Connect with us

Opinions

Walking the lonely conservative road in the Age of Trump

Published

on

Walking the lonely conservative road in the Age of Trump

If you’re a regular reader or listener of the Strident Conservative, hopefully both, you know that my central mission is to be a leading voice in the call for a return to conservatism and the Constitution. Since I place these values above political parties, I am an equal opportunity critic, holding members of every political stripe accountable when they fail to uphold these values.

Obviously, this puts me at odds with Democrats and the far-left, but it also puts me at odds with Republicans and so-called conservatives — a position that isn’t very lucrative personally nor professionally. Unlike membership in an exclusive club, standing for my principles carries a host of disadvantages, but that hasn’t always been the case.

In the days of Obama, standing for conservative values was easy. After all, Obama was a Democrat with heavy socialist leanings. Opposing him was not only acceptable, but it gave rise to the TEA Party and other conservative groups, and it was responsible for giving the GOP control of Congress.

But, alas, Republicans revealed themselves as spineless cowards who used the movement for their own political gain. Once in office, the GOP majority join in advancing the agenda of Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.

Now, in the Age of Trump the tables have turned for conservatives. Trump has completely hijacked the GOP, creating a new party molded in his image. He has redefined what it means to be conservative in Washington and he has neutered the so-called conservative media.

Unlike the days of Obama, conservatives are now criticized for opposing non-conservative principles, especially when they come from the lifelong Democrat with an “R” after his name currently occupying the White House. Once considered the base that held the remnants of Reagan conservatism together, conservatives are now forced to bow at the altar of Trump or be destroyed.

From his attacks on the Constitution to his trade wars, even so-called conservative groups like the House Freedom Caucus embrace and enable Donald Trump.

For example, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Mark Meadows (R-NC) recently took steps to shut down the Mueller investigation by beginning impeachment proceedings against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Additionally, Jordan recently announced his candidacy to replace Paul Ryan as House Speaker — if the GOP retains control — on a platform based on being “just like Trump.”

Trump’s “new” brand of conservatism is nothing but a pile of reheated nationalism leftovers from the 1930’s mixed with a bit of big-government progressivism and sprinkled with a dash of 1984. Not a dish I care to try.

Instead, I will remain on the path of my principles. It will be a lonely journey, but I’d rather the right road alone than walk the wrong road with the crowd.

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 Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Immigration

Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall?

Published

on

Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall

What do martial law, illegal immigration, and using the military as a national police force have in common with Barack Obama and Donald Trump? Possibly more than you realize.

After years of failing to fix the illegal immigration problem and Obama’s abuse of executive orders, there were conspiracy theories being spread by people like Alex Jones at InfoWars.com that Obama was laying the groundwork to declare martial law and cancel the 2016 election.

Of course, that never happened, although I sometimes wish it had (just kidding, no letters please). But with the obvious assault on our Constitutionally protected, God-given rights increasing with every passing day, and with Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution, we need to ask ourselves if something like that could still happen.

Trump convinced America to vote for him in 2016 based on his promise to build a “big beautiful wall” on our southern border and have Mexico pay for it. Yet, after two years, no such wall exists, and Mexico has let Trump know in no uncertain terms they have no intention of financing one.

As a result, all of the problems associated with illegal immigration not only still exist, but they’ve gotten worse. On top of that, Trump is busy gearing up for another four years as president … or more.

Trump has often joked about being president beyond the Constitutionally allowed eight years, but recent comments about his border wall would seem to indicate that he’s not all that concerned about any limitations placed on him by the Constitution he once called “archaic.”

On Tuesday, Trump bragged about the success he was having with the wall even though it doesn’t exist while issuing this threat. “If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country, the Military will build … the Wall.”

In essence, Trump is saying that he will play the role of dictator by ignoring Congress and using the military to force his will, a threat he also made earlier this year.

Such an action would turn the military into a national police force, but it would also require some manipulation of the Constitution. Trump can’t simply shift Border Security funds from the Department of Homeland Security to the military without Congress, unless he declares a national emergency.

Such a declaration would suspend the limits placed on the president by the Constitution and allow him to use the military as he sees fit without Congressional approval such as he did when he sent thousands of troops to the border to deal with the migrant caravan in October.

In a survey released in the summer of 2017, a majority (52%) of respondents supported the idea of postponing the 2020 election if Trump needed to declare a national emergency to deal with the immigration problem.

It looks like Trump might just take them up on the offer.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


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 Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

Of course an 8-team college football playoff system makes sense

Published

on

Of course an 8-team college football playoff system makes sense

In just over two weeks, we’ll get to see who’s going to play for the national championship in college football. It all happens in two games with the current playoff system; the winner of #1 vs #4 will play the winner of #2 vs #3. It’s simple, elegant, and so far it’s been working better than any previous attempt at crowning a national champion.

It’s also inferior to what it could be. An 8-team playoff system would be ideal.

Detractors (and there are fewer and fewer all the time) have two primary complaints. The first one isn’t really an argument. Traditionalists believe the playoff system in general harms continuation of the rich history of the old bowl system. This is true, and frankly there’s no going back at this point.

The second concern is about where it stops. If 8 is better than 4, is 12 or 16 better than 8?

Let’s put that one to rest now. No. 8 is the ideal number for the playoff system. It is fair enough to allow all the teams that deserve a shot without being so big that undeserving teams might sneak in and make a mess of things.

Today, there are seven teams who have a legitimate claim that they deserve a shot at the national championship. The four teams that are in – Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma – are the teams that had the best seasons this year. Oklahoma avenged its one loss in the Big 12 Championship game and the other three teams are undefeated.

Added to the mix are the three teams on the outside looking in. #5 Georgia had the two best losses of any team and is arguably the second best team in the country despite those losses. #6 Ohio State won the Big 10 Championship and has only one loss. #8 UCF is undefeated for the second year in a row. While #7 Michigan didn’t really have a shot at the top 4 after losing badly to Ohio State, they would round off a solid 8-team playoff if that system were in place today.

It would be perfect.

Not every year would end up like this one with 8 clear top teams, but even in disputed years where #9 or #10 complained, they would do so knowing they could have gotten in by winning. This year, Ohio State was penalized despite being the Big 10 Champion and having only one loss. UCF demonstrated it doesn’t matter how well they play for how long. Two undefeated seasons wasn’t enough to earn them a spot.

An 8-team playoff system with automatic bids for the champions of the five major conferences and three at-large bids would extend the season for one week, allowing the first round to be played on or around Christmas. It would make the whole bowl season more interesting and offer hope to teams like UCF who would otherwise need a perfect storm of major conference losses to earn a spot.

This really should be a no-brainer. ESPN won’t mind. Their contract lasts until 2026. They would happily expand to include another round of four games. Those who are making the decision should make it fast. We can get this up and running by the 2020 season.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Will the left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe?

Published

on

By

Will the Left finally admit that gun confiscation has failed to keep people safe

Shouldn’t the gun confiscation crowd admit that depriving the people of the right of self-defense hasn’t kept people safe?

That didn’t take long. In many cases it’s easy to predict how long a news story will stay in the headlines. Yesterday, December 11, 2018 a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar” attacked a Christmas market in the French city of Strasbourg.

French police release image of Christmas market attack suspect

https://news.sky.com/story/one-dead-in-french-christmas-market-shooting-11578206The killer, who opened fire with a handgun and used a knife to stab people, is still on the run after he was shot in the arm during a gunfight with police.

He escaped in a taxi and there are concerns he may have fled to Germany where vehicles are now being checked at the border.

Chekatt has 27 convictions in France, Germany and Switzerland, said prosecutor Remy Heitz.

In less than 24 hours, the story has almost dropped from the headlines. Had this taken place stateside, the liberty grabbers on the left would have exploited the tragedy for maximum political gain within minutes. The problem is this didn’t take place in the states, but rather in a locale with strict controls on freedom. The perpetrator also used a handgun and used a knife instead of an evil black rifle. Finally, the killer made his motives clear by what he shouted.

Therefore, it was adverse to the left’s ‘gun reform’ agenda of gun confiscation. Nothing that could be construed at least at present as being an ‘assault weapon’ or whatever the term is this week. Lastly, the evidence points to this being Islamic terrorism. Even though the manhunt continues as this is being reported, the point remains. This was an obvious failure of the left’s gun confiscation agenda and it shows the threat of Islamic terrorism so the story has virtually disappeared.

Location, location, location

Compare the coverage of this story with a similar situation of a shooting in the states. Most likely the refrain would have been this only happens in the states because of the NRA or GOA wants to keep liberty and the right of self-defense. Most assuredly, they wouldn’t have phrased it that way, since they still have to keep up the fiction that they are ‘liberal’ in some form or another. It would have been couched in terms of ‘gun reform’ or ‘gun safety’ or whatever the terms happens to be this week.

Liberty grabber plans after their take-over of the House of Representatives

Since we’re on the subject, take note of the plans of the leftist liberty grabbers to denigrate the common-sense human right of self-preservation come January when they take-over the House of Representatives. As reported in the Hartford Courant:

Gun control advocates optimistic new Congress will act on their agenda

https://www.courant.com/politics/hc-pol-blumethal-murphy-newtown-guns-20181206-story.htmlBut now Democrats will seize the reins and plan to press for votes on measures that would tighten federal gun laws after the new Congress begins work in January. Once ignored, key proposals, including the expansion of FBI background checks of gun purchasers, are now likely to pass the U.S. House with its new Democratic majority.

On Thursday, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who hopes to be the next House speaker, said “we will pass common sense gun violence prevention legislation soon, and … it will be bipartisan.”

Why does a failure in government overreach have to mean even more government overreach? From now on, it should be incumbent on the politicians to carefully explain why they need even more control over our lives. They need to show their work in just how some new ‘solution’ is supposed to solve the problem. This would include citing examples of unbiased reportage on similar ‘solutions’ from other locations that have actually worked.

Rapid firing rifles, oh my!

Then in the same article, a chilling turn of phrase on the issue of ‘the rapid firing of rifles’:

Other bills that will be keyed up for votes include … bans on “bump stocks” that allow the rapid firing of rifles and “3D” guns made with special printers and limiting magazines to no more than 10 bullets.

[Our emphasis]

Did everyone catch that? They are no longer referring to terms that have specific definitions such as automatic or semiautomatic fire. They are now referring to the speed of the operation of a weapon, not its functionality in select fire modes. We already know that they want to push the issue down the infamous slippery slope of government overreach. This means that they are signalling a change in rate of fire as a way of controlling our basic human Right of self-defense, as predicted by those opposed to Trump’s ‘meaningless’ surrender on the ‘Bump-Stock’ issue.

In other words, now that Trump and the NRA gave up an important point for absolutely no credit from the Liberty grabber community, they will use that inch’ and take it a mile. Instead of discussions of Automatic or Semiautomatic fire, the talking point will be on the ‘Rapid firing’ of guns as being too deadly. It should be patently obvious were the Liberty grabbers on the left will take it from there.

The Takeaway.

For too long the Left has taken the ‘throwing…papers up against a wall technique’ hoping that something will stick i.e. something will finally work. Meanwhile, the extent of our Liberty shrinks each time.

There is always a cost to every new idea of the Left. For every piece of legislation, there is an accompanying cost in Liberty and dollars. For the case of Leftist steps to gun confiscation, we citizens have a right to know how these measures will supposedly keep people safe. For far too long the Left has taken credit for making everyone safer without actually proving it. We are rapidly reaching the tipping point to gun confiscation, so from now on they have to prove that their draconian controls will work as promised. If they cannot, they shouldn’t attain more control over our lives.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report