Connect with us

Conservatism

The Trump Effect

Published

on

The Trump Effect

I’ve been contemplating this divide we have witnessed since the emergence of Donald J. Trump. There is the obvious division between Progressive Leftists and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, Socialists and Constitutional Libertarians. There is a natural, symbiotic relationship. Part and parcel of a two-party system that, quite frankly, I don’t think our Forefathers envisioned.

The more disturbing division, for me, as a Christian, a Believer and follower of Jesus Christ, is that within the ranks of Conservative professing to be Believers. What is difficult for me to accept is that there is a group of Christians condemning “Evangelicals” who voted for Trump. “How could you!” they exclaim. To them I say, “How dare you condemn me for following through with what I was convicted to do?” I can understand a non-Believer doing such a thing. But a fellow Believer? Not hardly what I would expect. They almost act as if they had some special gift of understanding and that any other action was sheer demonic folly.

But, with the news from Robert Mueller’s 2 year investigation this weekend, I feel somewhat vindicated for my vote. I’ve explained the reasoning behind my vote before. Given that the vote is mine and I am afforded the authority by the U.S. Constitution to cast my vote as I wish, I don’t feel obligated to do so again. Nor should anyone. I won’t condemn anyone for not casting their vote. After all, look what we had to choose from. It was a difficult process for me to conclude an action for which I felt I could stand before God and give an accounting that would not draw shame. Even amidst all the attempted shaming by my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, I still stand by my decision.

As has been astutely observed by some, at least one thing we should learn from Donald J. Trump becoming President: that anyone can become POTUS. Uniquely, this was exactly what the Forefathers intended. At least that is this writer’s opinion. What has messed it up is the two-party system. One base keeps lurching leftward while, in order to expand its base, the Right must continue sliding a little more to the left to absorb those abandoned by the other.

I also blame the two-party system for the debacle that was the Mueller investigation. Both Parties have unique establishments that serve only to garner power. Each establishment is actually a wing of the same mechanism, a global mechanism. Donald J. Trump was the unexpected dark horse contender that forced the Republican Party to acknowledge his ascension. The Democrats could not accept such a move. The Republicans accepted him because they had to. The Democrats would not and could not lower themselves to believe an outsider could succeed.

This is where Believers should come together and understand something. The ones who voted for Trump did so because they believed it was necessary to prevent Clinton, a globalist, from taking office. The truth is, if every Evangelical had stayed home, Trump would have still been elected. But some of us decided to use the authority we were given to prevent what we believed to be the worst case scenario. At the time a vote is cast, we cannot know what God intends. Our actions have consequences in the moment. If anyone claiming to be a Christian understands anything God says about governments and nations, he/she would know that He raises up whom He will. The nations bend to His will without our permission, without our intervention. The person we have as President is exactly who God knew would be in that position. That person is there to serve God’s plan, in His timing and for His glory. Whether I voted for Trump or not is not what is important; rather, whether or not I executed the authority given to me by the Constitution. My advice to those Christians condemning others for voting for Trump is to stop. I understand if you don’t like Trump. I don’t like his actions. I don’t condone his life decisions. But I’m also not going to be the first to start casting stones.

When you get right down to it, casting stones is exactly what the opposition did. The Democrats started as soon as they realized then-candidate Trump was a real threat. They’ve pushed lies onto the American public from the beginning. CNN and MSNBC have been complicit. Washington Post, NY Times, Huffington Post …all complicit. Their hack journalists, guests, hosts and op-eds have all pushed a continuous, vitriolic flow of propaganda. Not simply suggesting that Trump and his campaign were likely colluding with Russian agents, but presenting a foregone conclusion that the Special Counsel was a mere formality. The result of Mueller’s investigation this last weekend not only exonerated Trump of collusion with Russians, but, however regrettably, determined he will not be charged with obstruction of justice.

Democratic overlords in D.C. (District of Corruption) moved the goalposts early, when it seemed evident that collusion might not be Mueller’s finding. Thus, obstruction of justice was the additional call and Mueller obliged. The real question is, “How can one obstruct justice when the investigation is relevant only to a hoax?” Yep. The FBI contracted Christopher Steel (via Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS) to produce a dossier on Trump. The dossier, by way of the late Sen. McCain made its way to the media. The media then began to propagate the information without verifying anything of its source. Then, the FBI began investigations based on hearsay from the media citing the dossier the FBI had supplied. The first warrants were issued based on this circular reference. This is where the lies began.

Not only is the MSM guilty of propagating the lies, amplifying the deception to persuade a multitude of Americans that their President had colluded with Russians to steal the election, but our very own law enforcement agencies, at the direction of some very high brass, initiated the entire scandal. So who directed all of this? Who was at the top calling the shots?

I call for another investigation. One in which the origin of the Steel Dossier is discovered; who initiated it; who paid for it; how it managed to get into the late McCain’s hands. How did the FBI manage to finagle the initial warrants without evidence other than hearsay from the media?

As for the divisions among us, we are Americans first. We either defend the U.S. Constitution as it is or we don’t. We either understand that all citizens are afforded equal opportunity (not outcome) or we insist that some ethnicities are inherently subservient to others. We either condemn ethnic supremacy or we condone it. We either defend our Nation as a sovereign entity or we don’t. We resolve to maintain secure borders, north and south, or we are overrun by illegal migrants bent on the destruction of America. If you opt for the latter, then you are not with us in defending the Constitution, ensuring equal opportunity for all, National sovereignty, and you are not for America. We are going to have our differences, but never will it be because of ethnic supremacy, sexism or any other –ism. America has always defied globalism. If that is what the dear reader wants, frankly, there are plenty of options out there and the reader is welcome to move.

Likely, I will vote for Trump in 2020 unless I can somehow convince Nikki Haley to run against her old boss. Our problem with the debt continues. Until we get someone in there with the guts to show what real fiscal conservatism is – slashing programs and gutting administrative and bureaucratic overhead – it isn’t going to be reduced. The camel’s head, neck and shoulders are already in the tent. The only solution is to move the tent. That, my friend, is a wholly different discussion. But it cannot happen with traditional thinking. In the meantime, I suggest that if the readers are tired of being saddled with the best a Party has to offer, the good People should find candidates they believe will meet expectations. Trump has shown us that a Party can be forced to accept a candidate. We only need to be better electorates, responsible electorates, and find those individuals best suited to the task.

Two questions continue to linger in this writer’s mind: if the MSM, Democrats and anti-Trump pundits have deliberately deceived us, tearing us apart, over a Russian collusion hoax and a faked obstruction accusation, is there any truth to Trump being an ethno-supremacist (racist)? A sexist? The other question is I wonder just how much I’m really supposed to believe the media regarding climate change. All the same people are pushing this catastrophic change and we’re told that humanity ends in 12 years. The reader does realize that the “scientists” reporting this data report what those funding them want to hear, right? I’m sure you can understand my skepticism.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Conservatism

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Published

on

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Many on the right are skeptical about opening up Roe v Wade insisting that overturning Roe v Wade will not serve Pro-Life causes because it will force the issue back on the states. In such scenarios, Alabama will be the safe haven for the unborn while New York becomes the importer for people who want to kill their babies. Even if this is the case, it is still a giant win for the pro-life side to enable entire states to ban abortion. But this is merely a literal overturn of Roe v Wade, not a practical one.

Take Brown v BOE as an example of a Supreme Court case that overturned a predecessor: Plessy v Ferguson. The Ferguson ruling maintain the theoretical notion that separate accommodations could be equal; therefore, private businesses must comply with the state’s discrimination policies. It’s a pretty bad ruling, comparable to Roe v Wade, which conjured out of nowhere a Constitutional right to an abortion. But Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by demonstrating that the black schools were inherently inferior to the white schools. So Plessy v Ferguson, was overturned by the parameters of its own ruling.

The Alabama bill defines an abortion as a murder by the practitioner. This is a different animal than what the Supreme Court has ruled on before. In this case we have multiple issues. The chief issue at play is when does personhood begin? The Supreme Court, in order to strike down the Alabama law would have to rule that an unborn child is not a person, again. Evidence has changed since the Casey ruling in biologically proving that an unborn is a human being, not a clump of cells. The pro-abortion arguments against moral personhood have gotten more extreme than viability. Arguing that a fetus is not a person is a losing argument as conception/implantation are the most logically defensible points of the transfer of moral personhood.

The next issue is who has the power to define personhood? Should the Supreme Court strike down the Alabama or the Georgia law, the Supreme Court, out of their own superfluous arrogance would, once again, assert their own jurisdiction in the realm of life. If the Supreme Court rules that a state can define where life begins, they will be denying the self-evident. But what if the Supreme Court rules that inalienable rights, in our founding documents, plainly recognize life begins at creation. In such ruling the Supreme Court would be taking a hint from the Divine, and could issue a sweeping ruling denouncing abortion everywhere.

A third issue at play: does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? The state’s ability to write criminal law is on the line in this court case to come. Alabama has placed steep penalties on the mob doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, in upholding infanticide, would essentially be placing limits on the state’s ability to write criminal law as it relates to homicide. The anti-Constitutional implications of this is yet another power reserved to the states impressed upon, subject to overseeing by the federal government. This ruling would enable people who kill an unborn child and the mother to only be charged with one homicide, not two. Essentially, the law in New York will be the law of the land in a worst case scenario.

What if it fails

I would advocate that Alabama and Georgia ignore the Supreme Court, instead choosing to enforce the law which they pass. The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings, by design. So let them try. If they do not recognize when life begins or recognize when life begins and still decree that Alabama must sanction murder, then the Supreme Court is not worth obeying.

Final Thoughts

When does personhood begin? Who has the power to define personhood? Does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? These three questions need answers, and a sweeping ruling is almost certain.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why Tomi Lahren’s abortion view harms American conservatism

Published

on

Why Tomi Lahrens abortion view harms American conservatism

Democrats are unambiguous and united in their view of abortion. It wasn’t always this way. As recently as a decade ago, there were a good number of pro-life Democrats winning elections and expressing their views as pundits.

Today, they don’t exist.

Republicans aren’t so repulsed by the pro-abortion people in their midst. It’s understandable that as a party that’s less focused on individual issues, one can be a Republican without checking off all the various boxes. This is fine. What’s not fine is for breaks in the ranks of conservatives. There are certain things that must remain universal among those who claim to embrace conservatism, especially among those who speak for conservatives.

Fox Nation’s Tomi Lahren is one of them. She claims to be a conservative, but she’s pro-choice. That fact, by itself, is understandable because the issue is a polarizing one in which people can be swayed to one side based on personal experience. It’s not like taxes which warrant universal scorn from conservatives. There are gun-toting, tax-hating, pro-choice conservatives.

But there’s a bigger problem with Lahren’s perspective. She’s not just attacking the Alabama abortion bill and pro-life perspectives in general. She’s doing so with an argument that flies in the face of reality.

Do we think government is the answer? No. In fact, one of the most appealing parts about the Alabama abortion bill is that it represents the first true opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. When it reaches the Supreme Court (and it almost certainly will) it gives us the first glimpse of how the current makeup of the court will react. In fact, the makeup of the court could actually be better if one of the left-leaning Justices retires soon.

Once Roe v. Wade is out of the way, we can finally express the truly conservative aspect of federalism that should have never been taken away – the states’ rights to determine their own healthcare laws.

If Tomi Lahren doesn’t like the abortion ban, that’s fine. Her choice. But to defend her choice by insinuating a challenge to Roe v. Wade is somehow an attack on limited-government tenets is false and harms conservatism.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

Conservative Media, we need to blacklist Trump-Russia story and move on

Published

on

Conservative Media we need to blacklist Trump-Russia story and move on

To The Daily Wire, One America News, Washington Times, Blaze Media, and all others to the right of Fox News,

There was no collusion and no obstruction. It took over two years for this narrative to search under every stone and exhaust millions of dollars to, in the end, find nothing. The leftist media will not make many concessions, especially as it relates to obstruction for a crime that was not committed. We cannot as conservatives prove beyond an unreasonable doubt that Trump did not collude or obstruct. As Democrats in Congress keep the narrative on life support, the Conservative media needs to pull the plug.

The average American is fatigued by the Trump-Russia collusion/obstruction narrative. Meanwhile our effort is playing defense against a leftist narrative rather than reporting on issues both our base and the politically uninvolved care far more about. When the economy is strong and the border crisis is pressing, why is so much of our attention directed towards the soap opera clown show that takes place? Instead of countering this narrative, conservative media should starve the narrative of as much attention as possible.

An area which Conservatives have long failed, but have made great improvements towards, is controlling the narrative, the language and Overton Window of society. If we continue to counter the leftist narrative of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, we will continue to feed their power in controlling the narrative in the American political and cultural arena. Instead, let us make an effort to not only counter the narrative but set the narrative.

In our friendly rivalry as Conservative outlets, let us come together and collectively move on from the Trump-Russia story, discarding it as if it were a flat-earth conspiracy and move on.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending