Connect with us


After China gives Trump project half-billion dollars, he cancels ZTE sanctions



When Donald Trump promised America that he would be the greatest jobs president God ever created, little did we know that he wasn’t only talking about American jobs. Apparently, Trump’s also the greatest jobs president God ever created for the Chinese as well.

After pledging last month to punish China for trade abuses and intellectual property theft, Trump barred US companies from doing business with ZTE. This is a company with a dubious past and is so shady that ZTE phones were banned by the Department of Defense over concerns that the phones could be used to spy on Americans.

However, over the weekend Trump apparently had a change of heart when he tweeted that he would work with the Chinese president to help get ZTE “back into business fast” because “too many jobs in China (had been) lost.”

Trump is beginning to receive some backlash from members of his own party over his clearly ill-advised decision due to the serious threat ZTE and China pose to national security.

When you consider that his claim to fame was his promise to protect American interests, improve national security, and save American jobs, why would Trump reverse course on an economic policy meant to punish unfair trade? And why, of all nations, would he do so with a Chinese telecom company when we know China has stolen intellectual property and is possibly spying on Americans?

Here’s your answer.

Despite claims that Trump did this to protect American farmers from tariffs leveled by China in retaliation to his trade policies, it appears that Trump was motivated by a pay-to-play deal that will line his pockets. In an amazing display of coincidental timing, Trump’s decision to save ZTE jobs came mere days after the Chinese government committed a half-billion dollars to an Indonesian construction project that will feature a Trump-branded golf course and hotels.

Trump’s refusal to divest his business interests, even though he promised to do so during his campaign, is a serious violation of ethics and could possibly be a violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution.

But as we all know, that won’t matter one bit to the Trump cult, will it?

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

Facebook Comments
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Gary Vaynerchuk never talks about politics, but he’s great when he does



Gary Vaynerchuk never talks about politics but hes great when he does

Language warning, in case you’ve never listened to Gary Vaynerchuk before. I have, and he’s great.

Those who know of Gary Vaynerchuk think of wine, social media, and digital strategy. The Belarusian American entrepreneur has been an outspoken advocate of all things “віно і маркетинг” for over a decade, but he rarely speaks about politics.

Recently, he did, and one prediction in particular caught my eye.

In an interview for Capitalism by Ryan Daniel Moran, Vaynerchuk said, “I believe we’re seeing the beginning stages of a four party system in America in the next 50 to 100 years.”

The way he sees it, both major parties are pushing to the extremes on the ideological scale, opening up spots for moderate progressives and moderate conservatives to have major parties of their own. This is the case in most countries; the United States is one of the few that has a true two-party system despite the fact that most of our founding fathers didn’t want it to turn out this way.

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.

But Vaynerchuk, who has built a career around being write much more often than he’s wrong, says the opening is already being seen today. He railed against both parties, blaming both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama for poorly handling the financial crisis of the late 00s.

Millions have learned over the years to listen to Gary Vaynerchuk when he’s offering opinions. Though his political opinions are few and far between, there’s a wisdom to them you don’t hear from the pundits. It’s authentic, a rare quality indeed.

Petition Capitol Hill for Term Limits

Sign the petition. We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Is Erick Erickson Pro-Choice?



Is Erick Erickson a pro-choicer and not even know it?

Erick Erickson’s recently penned a controversial op-ed titled, “A Confession: I’m Okay with the Exception for Rape” So the question arises is Erick Erickson still a pro-lifer since he believes abortion is justifiable in the case of rape?

What makes one a pro-lifer versus a pro-choicer? Is a pro-lifer someone that never allows abortion for any reason and a pro-choicer a person that allows it with no restrictions? What is the fundamental and critical element that makes one a pro-lifer versus a pro-choicer?

I appreciate Erick Erickson and the work he does for the conservative movement. He has eloquently taught and clarified what conservativism genuinely is so that millions of Americans can understand the foundational principles on why we believe what we believe.

Since he is such a great teacher of conservatism it bewilders me how his op-ed lacks any foundational reasoning for his position. His argument seems to be solely based on an emotional appeal instead of one based on reasoning and logic.

For instance, one question I had was why did he negate to address the issue of incest.

My question to Erick is, what is your position on incest? Is abortion okay in nonconsensual incest cases and not permissible in consensual incest cases?  If so, why?

Another question I had was, how did you come about with limiting abortion in the case of rape to 20-weeks into the pregnancy? Why 20-weeks and not 19? It seems completely arbitrary.

When speaking on the issue of abortion many questions will arise and it is important for us to discuss them with a clear heart and mind. I understand the emotional component of rape and incest cases, and we should discuss those but before we do we must have an understanding of what pro-life means.

Being pro-life is believing unequivocally that no abortion can occur once life begins, but is this what most people that call themselves pro-lifers really believe?

I believe most people are pro-choice and they don’t even know it. You see the fight isn’t over pro-life versus pro-choice, it’s a fight over the restrictions we are willing to accept.

Why do I say this? Looking at the historical data from Gallup it states that when rape or incest caused the pregnancy, abortion should be legal, stands at 77% to 21% of the time.

In the same report, 45% of people considered themselves pro-life.

You see the problem. How can 45% of respondents think they are pro-life, but only 21% believe it is wrong to abort a baby if caused by rape or incest.

It seems illogical and inconsistent. If you are pro-life, you believe that abortion is taking of an innocent life even under rape and incest.

Now in the rape case, would you argue like Erick Erickson has, that it wasn’t consensual sex, therefore, that it’s okay. In the case of rape, has the child in the womb somehow ceased to be a life?

What if the incestual relationship was consensual would that be murder?

Would it be logical to say that since most people don’t believe a woman should have to carry a baby to term in the case of rape or incest that most people are pro-choice with differing exceptions, and it isn’t about when life begins?

If it is about when is it right to take the life of the innocent for a genuinely pro-life person I believe that can only be when the mother’s life is beyond a shadow of a doubt at risk, and no other choice exists.  At the same time, instead of aborting the baby, we deliver the baby and use all our medical resources to save the life of the child.

As in war, we do everything we can to limit civilian casualties, but when we decide to take an innocent life, we do it to save others. The decision on how you weigh human life is a difficult question.

Do I bomb a hospital or school which is used to store rockets which are used to launch missiles into civilian territories or do we not? These are always difficult question and decisions.

Just like in the case of rape and incest. I’m not this cold-hearted person that can’t imagine the horrors the woman went through. These acts are pure evil. I believe wholeheartedly that the woman is a victim and is not to blame. So why do I think abortion is still wrong in these cases when life has been determined?

The reason is as a pro-lifer, I believe unequivocally that the baby is a human being. The baby is the result of a terrible, unjustifiable act which the child and the mother had no part in it. We have already one victim the mother, by aborting the baby do we put the blame of the rapist on the baby and kill the child and thus create another victim.

You see, that is why I’m pro-life and not pro-choice. I believe that a baby in the womb is a human being and worthy of the same respect, dignity, and protection under the law which all of us enjoy.

Now can there be differences between pro-lifers?

The answer is yes, and I believe two positions exist on when life begins and still be considered pro-life.

The first position is life begins at conception. So when asked when does life begin, in the beginning, is a logical conclusion. Life begins at the beginning, and thus no termination of a pregnancy is permitted.

The second position is when a heartbeat exists. How do we determine if someone is dead? We conclude that by the absence of a heartbeat. How do we determine if someone is alive? They have a heartbeat.

Therefore, it is an intellectually logical position to say that life begins when the heart starts to beat. This position would allow rape, incest, or any other type of termination of pregnancy before a heartbeat exists; any abortion after a heartbeat would be considered pro-choice because you are terminating a life.

Some do take the position of viability instead of heartbeat and thus life is relativistic based on medical technology of the day in my opinion. An article by JD Rucker, “If life begins at conception, there is no justification for pro-life relativism” examines this and is worth a read.

That being said, if Erick Erickson holds that life begins when a heartbeat exists and abortion like a morning after pill which is offered to rape victims immediately is acceptable, then I believe Erick Erickson is still a pro-lifer.

If he believes even the termination of a pregnancy is morally acceptable when a heartbeat exists, then he is not pro-life. He, just like most Americans, he is pro-choice. He’s just a pro-choicer with massive restrictions.

So is Erick Erickson a pro-choicer? The answer to that question is yet to be answered.

I hope that Erick clarifies his position and explains why, in a concise, logical argument his beliefs because his article has raised more questions on his position than answering anything.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading


Charlie Kirk: Capitalism saves lives



Charlie Kirk Capitalism saves lives

I’m normally not a fan of quick bursts of talking points, preferring longer, fact-filled discussions on topics as important as capitalism versus socialism. With that said, Turning Point‘s Charlie Kirk knocks it out of the park with talking points that totaled 33 seconds.

But even though the video was short, this article will take a bit longer to read. I’m not going to talk about the clear evidence that capitalism is far superior to socialism (or any other economic -ism). Instead, I’d like to focus on the challenge pro-capitalism activists face. Our message is right, and for the most part our nation accepts this. But things are changing. The indoctrination in schools combined with the propaganda in mainstream media and the false narratives from Democrats are all combining to deceive the masses in ways many thought impossible just a few years ago.

Would you have thought over 50% of college students would support socialism over capitalism at any point in American history if someone told you that a decade ago? If you would have, you’re much smarter than me. I couldn’t imagine the will of the people being so misled that many would abandon the system that has clearly worked in exchange for a system that has never worked. It makes no sense, and therein lies the problem with the progressive movement today.

As our EIC noted, logic doesn’t always prevail.

We must, as conservatives, continue to push out the right message. We might think it’s commons sense, but apparently common sense is becoming less common in America. We need to keep pushing.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading