Connect with us

Opinions

It isn’t Never-Trump or Always-Trump destroying conservatism, it’s Sometimes-Trump

Published

on

One of the craziest—or should I say laziest—accusations leveled against me by Trump’s die-hard loyalists whenever I dare to call him out for breaking a campaign promise, getting caught in a lie, or promoting unconstitutional non-conservative ideas, is that I’m a liberal. Sometimes, they go so far as to accuse me of working for George Soros.

As I’ve said many times in response, I don’t work for Mr. Soros, but since money’s been a little tight at the Strident Conservative lately, if anyone has his number, I’d appreciate it if you’d send it my way.

It’s a sad reality that these pathetic taunts are what passes for political discourse in the Age of Trump. Gone are the days when differences could be civilly discussed based on facts instead of emotion.

Another sad reality of this behavior is that it’s a sign that the end of conservatism is near, as Trump’s small army of loyal followers attempt to rebrand conservatism by spreading the lie that he is a conservative and, using binary logic, accusing anyone who opposes him of being a liberal.

This rebranding effort has had an impact. Last week, RNC Chair Ronna McDaniel warned Republican hopefuls that anyone who opposed Trump’s agenda would be “making a mistake.”

McDaniel’s threat was issued following the GOP primary defeat in South Carolina by conservative Mark Sanford after he was personally targeted by Trump himself. Sanford’s crime? Disloyalty to the NY Liberal.

Another source of damage to conservatism has come from evangelicals and the so-called conservative media. In the name of self-preservation, they choose to surrender their principles by promoting the lie that Trump is a conservative. Some of these voices have taken to labelling conservatives who oppose Trump as Never-Trump conservatives, or worse, branding them as liberals and/or Democrats, as was recently written in a piece at TheFederalist.com:

“Trump may be an unattractive and deeply flawed messenger for contemporary conservatism. But loathe though they might be to admit it, what’s left of the Never-Trump movement needs to come to grips with the fact that the only words that currently describe them are liberals and Democrats.”

Then there are those who have adopted a Sometimes-Trump attitude about the president, where everything Trump does is measured using a good Trump/bad Trump barometer. While it has become fashionable for Sometimes-Trump conservatives to stand on their soap boxes condemning both Never-Trump conservatives and Always-Trump faux conservatives, I believe that this politically bipolar approach to Trump is the greatest threat of all to Constitutional conservatism in America.

Sometimes-Trump conservatives have accepted the lie that it’s okay to do a little evil in exchange for a greater good. Though they may fly a conservative banner, their lukewarm attitude about Trump is much like the attitude we see in the Laodicean church mentioned in the Book of Revelations (3:15-16).

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.”

Trump is a double-minded man unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). When lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives choose to overlook this reality, they end up watering-down conservatism to the point that it has no value or power to change America’s course.

As lukewarm Sometimes-Trump conservatives point to the Always-Trump and Never-Trump factions as the reason for today’s conservative divide, remember that it’s the unenthusiastic, noncommittal, indifferent, half-hearted, apathetic, uninterested, unconcerned, lackadaisical, passionless, laid back, couldn’t-care-less conservative imposters in the middle who are really responsible.

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

Advertisement

0

Democrats

Dianne Feinstein’s comment on Dayton shooter skipped one important point

Published

on

Dianne Feinsteins comment on Dayton shooter skipped one important point

Gun control is the talk of the town as the week comes to a close. Well, that and Greenland. And Jeffrey Epstein. But the mass shootings two weeks ago has DC buzzing, media furiously reporting, and activists on both sides of the debate furiously Tweeting at each other. Senator Dianne Feinstein weighed in on the discussion by pointing out some important facts about the alleged Dayton shooter, Connor Betts.

Her facts are correct. Her analysis is off because it missed one important point. We’ll get to that in a minute, but let’s declare once and for all (though I’m sure I’ll have to repeat myself later) that the 2nd Amendment IS NOT ABOUT HUNTING OR HOME PROTECTION. Our right to keep and bear firearms was put into the Constitution by our founders because they recognized what could happen if the people had no recourse against an oppressive government. Just as Venezuelans didn’t realize they danger they were putting themselves into when they allowed their guns to be taken away, so too do many Americans put way too much trust in government.

The authoritarian left wants guns because they know they’ll never achieve their endgame as long as the people can defend themselves from tyranny.

Feinstein is correct that the Dayton shooter was able to cause an extreme amount of death and injury in a short period of time. Police were quick to respond, otherwise it could have been much worse. But as our EIC pointed out in a Tweet, Feinstein’s narrative is worthless when you look at it from the opposite perspective.

Gun control is not the solution to our mass shooting problem. If anything, gun control has enabled shooters to enact their crimes without fear of many “good guys with a gun” to stop them. We must never give up our 2nd Amendment rights.

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

Media

With ‘collusion’ out and ‘racism’ in, legacy media scrambles to write the anti-Trump narrative

Published

on

With collusion out and racism in legacy media scrambles to write the anti-Trump narrative

There are things that are often so obvious to me, I actually ignore them as stories to consider reporting when in reality they’re big news. It’s part of the myopia journalists often get when their days are spent researching and analyzing a topic so much, we assume certain things are common knowledge when they’re not. Case-in-point: The fact that legacy media establishes narrative plans to achieve goals that promote their agenda.

It took my wife’s aghast response to learning the NY Times was setting up a gameplan to attack President Trump from now until the election. I asked her what she thought newsroom’s did. After all, she knows I used to sit in meetings about how to cover particular topics, and affecting the 2020 election is obviously something newsrooms will try to do. But to her (and probably a lot of our readers), it’s assumed journalists aren’t crafting stories based on a playbook but are simply taking each individual piece of news and spinning it as they see fit.

Nope. That’s not how it works. We’ve seen comical examples of media coordination to push very specific narratives that often match the talking points of Democrats. This isn’t new. It’s as old as journalism itself. Propaganda isn’t a rare occurrence. It’s an ongoing battle to appear to be unbiased while conveying bias subtly. But today, there’s no longer subtly involved. Both progressive and conservative news outlets unabashedly spin stories to suit their agendas.

The latest example came from a leak of a NY Times staff meeting transcript that detailed how the Russian collusion narrative was a dud and they needed to go after the new Trump narrative, that he’s a racist. I saw the story yesterday and myopically assumed, “Duh, it’s obvious. This is a nothingburger.” But as my wife pointed out, there are plenty of people who don’t realize this is how newsrooms in every major outlet operate.

Leaked Transcript Of NYT Staff Meeting Reveals Leadership’s Plan For Reporting On Trump For Next Two Years

As revealed in the leaked transcript, Baquet began the meeting by referencing the paper’s “significant missteps” and then explaining how these “missteps” stem from “something larger”: the paper’s approach to reporting on Trump. “This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s,” said Baquet. “It got trickier after [inaudible] … [it] went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character.”

Baquet then admits that the Times had “built our newsroom” around covering the ultimately debunked narrative that Trump “colluded” with Russia. “We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well,” said Baquet in comments highlighted by the Washington Examiner‘s Byron York. “Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.”

As early as it may seem in the election cycle, this is actually crunch-time for journalists with an agenda, which is essentially all of us. The narratives take time to stick, and so if progressive media is going to get enough Americans to believe their racism narrative, they need to be hammering it today and all the way through until the election.

Their plan has three steps:

  1. Paint Trump as a racist
  2. Paint the whole GOP as either racists or enabling racists
  3. Make voters believe that if they vote for Trump and/or Republicans, they’re racists as well

If that sounds familiar, it’s because you’re paying attention as the narrative unfolds before our eyes. They realize the President hasn’t said or done anything that’s racist. They can attach the race card to certain comments he makes, but even then it’s a stretch. But they need to hold this as their message because his policies tell a completely different story. Black and Hispanic-American unemployment numbers are at all-time lows while prosperity is spreading to minorities faster than ever in our history, including (especially) under President Obama.

The left will try to divide us and then claim President Trump is the great divider. They want to draw distinct lines between those who support him and those who may be willing to oppose him. Then, they’ll do everything in their power to pull people on the fence over to their side. What they can’t understand is why things are working, why the economy is humming, and why violence seems to be coming more from the left than the right. That’s not what they expected to happen. Many assumed his presidency would be so bad so quickly, he’d never be allowed to finish his first term. But as it becomes increasingly likely he’ll get a second term, they’re scrambling to derail him.

The progressive narratives in legacy media are 100% intended to subvert the 2020 election and remove President Trump from power. The best thing conservatives can do is continue to point out their complete journalistic hypocrisy.

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

Guns and Crime

Seb Gorka: Red flag gun laws are a ‘red herring’

Published

on

Seb Gorka Red flag gun laws are a red herring

It isn’t often that former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka disagrees with his old boss, but as the President pushes for red flag gun laws to be incentivized by the federal government to be adopted by all states, Gorka’s loyalties rang at their highest pitch. He isn’t going against the President’s leanings to oppose him. He’s doing it to try to save him from the bad advice that’s being thrown at him in the White House and by members of Congress.

Red flag gun laws are a bad idea on many levels, perhaps most strikingly in the fact that they do not work. Then, there’s the unconstitutional nature of them that, as Representative Jim Jordan said, inverts our system to make American citizens guilty until proven innocent. But the biggest reason every American gun owner should be concerned about red flag gun laws is because of where they’ll lead.

“Red flags are a red herring,” Gorka said on Fox Business today. “This is another way for us to be disarmed. Look at the states where it’s already happened – California, Massachusetts, where certain types of weapons are already banned. This is the last straw they have take away our civil rights. Remember, the founding fathers called this a ‘civil right.’ The Bill of Rights includes the capacity to protect ourselves.”

Some are calling red flag gun laws a “slippery slope,” but that’s not strong enough as a characterization. They’re a guaranteed stepping stone to gun control because they will not work as advertised. When they fail, the left will double down.

Image source: Seven Days VT

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

Facebook

Trending