Far-right group and Antifa clash in Portland.” Narrative two is, “Antifa gets violent. Again.”

The first narrative is what you’ll get from progressive legacy media outlets as they offer cover for the violence being perpetrated almost exclusively by Antifa as they clash with the Proud Boys. The latter is being classified as a “far-right” group, but they’re actually more of an “alt-right” group that does not believe in true conservative principles. Nevertheless, anything “right” is painted by the media as part of the conservative movement, the GOP, and President Trump’s base. This is important to understand because in the narrative the left is painting, their goal is to make the Proud Boys appear to be white supremacist and therefore attached to President Trump because according to their latest agenda, they have to portray him as a racist at every turn.

The second narrative is the reality, and you won’t find it reported this way by many news outlets, even on the right. There’s a disassociation some publications are actively engaged in where they believe reporting that seems to favor the Proud Boys makes the news outlet seem like it’s supporting white supremacy. This is the progressive propaganda machine at work; even conservative journalists are hesitant to lose credibility over perceptions.

Quillette journalist Angy Ngo is reporting live on Twitter. We’ll try to update it as he adds more:

As you can see from Ngo’s reporting, the violence seems to be undertaken exclusively by Antifa. But legacy media will only report it as clashes “between” the two groups and not as violence instigated solely by the side that holds the left’s progressive mantle. All of this is secondary to the overarching narrative they’re driving, that the Proud Boys represent the right and their white supremacy beliefs are defended by the President.

On cue, the President chimed in:

The left pounced, as they’re wont to do, by saying this is evidence the President is sympathetic to the Proud Boys because he singled out Antifa in a “mutual” conflict. What they won’t tell you is Antifa is starting the fights. They’re bringing the weapons. They’re pepper-spraying people. They’re attacking buses. One does not have to believe in the Proud Boys’ rhetoric to realize Antifa is instigating violence here.

As Beth Baumann reported, even journalists are being targeted:

So Much For Being ‘Peaceful’: Antifa Attacks Reporters And Conservatives In Portland (Again)

Not quite seven weeks ago, conservative journalist Andy Ngo was attacked while covering an Antifa protest in Portland, Oregon. Mayor Tom Wheeler ordered police to stand down at the time and received backlash for doing so. The city prepared for the Proud Boys to hold a rally on Saturday, with Antifa showing up to counter protest. Wheeler made it clear that Portland is taking a “zero tolerance” policy during Saturday’s activities.

Despite the warning, Antifa, once again, became violent.

At one point, Antifa protestors had The Washington Examiner‘s Julio Rosas surrounded. They wanted him to report on what was taking place from the other side of the street because he “wasn’t with” them.

Rosas attempted to explain that he was simply reporting on the events for his job but Antifa didn’t care. They thought he was “spying” on them.

The irony in all of this has become a recurring theme between Antifa and their supporters in progressive media and the Democratic Party. They claim Antifa is simply “anti-fascist” while ignoring the fact that they’re the ones using fascism to promote their ideas and to quash opposing ideas. Reports on the ground in Portland demonstrate this clearly.

Here are Rosas’s Twitter reports:

The left’s narratives: (1) Proud Boys and Antifa are equally to blame, (2) Proud Boys are white supremacists while Antifa are anti-fascists, and (3) President Trump support white supremacists. Don’t believe the lies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conspiracy Theory

Alleged Philadelphia shooter Maurice Hill attended radical Wahhabi Islam mosque: report

Published

1 day ago

on

August 16, 2019

By

Alleged Philadelphia shooter Maurice Hill attended radical Wahhabi Islam mosque report

Wahhabism, the anti-American fundamentalist Islamic sect that drives the religious culture in Saudi Arabia, has as one of its stated goals to spread their beliefs around the world through any means necessary. Mosques promoting their radical ideology have been popping up across America over the last few years, including in Philadelphia. Alleged cop-shooter Maurice Hill attended one of them.

According to Clarion Project:

The mosque, called Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar, is known for preaching the Islamist ideology promoted by Saudi Arabia referred to as “Wahhabism.”

Clarion Intelligence Network has been aware through its sources that the area where the shootings took place is known for trafficking in guns, drugs and counterfeit items. This criminal market has a strong Islamist element that includes extremist gangs.

Hill’s older sister said he “occasionally attended” an unnamed mosque, confirming initial reports from our sources that Hill is a Muslim. The sources do not yet have first-hand evidence of the shooter being personally involved in Islamist extremism.

Clarion Intel’s sources report that Masjid Ahlil Hadith Wal Athar is a Salafi mosque which follows the theocratic teachings of Saudi Arabia’s top Wahhabist scholars.

At this point, there is no indication that Hill’s shooting of police officers was motivated by Islamism or anything other than a desire to resist arrest.

Today, a march was scheduled to “Free Maurice Hill” by Black Community Control of Police, a group adamantly opposed to law enforcement. There are no indications the group is aligned with Masjid Ahlil Hadeeth Wal Athar, but it is a common practice among radical Islamic groups to disguise their associations and operate apparently independent from one another.

The details surrounding the gunfight seem to indicate it was not prompted by Wahhabism as Hill was apparently approached as a result of a separate warrant enforced against a neighbor. But the clear disregard for police authority and the willingness to attempt to murder multiple law enforcement officers indicates an ideology that is prepared to kill and die. Was this ideology sparked at the radical mosque Hill attended?

As expected, the appetite of legacy media to cover Maurice Hill died down quickly despite the rampant calls for gun control. His story has too many things that go against the progressive media’s narrative.

Any connections to Islam in situations like these are automatically dismissed as Islamophobia. But it’s highly unlikely Maurice Hill’s alleged actions were completely disparate from the radical teachings of the mosque he attended.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

The 2nd Amendment is the first target in the left’s war on liberty

Published

1 day ago

on

August 16, 2019

By

The 2nd Amendment is the first target in the Lefts war on Liberty

The commonsense civil right of armed self-defense is the canary in a coal mine for the cause of liberty.

It was a little over a month ago that John Lovell from the Warrior Poet Society produced this video, but it seems longer given recent events. He expresses the thoughts of many that are becoming increasingly prescient by the day. We are witness to the fact that while those on the national socialist left like to profess support of liberty as being ‘liberal’ they are becoming ever more strident towards the concept.

While the common sense human right of self-defense is literally the tip of the spear in the defense of liberty. The people on the left who only pretend to be liberal are now branching out from this basic human right, going after other civil liberties with a vengeance. Topping their list is a concept that eviscerates several civil liberties with on fell swoop, Gun Confiscation SWATing [aka so-called ‘Red flag’ laws ]. So far they’ve done little to solve the problem and according to an article from colleague Blaine Traber: Baltimore’s homicides by firearm RISE 13% since red flag gun law went into effect. Thus, these abominations of Constitutional Liberties are not only useless for their intended purpose, they are making the situation even worse.

Presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris belched forth an even more egregious example in which she expanded her ire for self-preservation to what George Orwell characterized as ‘Wrongthink’. As reported in Bearing Arms, Senator Harris proposed opening up the criteria for gun confiscation to the realm of improper viewpoints. This case illustrates that the 2nd amendment is just the first target in the Left’s war on Liberty, but it certainly won’t be the last.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading
Whatfinger
Subscribe by Email
Social Injustice

Facebook

NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Social Injustice

Trending