Connect with us

Opinions

Why Steve King’s excuse for ‘white nationalist, white supremacist’ quote is ridiculous

Published

on

Why Steve Kings excuse for white nationalism white supremacy quote is ridiculous

There aren’t many in Congress who are as out of touch with the reality of America as Representative Steve King (R-IA). We knew that before a New York Times article quoted him saying something stupid. He went before Congress with what he felt was a valid excuse, and it might have been for anyone who hadn’t had challenges with racism in the past. But this is Steve King. He’s had those issues in the past, which is why this latest case should be the last straw.

His quote from the NY Times article:

“White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

His excuse was feeble. Here’s a video of it.

First, he claims he made a “freshman mistake.” Nope. Freshmen on Capitol Hill would never make such a mistake.

But the real lunacy of his excuse comes in the second part when he tries to frame his comments within a larger discussion that he’s been having throughout his career about historical references crafting our immigration policy and the labels flung around today.

Or something like that. It’s actually hard to tell how his quote had anything to do with what he claims to be a valid excuse.

He referenced a particular Tweet, one that happens to be a known talking point by white supremacists, but hey, this is his excuse.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy claims he’s going to do something about it, but anything short of asking him to resign will not be enough.

McCarthy: ‘Action will be taken’ over King’s racist comments

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/13/steve-king-racist-comments-republicans-house-1098731“I have a scheduled meeting with him on Monday, and I will tell you this: I’ve watched on the other side that they do not take action when their members say something like this,” McCarthy told host Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face The Nation.”

“Action will be taken. I’m having a serious conversation with Congressman Steve King on his future and role in this Republican Party,” McCarthy said. “There is a number of things you’ll see that is taking place.”

Steve King is one of many reasons I no longer identify as a Republican. I’m a conservative and a limited-government federalist. I could be a Republican again someday if people like Steve King would stop polluting the party, but it won’t happen.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Conservatism

What Steven Crowder’s latest pro-life Change My Mind reveals

Published

on

What Steven Crowders latest pro-life Change My Mind reveals

Steven Crowder in his most recent edition of “Change My Mind” experienced more aggressive pro-abortion arguments than he had in the previous installments. The episode featured people arguing that moral personhood began at birth or even “experience.” Often times, Change My Mind demonstrates that under scrutiny, arguments have flaws. Such is the method that got Socrates killed. With all of these discussions, the failure to prove the lack of humanity for a fetus proved unconvincing and logically undefended by its proponents. But I want to address the intrinsic instinct, the universal morality, that could not stay buried under layers of denial. These pro-abortion advocates, deep down, know they are wrong.

In all four conversations, late term abortion was supported. However the caveat of threat to the mother was brought up, despite the rarity of such occurrence. Steven Crowder called them out, citing the fact that they said they would support third trimester abortion even if it were not a threat to the mother by their own previous admission. The proponents then hesitantly agreed. So Crowder then asked “why bring it up?” That is the question. Why would abortion advocates rely on such extreme examples?

I believe that deep down, those who have not finished their leftist training have not intrinsically forsaken the convicting power of conscious, because of what I observed in this video. The latter two proponents came off as not even believing what they were saying. The first was a hardcore stoner. The second was a perhaps shy of being a feminist. The stoner gentleman said “breath” was the transfer of moral personhood and if a baby came out and had yet to breath, it would not yet be human, therefore justified in killing it. The last one suggested the ultra vague notion of “experience” rendered moral personhood. Yet she agreed that the experiences of the unborn were valid human experiences and then whimsically concluded that it was still okay to kill them.

She, in particular, sounded really unconvinced in her own stance. I thought she was going to make a utilitarian argument that would have led to an interesting discussion about quantifying human suffering. This would have been a better argument than “experience” which is even less defensible than sentience. The gentleman in the beginning argued that a fetus was a parasite but then insisted it was not autonomous. Biologically speaking a parasite is autonomous from its host.

These two claims are mutually exclusive. Three of these students presented arguments that I was unconvinced they themselves even believed. I am shocked that this was my takeaway, for on every other Change My Mind, even the other three installments on abortion, I believed that the guests genuinely believed their own arguments.

If a fetus is not human, there would be no need to rely on extreme examples to defend abortion. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that abortion is an affront to natural law, as science increasingly supports the notion of human life at creation. The Founding Fathers so cleverly wrote that our rights were self evident. The affront to these self evident rights will naturally be difficult to defend logically. This is why the abortion advocates had such poor arguments with premises that could not withstand charitable scrutiny. In this case, the pro-abortion advocates all believed a conclusion of abortion permissibility, without internally accepting the premises necessary to support the conclusion and the implications they would ensue from said premises.

There is a difference between a person being reputably evil and plainly gullible. That difference would be seen as someone who simply accept that a fetus is not human and simply doesn’t care. These college students weren’t there yet. Nor is the rest of the country as a whole. So there is reason for hope.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Intellectual discourse versus Biblical snippets to spread the Gospel

Published

on

Intellectual discourse versus Biblical snippets to spread the Gospel

In a world with a shortening attention span, is it better to drop “Bible bombs” on people in the short time they give us? With a topic as complex as a Biblical worldview, is it better to deliver long-form dissertations and engage in extended debate?

The answer to both questions is, “Yes.”

Those of us who are trying to spread the Gospel and bring more people to the light are tasked with a difficult challenge to overcome. Much of the world is shifting towards a secular worldview and abandoning the truth of the Bible. Even though people abroad are coming into the faith in astounding numbers, people in western culture are often pulling away.

We are faced with the two big challenges: time and effort. Sometimes, people simply won’t allow enough time to learn about the Bible, our Creator, our Savior, or any of the other portions of faith that are required to penetrate the evil haze that is sweeping across western culture. On the other hand, there is a need to be prepared for those instances when someone is open to discussion, when they have questions and are willing to look deeper to find the answers.

The former often requires us to be ready with a Biblical “elevator pitch” in order to establish the latter. This is one of the reasons why we’re so focused on social media. It’s a venue that we believe can bring people into the state of mind of asking questions. While it’s likely not possible for a Tweet to make people change their worldview, we see it as a prompt to act on the nagging feelings that have been hitting them but that they’ve never pursued in the past.

Once you have people asking questions, it’s important to have the right answers readily available. If they come to you for guidance and you’re not ready to deliver it, you can actually do more harm than good. It’s a fear that has enveloped us at times. It has driven us to a state of constant study; not a day goes by when we’re not doing something to expand our understanding and sharpen our abilities to deliver the right message at the right time.

Prayer is the most important thing you can do. It’s even more important than studying. If you can tap into the message through prayer and Bible study, the Lord will provide you with the words you need when the time to deliver them comes.

One does not have to go to seminary to be able to answer questions when they are asked. Between the internet and, of course, the Bible, the answers will present themselves if you’re are simply willing to look.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Justin Amash for President in 2020 sounds good to me

Published

on

Justin Amash for President in 2020 sounds good to me

My mission at the Strident Conservative is to promote conservative values over political parties and to hold members of every political stripe accountable when they fail to uphold those values. I’m particularly motivated to expose people who fail to defend conservatism while claiming to be conservative.

Lately, I’ve been receiving some heat for exposing faux conservatives like Sen. Mike Lee for partnering with Ivanka Trump to advance her feminist socialist agenda; the House Freedom Caucus for selling out to the GOP establishment; the Senate Conservatives Fund for abandoning conservatism for Trumpism; and BlazeTV for becoming a pro-Trump echo chamber and a home for faux conservatives in the media.

In an environment such as this, it’s often tempting to walk away from this mess, move off-grid to Alaska, and wait for the zombie apocalypse. Fortunately, with the support of my wonderful wife and like-minded friends like the awesome Shannon Joy, I’ve adopted the words of the Apostle Paul from his letter to the Philippians (3:12-14, The Message):

I’m not saying that I have this all together, that I have it made. But I am well on my way, reaching out for Christ, who has so wondrously reached out for me.

Friends, don’t get me wrong: By no means do I count myself an expert in all of this, but I’ve got my eye on the goal, where God is beckoning us onward — to Jesus.

I’m off and running, and I’m not turning back.

In the face of such adversity, I’m often asked about how we should proceed in our fight for liberty and a return to conservative values and the Constitution — a tough question to answer.

Those who regularly read or listen to the Strident Conservative know of my resolve to see a new party rise from the ash heap of unibrow Washington. And even thought the odds may be against us, a recent POLITICO/Morning Consult Poll showed a majority of independents and half of respondents overall support the need for a third party.

And that brings me to the recent rumors that Libertarian Republican Rep. Justin Amash may run for president in 2020 on the Libertarian ticket. Personally, I would be all over this.

I’m a big fan of Amash and his solid defense of the Constitution — I’ve referenced him many times in articles on Constitutional matters — and he hasn’t been shy about holding Trump, the GOP, and faux conservatives accountable for violating the trust of the American people and failing to protect and defend the Constitution.

There are early indications that Amash would have the support of conservatives worn down by the repeated betrayals of the GOP establishment. Groups like Amash 4 President have been birthed on Facebook, and a petition has been started calling on Amash to run in 2020 as a third-party candidate.

To those who accept the binary lie that a third-party has no chance and that only a candidate belonging to the establishment duopoly can win, I have only one reply … Abraham Lincoln.

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

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report