Connect with us

Videos

Trump nominates Barr for AG, Nauert for UN ambassador

Published

on

Before leaving the White House for a planned speech in Kansas City, President Trump announced two nominations. William Barr will be nominated for Attorney General and Heather Nauert will be nominated for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.

Neither were huge surprises as they were both considered frontrunners for their respective positions since Jeff Sessions resigned as Attorney General and Nikki Haley resigned as U.N. Ambassador.

Advertisement

0

Democrats

Tucker Carlson: Moderates aren’t welcome in the Democratic Party anymore

Published

on

Tucker Carlson Moderates arent welcome in the Democratic Party anymore

It’s true. If you’re a moderate, your ideas are anathema to the Democratic Party. Oh, there are still moderate Democratic voters out there. Otherwise, Joe Biden wouldn’t be leading the polls, though even Biden has taken several pages out of the hyper-leftist policy playbook since announcing his candidacy in April. But the radical progressive wing of the party is taking over and many Democratic voters are following their lead.

This is why, as Tucker Carlson put it, this is a two-person race. Which radical will emerge at the end, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? Warren has had the upper hand since the debates, but Sanders hopes his more-radical Green New Deal proposal will resonate with the far left enough that they’ll give him back his mantle as the socialist of choice.

Noteworthy in Carlson’s commentary is the fact that the DNC declined having a climate change debate. Why? Because the last thing they want is for their candidates to be spouting off radical proposals to deal with climate change on national television. They don’t mind it when candidates are talking to the base, but considering many Americans have their only exposure to the candidates during the ultra-hyped televised debates, the DNC doesn’t want the candidates scaring moderates towards the Republicans.

Conservatives were so concerned about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and rightfully so. But this new batch of Democratic presidential candidates are completely detached from reality. It’s radical progressivism or hit the road for today’s Democrats.

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

Democrats

FBI tried to hide true source of Trump-Russia allegations

Published

on

FBI tried to hide true source of Trump-Russia allegations

The more we learn about the Russian investigation, the clearly it becomes that this was a political hack job perpetrated by people bent on subverting American voters, not exposing interference from the Russians. While it’s true Russians have been engaged in causing division within and distrust of our political system, the investigation into their activities was wrongly focused on the Trump campaign when they should have been looking on the other side of the fence.

This video by Declassified’s Gina Shakespeare explains a report by The Epoch Times’ Brian Cates:

In researching this Spygate scandal, I repeatedly encounter stories of people supposedly engaged in very sensitive intelligence and law enforcement work, who rely on people such as Christopher Steele and end up leaking the same “evidence” to the news media.

This isn’t how real intelligence work is done.

And that’s the first big clue that none of these Spygate investigations were authentic.

Federal officials knew quite well the true nature of the sources they were using to drive these politically motivated investigations.

Their sources were political operatives being handsomely paid to target their employer’s political opponents. Because of that, any “evidence” they handed to federal agencies should have been immediately suspect and huge red flags should have been raised.

But any attempts to raise red flags were quashed. This was a hit job. It was intended to take down then-candidate Trump if possible. In fact, one can argue that their confidence in Hillary Clinton’s ability to win was the only reason they didn’t use the investigation to tip the scales in her favor. They likely thought something to the effect of, “Why play a dangerous hand that’s unnecessary?”

Obama’s DoJ and the operatives in the FBI investigating the Trump campaign were well aware what they were doing was wrong, at least from a legal and investigative perspective. But they felt the stakes were high enough that it was worth pursuing. There were two intentions here. If it appeared Clinton was in trouble and risked losing, they could unleash information from the tainted investigation, putting themselves at risk but helping Clinton win. If it appeared she would coast to victory, they would hold information from the investigation and use it as a “plan B” in case Trump miraculously won.

Well, he miraculously won, so once their chagrin had worn off, they went to work to lay the foundation for the Mueller investigation in hopes it would quickly force the President to resign or give Congress the ammunition it needed to impeach him. It did neither.

This is a cover-up of a failed coup attempt. People in power at the FBI and DoJ engaged in an investigation they knew was fabricated, yet they continued in an unhinged effort to prevent Trump’s presidency if possible or end it if necessary.

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

Conservatism

Was the Inca Empire a successful example of socialism?

Published

on

Was the Inca Empire a successful example of socialism

As socialists pivot from one failed example of socialism to the next failed example of socialism to the welfare state that decries claims of socialism, perhaps we should prepare ourselves for when the socialist reach the bottom of the barrel with examples of the collective ideology’s past successes. And before you say, “well that’s silly, there’s no way a pre-French enlightenment civilization could have practiced a successful form a socialism, sufficient enough to use as an example by the left” consider the fact that a French academic by the name of Louis Boudan penned an extensive treatise entitled “A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru” in 1962.

Now, this work does not appear to be an endorsement of communism, though the author seems to have a vested interest in the using the “no true Scotsman” fallacy given that this was written post World War 2 and in the Cold War with regards to true socialism. However, the very title, provocatively named, is certainly a sign that the political Left in contemporary times could refer to the Inca as a successful example of socialism, that only fell by the technologically advantaged Spaniards. But Louis Boudan is not the only one who has made this comparison, leaving us wondering why the Left has not seized on the Inca who seem to have had a more successful run than any contemporary Marxist regime. The likeliest reason that that Inca are not used as an example of successful socialism is likely that the proponents of socialism, to be blunt, are not historically informed. Still, this is a foreseeable argument in the imminent future and we best know what we are talking about when it inevitably comes because when the Left popularizes an example of alleged socialism practiced by non-whites they will pounce, but until then we await a Vox video.

The Inca Empire could prove to be the only example of socialism that did not self collapse, other than the Catalonia socialism which lasted only three years. But of course, all of this is conditional on the premise of whether or not the Inca Empire was truly socialist country. Perhaps it would be best to grant the Left that premise. Even if the Inca were a socialist empire, the ensuing result was a constant need for war, which is a commonality with the Stalinist ideology. Kings and Generals does a good job breaking down the Inca society for the laymen to understand. Key points discussed in the video are:

  • The Inca were highly adapted to their living environment with regards to agriculture, construction, and irrigation
  • The Inca had what appears to be a welfare state
  • The Inca worshiped their dead
  • The “corporations” of dead bodies accumulated disproportionate amount of wealth
  • The wealth belonging to the dead bodies necessitated the Emperors accumulating wealth of their own through war. This cycle repeats.

As you can see, there were multiple flaws in the Inca society that had a trajectory of collapse because of the pyramid scheme the system creates for its ruling class. The inevitable demise was expedited by the Spaniards. But going back to the foundational premise as to whether the Inca were socialist or not, the contrasts are enough to fail a purity test; had there been an organic collapse, the modern socialist would deny this as true socialism. It’s a never ending fallacy, though the dead corporate estates of the Inca goes against everything socialist preach. However, as human history has shown, socialism has always led to the personal enrichment of those in the innermost circles of power. Socialist or not? You decide, but be prepared to argue that the Inca were not a successful example of socialism.

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