Connect with us

Politics

RNC fundraiser uses recycled Trump survey promoting recycled broken promises

Published

on

As Republicans face the daunting task of trying to avoid a political blood-bath in November, and as Donald Trump puts his 2020 re-election campaign in gear, the Republican National Committee sent out their official “Trump Agenda Survey.” I know it’s official because it said so in big, bold, red letters at the top.

It’s also a recycled edition of the same survey the RNC sent out last year.

In a cover letter from RNC Chairwoman and niece of Utah carpetbagger Mitt Romney, Ronna McDaniel assured me that Trump has been working hard to “put our nation back on a winning path,” but he needed my help to beat the “DC establishment” and the “unfair treatment” he is receiving from the “biased, lying media.” According to McDaniel, turning our country around after 8 years of Obama isn’t easy.

Is it just me, or did Obama use a similar excuse when he blamed his failures on George W. Bush?

McDaniel then assured me that her #1 priority as RNC Chair was ensuring that the Trump White House and the GOP majorities in the House and Senate kept in touch with people like me—a goal that apparently requires that I send the RNC a nice “skin in the game” donation along with my completed survey.

The survey itself was quite interesting when you consider that, according to Donald Trump, he has accomplished more than any president in history. Why was it interesting? Well . . . let’s just say that if you liked the GOP’s 2016 campaign rhetoric and lies, you’ll love the issues addressed in the Trump agenda survey because THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!

In the survey, McDaniel wants me to let her know if I want Trump and Republicans in Congress to fight for:

  • Reform the federal income tax system and reduce corporate tax rates
  • Build a border wall and strengthen border security to stop illegal immigration
  • Reverse President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders
  • Cut job-killing regulations to get the economy growing
  • Confirm federal judges who pledge to follow the original intent of the Constitution
  • Withhold federal funding from “Sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities
  • Re-equip and rebuild our military
  • Repeal and replace Obamacare
  • Encourage domestic exploration and production of energy sources
  • Re-negotiate trade deals to put American jobs and interests first

Like I said before, it’s recycled. Not a single, solitary new idea from the party that is supposedly winning so much that we can’t take it anymore.

Interestingly enough, while the survey offered nothing but the same old recycled promises, some of the GOP’s previously broken promises were noticeably missing, such as: defunding Planned Parenthood, ending DACA, and working to reduce the size and cost of government.

It wasn’t her intention, but McDaniel’s plea for feedback and funds confirms what conservatives have known all along—the GOP has been hijacked by Republicrats and Trumplicans who have no agenda other than their political self-preservation. And in classic “party over principle” fashion, the RNC is recycling the broken promises that got these lying liars elected in the first place.

Despite the P.S. McDaniel included at the end of her letter, Trump and the GOP are doing very little “to Make America Great Again!” They are, however, doing plenty to show why it’s time for conservatives to sever ties with the GOP and build a new party.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be 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

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Economy

Thomas Sowell makes a clear point about Medicare-for-All

Published

on

Thomas Sowell makes a clear point about Medicare-for-All

How was the left able to take heat away from their Medicare-for-All proposal, and more specifically the estimated $32 trillion price tag over a decade? They tripled down with the Green New Deal, which some estimate would cost upwards near $100 trillion.

So, the price tag of the Democrats’ desired replacement for utterly failing Obamacare is to take current government control over healthcare and put it on a regiment of steroids and methamphetamine. When you’re going through Hell, keep going, I suppose.

But all of this could be alleviated if voters and politicians took a moment to think about the prospects of Medicare-for-All logically. Let’s erase, for a moment, the Utopian notion that taxing rich people extreme amounts will give us enough money to make healthcare free for everyone while also improving the quality. That’s the goal, right? Cheaper, better healthcare is what most people want. Conservatives believe it’s best to pull government administration out of the equation and put it all on a competitive capitalist model that has worked for nearly every other industry for over a century. Hyper-leftists want to add more government control.

Conservative commentator Thomas Sowell has some thoughts on the matter. One in particular can be wrapped up into an eloquent quote that should be ideological checkmate allowing us to win the healthcare debate.

“It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it.”

Of course, our version of checkmate requires common sense, logic, and basic math skills. These attributes aren’t as readily present on the left, therefore they might hear this logic and still think single-payer makes sense.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Rewarding terrorism: Why are we encouraging mass murder with more liberty control?

Published

on

By

Rewarding terrorism Why are we encouraging mass murder with more liberty control

Does it ever occur to the Left that depriving the people of the ability to defend themselves is exactly what the terrorists want?

Solving any type of problem begins with the proper determination of the cause of the problem. Mistakenly ascribing the wrong cause only serves to make the situation far worse because the wrong solutions are then applied.

The cause of the recent phenomena of mass murder attacks is a perverse desire for fame. This is why the miscreant in the recent tragedy in New Zealand posted a ‘manifesto’ and live streamed his horrific and cowardly actions. [Please note that we are not using his name or image]. This is also why he came out in favour of liberty [gun] control.

Rewarding behavior results in more of that behavior

Consider that the reprobates who perpetrate these attacks desperately want to make a name for themselves. Most people in this world want to do something positive to achieve fame. Some compete in athletic events, cure disease or work to solve societal problems. However, there are those who don’t have the ability or time to do this, so they decide to gain this by infamy instead. They choose to become infamous, shooting their way into the history books, with others helping them along the way by playing right into their hands with the notoriety by depriving others of their liberty.

They look at what mass murderers have done to achieve what they desperately crave. One way is to play into the hands of the Left looking to deprive the people of their right of self-defense. What better way to become infamous than to be the cause of a protracted battle over this fundamental human right?

Getting the reward of more media coverage by the cause of liberty [gun] control

The reprobate in the New Zealand attack made the entirely obvious point that many everyday items – including ordinary flour – can serve as explosives. As well as the fact that fuel mixtures can also be used for explosive or incendiary attacks, something the liberty grabber left doesn’t seem to understand is that these are also ‘weapons of war’. Alternatively there are other ordinary objects that can serve as weapons of mass murder ranging from blunt force, or edge weapons to vehicular attacks. He explicitly stated that he used firearms to attract more attention and have it be the cause of more leftist restrictions on freedom.

Even though they never discerned motive for the Las Vegas mass murder, court documents alluded to the idea that the reprobate in that crime had gun control as his cause celebre. Now in the case of the New Zealand attack, the miscreant was explicit about this in his rantings.

I chose firearms for the affect (sic) it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states (sic) and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

[Our emphasis]
Note the words ‘the extra media coverage they would provide’ in reference to the use of firearms. It wasn’t just that he wanted the ‘media coverage’ from live streaming this horror with writing all over his weapons or posting a long screed where he claimed to be an ‘eco-fascist’ admiring Communist China. He wanted to have this abject horror show to be the cause of excessive media coverage resulting in the deprivation of everyone’s commonsense human and civil rights.

Most of these mass murderers don’t expect to survive these attacks, but they want to ‘live on’ in infamy by any means possible. Having the media cover their horrific crimes through their perennial hobbyhorse of gun confiscation means plenty of airtime trying to make the case for these freedom-ending measures.

Leftists don’t seem to understand that their much vaunted restrictions on liberty actually make it easier for these miscreants to carry out their horrific crimes. Most of these take place in ‘gun free’ zones because the victims cannot defend themselves, making everyone an easy target and upping the body count. Despite the denial of reality of the liberty grabbers, there have also been many cases of someone on the scene halting an attack, usually with a gun. Not to mention that these crimes are always stopped when armed authority arrives.

Should we encourage further attacks by giving the terrorists exactly what they want?

Studies have shown that the extensive coverage of these horrific crimes inspires further attacks. Thus, many have chosen to not publicize the crimes of these miscreants, granting them the infamy they crave. Shouldn’t we also apply the same rule to the policy agendas openly advocated by these reprobates?

Does it make any sense to punish the innocent for the horrific acts of a criminal? Punishments that encourage and even facilitate future attacks? Criminals and terrorists will always find ways to kill or get the weaponry to do so, as attacks in places of severe restrictions on Liberty prove this to be the case. In point of fact, these restrictions only serve to help these miscreants commit their crimes, does it make any sense to continue the practice?

The Takeaway

Mass murdering terrorists crave publicity for their horrific acts of cowardice. They also seek to change society by these acts. Knuckling under and playing along with what they want only serves to encourage further attacks. The innocent having the means to defend themselves is the practical and philosophical response to terror, no matter if it runs counter to the desires of the liberty grabber left.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

News

Devin Nunes sued Twitter: Here’s the real can of worms that could open for the social media giant

Published

on

Devin Nunes sued Twitter Heres the real can of worms that could open for the social media giant

Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) has filed a lawsuit against Twitter, citing multiple offenses including defamation, conspiracy, and negligence. The lawsuit, filed in Virginia, asks for $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages.

Currently, Twitter is considered to be a content platform rather than a producer, but Nunes claims the site has overstepped its bounds as merely a host because they’ve taken an active and aggressive interest in filtering and censoring content. They’ve also been aggressive in their banning and “shadowbanning” practices, the latter of which impacted Nunes’s account itself.

This has a very good potential of opening that particular can of worms, as I noted on Twitter:

My Take

There are three acceptable possibilities that can come from this or other actions.

  1. Twitter stops banning, censoring, and filtering content altogether other than content that is illegal or filtered by a user upon request. It’s important to throw that in, not because it needs to said to most people but because many anti-free-speech activists (better known as hate-speech protesters) would perceive the goal of ending censorship as a requested license for no-holds-barred free posting. It’s one thing to ban someone for doxxing or making actual threats. It’s a whole other thing to ban people for being critical of sharia law, for example, or to tell people they should learn how to code.
  2. Twitter keeps their current filters, bans, and censorship in place but they do so across the ideological, political, cultural, and religious spectrum. There are countless instances where double standards are applied based upon an unwillingness to offend the left while actually craving opportunities to offend the right. One need only look at Ayatollah Khamenei’s Twitter account for examples of someone who can threaten lives without worrying about a Twitter ban.
  3. Police the site how they want, but remove the protections against defamation and other lawsuits in an acknowledgement that they’re a content aggregator, not simply a platform.

I’ll admit up front that this site has a vested interest in cleaning up Twitter. Several of our writers have been banned on Twitter for being too aggressively conservative. I know with a certainty that none of their Tweets were as heinous as others’ who are allowed to stay on the site simply because they’re not conservative. But we have no real recourse against the social media giant. As a crowdfunded news outlet that relies on our readers for donations, we would never waste the money getting legal over a handful of Twitter accounts. They’re just not worth it.

But it’s more than just the money. They are a private corporation and I always push back against government interactions with private business. It’s their platform. They can do what they want with it. If they want to be hyper-leftist, that’s their prerogative, just as we will be staunchly conservative. But we’re held to a higher degree of accountability because we’re not a platform the way Twitter is currently classified. It’s this area, the way they’re classified, that we can see fruit coming forth from this lawsuit.

What Nunes is doing isn’t really about the money. It’s about putting Twitter’s anti-conservative and anti-Judeo-Christian practices in the spotlight and establishing a change in the system that holds them accountable. I support the Congressman in this effort.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report