Connect with us

Everything

An open letter to MAGA – Read it all

Published

on

Before I get started let me say this first….

MAGA Patriots

I truly believe that the vast majority of you who supported Trump from day one are patriots. You’ve seen the devastating effects of liberal policies of our nation, but you knew you couldn’t trust the GOP because they were no better. I didn’t vote for Trump, but have tried to be an honest broker about him. I don’t think those of you who voted for him are “dumb hicks” or “uneducated rednecks.” I get his appeal. I really do. I disagreed with you that electing him was a good idea, but that doesn’t mean I think you aren’t patriots who believe in conservative values of limited government, freedom, liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness. The fact is most of you are patriots. The few that aren’t are just lunatics, but every group has its lunatics. Of course in this case I’m speaking of the “alt-right.” True conservatives know that racism and anti-Semitism has no place in our nation or in our hearts. So, I ask that you read this whole letter, and let me say what I have to say, and please take it in the spirit in which it’s intended.

The Good

This may be tough to read for many of you who have supported Trump wholeheartedly from the beginning, but I think that many of you may now finally be receptive to it. I’ve tried to be an honest broker on Trump. I didn’t vote for him. I didn’t think he’d win. I’ve praised him when he did something I thought was good, and I’ve criticized him when he did what I thought was wrong. I’ve tried to call balls and strikes all throughout his presidency.

I haven’t cared about the Russia probe simply because I assume everyone in Washington is working for someone, and it’s never us. I don’t care about Stormy Daniels because it was years before he was President and it was consensual. He hasn’t been a moral man, but that’s not why I didn’t vote for him. I didn’t vote for him because he’s a lifelong liberal. You’ve heard this before, but many of you are paying attention now.

He’s done better than I ever imagined. However, that’s because I had such low expectations. I honestly thought we’d end up with a SCOTUS nominee to the left of Garland. He chose Gorsuch, but in retrospect that was probably just as a bone to his base. Donald Trump had no real guiding principles. He only cares about certain things, and those things aren’t conservative for the most part.

I honestly thought we wouldn’t get any tax cuts, but we did, because he cares about that. He wanted a corporate tax cut, which we desperately needed for our economy, but he wanted it for himself. He cares about tariffs, but so did Bernie Sanders. Tariffs aren’t good for the economy. They work counter to a free market. They sound good for an “America First” policy, but they’ve never worked.

The Bad

Now those of you who have supported Trump unequivocally are starting to see the light with this massive omnibus bill. It funds Planned Parenthood. It funds sanctuary cities. It funds Obamacare. It doesn’t fund the wall, which was the centerpiece of his election promises. None of this should really come as a real surprise. He said it all during the campaign.

“Planned Parenthood does many good things.”

“We’re going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it.” Well, if Mexico isn’t paying for it, I guess that means no wall?

“I am a deal maker.” Well, he’s made a deal alright. Not a very good one. All he’s gotten in exchange is an excess of military spending that we don’t need and can’t afford as I wrote about a couple months back.

I’m sure there are many of you screaming at the computer screen right now, maintaining that the President is “playing 14 dimensional chess.” Come on. You’re just deluding yourself at this point. I’m not saying Donald Trump is the worst President ever. But stop saying he’s the best President ever either. The fact is we really don’t know a President’s quality until they’ve been out of office for 30 years, so it’s silly to make those claims anyway.

The Ugly

I’m not here to say “I told you so,” but I did know this day would eventually come, even though I hoped I was wrong.

I’m sorry, folks, but you’ve been sold out.

Trump didn’t plan on winning, and now that he has he is ramming through the few things he cares about. Immigration isn’t on the list of things he cares about. He’s hired illegals for many years, so this shouldn’t come as a shock. He DID know that it was an issue we cared about though, and he knows marketing. He got the nomination talking about it in very simplistic terms, even though he simply co-opted the ideas of others such as Ted Cruz and Scott Walker.

Further, the President is far too quick to jump to the left on issues like gun control, because that’s where his heart is. All of his properties are “gun-free,” even those that aren’t required to be by state law. This should have been a warning sign to all 2nd-Amendment advocates.

He’s also a proponent of single-payer healthcare. “Everyone is going to be covered, and the government is going to pay for it,” he said during the campaign.

The Way Forward

I am not, not, NOT advocating a return to the days of RINOs. The likes of Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, and Tom Nichols will laugh and say “see, we told you so!!” Well, they’re in no position to do so. They were pushing Jeb and Kasich. We’d have been worse off today if we’d gone that route. We can drain the swamp and fight the liberal GOP establishment, but this time we need to consider doing it with a proven conservative, not a lifelong liberal who became a Republican 2 minutes before he declared he was running for President. There are a few out there. Not many, but a few. We have to vet them vigorously.

And then comes the hard part. We have to hold them accountable. We can’t join cults. It’s a natural thing to do, to become a fan. What’s funny is I saw people make fun of the “Trump Cult” while being in the Rubio Cult, or the Rand Paul Cult. Cults of personality are BAD. No one is perfect. Everyone, especially politicians, have their faults. We have to be mindful of that.

It might be time to consider a primary challenge to the President. And NO, I do NOT mean John Kasich or Jeff Flake. We’ll have to think that one over, but let’s take some time to digest and think things over. We’ve all had a tough couple of days. Let’s think things through. I imagine after this omnibus spending bill betrayal the GOP has doomed itself this midterm cycle, and Donald Trump has guaranteed he will be a one-term President. He won with fewer votes than Romney lost with, so he was going to need people like me to vote for him in 2020. He was on a good path to making that happen. He’s lost it now. I imagine he’s lost many of his staunchest supporters too.

You’re all great Americans. God Bless.

 

 

 

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Michael

    March 22, 2018 at 5:39 pm

    You think it’s time to consider a challenger to a president who has kept more campaign promises than all of his predecessors combined?

    A man who doesn’t expect to win doesn’t spend the time or money to do 1 and 2 appearances a day for months. He didn’t do it for his health, he didn’t do it because he loves the personal attacks (that have continued from campaign to the present), he didn’t do it to throw money away, he ran to win. Hillary thought it was her turn to buy the election but Trump ran on a platform that the people identify with.

    Unlike Hillary and the other GOP candidates – he ran on the America First platform, and that has a lot of appeal for those of us watching as the country was being sold to the highest bidder. As I said above, Trump has kept a lot of his campaign promises. If not for the obstructionists in the House and Senate, I believe he might have delivered all of them by now.

    I won’t vote for any primary challenger to Trump, and I don’t know anyone who would.

    I think the crazy person – is you.

Leave a Reply

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

Conservatism

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Published

on

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Many on the right are skeptical about opening up Roe v Wade insisting that overturning Roe v Wade will not serve Pro-Life causes because it will force the issue back on the states. In such scenarios, Alabama will be the safe haven for the unborn while New York becomes the importer for people who want to kill their babies. Even if this is the case, it is still a giant win for the pro-life side to enable entire states to ban abortion. But this is merely a literal overturn of Roe v Wade, not a practical one.

Take Brown v BOE as an example of a Supreme Court case that overturned a predecessor: Plessy v Ferguson. The Ferguson ruling maintain the theoretical notion that separate accommodations could be equal; therefore, private businesses must comply with the state’s discrimination policies. It’s a pretty bad ruling, comparable to Roe v Wade, which conjured out of nowhere a Constitutional right to an abortion. But Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by demonstrating that the black schools were inherently inferior to the white schools. So Plessy v Ferguson, was overturned by the parameters of its own ruling.

The Alabama bill defines an abortion as a murder by the practitioner. This is a different animal than what the Supreme Court has ruled on before. In this case we have multiple issues. The chief issue at play is when does personhood begin? The Supreme Court, in order to strike down the Alabama law would have to rule that an unborn child is not a person, again. Evidence has changed since the Casey ruling in biologically proving that an unborn is a human being, not a clump of cells. The pro-abortion arguments against moral personhood have gotten more extreme than viability. Arguing that a fetus is not a person is a losing argument as conception/implantation are the most logically defensible points of the transfer of moral personhood.

The next issue is who has the power to define personhood? Should the Supreme Court strike down the Alabama or the Georgia law, the Supreme Court, out of their own superfluous arrogance would, once again, assert their own jurisdiction in the realm of life. If the Supreme Court rules that a state can define where life begins, they will be denying the self-evident. But what if the Supreme Court rules that inalienable rights, in our founding documents, plainly recognize life begins at creation. In such ruling the Supreme Court would be taking a hint from the Divine, and could issue a sweeping ruling denouncing abortion everywhere.

A third issue at play: does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? The state’s ability to write criminal law is on the line in this court case to come. Alabama has placed steep penalties on the mob doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, in upholding infanticide, would essentially be placing limits on the state’s ability to write criminal law as it relates to homicide. The anti-Constitutional implications of this is yet another power reserved to the states impressed upon, subject to overseeing by the federal government. This ruling would enable people who kill an unborn child and the mother to only be charged with one homicide, not two. Essentially, the law in New York will be the law of the land in a worst case scenario.

What if it fails

I would advocate that Alabama and Georgia ignore the Supreme Court, instead choosing to enforce the law which they pass. The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings, by design. So let them try. If they do not recognize when life begins or recognize when life begins and still decree that Alabama must sanction murder, then the Supreme Court is not worth obeying.

Final Thoughts

When does personhood begin? Who has the power to define personhood? Does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? These three questions need answers, and a sweeping ruling is almost certain.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Naeem Fazal: Is Allah the same as Yahweh?

Published

on

Naeem Fazal Is Allah the same as Yahweh

One of the biggest reasons for the rise of the various movements attempting to unite the various religions of the world is the desire to end conflict. This isn’t just on the battlefield. Many want to prevent any one religion from spreading its doctrines as superior, opting instead for the push to say all religions are just variations on the same theme. This is, of course, very far from the truth.

The push to claim Allah, the god of Islam, is the same as Yahweh, the God of Jews and Christians, has been making its rounds across churches and public discourse for a while. It’s heretical and can be clearly debunked with a basic reading of scripture as well as readings of Quran. At the heart of the matter is the relationship with Jesus Christ.

Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet and the right-hand-man who will return to chastise all non-Muslims into believing in Islam or falling to the sword. There’s no connection between the two beliefs that can reconcile these fundamental differences.

Former Muslim Naeem Fazal visited with the folks at The One Minute Apologist to clear things up about Allah and Yahweh. His book, Ex-Muslim, is a great read for those who want to explore a wonderful transformation to the faith.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending