Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Why conservatives overestimated Pete Buttigieg candidacy

Published

on

Why conservatives overestimated Pete Buttigieg candidacy

A month ago, he was the hottest Democrat candidate for President. Now he appears to be a flash in the pan. Conservatives largely overestimated what turns out to be a major blowfish. So let’s cast our net and dissect this fish of a candidate named Pete Buttigieg.

Pete’s meteoritic rise featured months of being on television steadily building likability among CNN’s most devoted watchers. He has been able to raise large sums of money. Yet in these strengths hides his very weakness. Twitter is not real life. CNN’s ratings are poor. Polls cannot be trusted when a race is competitive. Pete Buttigieg is running for President… of social media.

The truth is far more cynical than we realize. Americans are largely uninformed. They couldn’t name four Supreme Court Justices, their own Congressman, or ten US Presidents. They don’t know who an AOC is. Want evidence: Ralph Northam in Virginia is still governor. Why? Because despite how his Klan mask picture was all over the news, the general population of Virginia doesn’t know about it. In elections, it’s not policy that’s determinant of a primary, it’s name recognition. How many Americans actually know who Pete Buttigieg is?

Pete Buttigieg has wisely recognized this weakness. Like Michael Avenatti, he lunges in front of any camera he can find. He can be the President of CNN, but nobody watches CNN. Buttigieg’s strength of distribution is also a weakness because it’s not expanding his actual base. He’s covering up the fact that he has no real or proven ground game. In order to win actual primaries, he needs to do that. In order to do that, he needs a lot of ground game and name recognition. Pundits speculated that Pete Buttigieg marked the end of Beto O’Rourke, but Beto O’Rourke has a proven ground game, granted it’s cost inefficient. And so when Joe Biden announced, the candidate with the most name recognition, he now commands the meaningless polls. So he question now is, can Pete Buttigieg mobilize his base beyond what Joe Biden can? And my answer is I don’t think he has his own base, no more than Ben Carson did in 2015. You don’t go from being a mayor of nowhere to being nominated for President.

But during his flash in the pan, there was much reason to be concerned. But the concerns are more culturally pressing than politically pressing. If Buttigieg were to be nominated, the country would be bullied into voting for someone just because they are gay. There will be another fatwa of Rainbow Jihad waged exclusively on Christians and some Jews. But this phenomenon, while bad, isn’t new. It’s a shame Christians are largely on a losing streak, save for Jack Phillips. The biggest concern is strictly cultural. Buttigieg is an apostate Christian, one with a bigger platform for the heretical Social Justice Gospel than a random professor from the Union Seminary. Bottom line is Pete Buttigieg isn’t a Christian but claims he is, believing it’s completely compatible with his homosexual lifestyle. The Bible makes it clear in the book of 1 Corinthians that it’s not compatible to be a homosexual among other sins and a Christian. But often the Social Justice Gospel rejects the words of Paul or, in this specific context, conjures an argument about consensual monogamous homosexual relationships being biblically passable.

If there is one message the bible repeats throughout the Old and New Testaments, it’s repentance. The Old Testament prophets preached repentance. John the Baptist preached repentance. Jesus not only preached repentance, he calls us to higher standards than the Jewish law. Peter’s first instruction to the new believers on Pentecost was repentance. The Social Justice Gospel, in which there is no doubt Pete Buttigieg will play a substantial part in promoting, rejects repentance. It rejects sanctification. Its doctrine is that you can be Christ like without being sanctified because, after all, Jesus was a wonderful teacher. Its mission is rectifying victims according to their intersectionality ranking through government entitlement programs. Its Jesus is a Palestinian.

Progressive Christianity is no Christianity at all, just a mere Social Justice Gospel. If there is no need for repentance, there is no real need for Jesus. Pete Buttigieg is a messenger for the Social Justice Gospel and that is his most threatening feature, not his ability to win the Presidency.

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Chanting ‘send her back’ is playing into Ilhan Omar’s hands

Published

on

Chanting send her back is playing into Ilhan Omars hands

Many Democrats believe Republicans are generally racist. Even those who don’t like to insert racism as a stereotype would probably acknowledge they believe a higher percentage of Republicans are racist than Democrats. Independents likely think the same thing. Heck, even some Republicans may believe it.

The reality is racism has nothing to do with political party and everything to do with personal ideology. But that reality is muted by the thunderous chants of “send her back” as heard tonight at President Trump’s rally in Greenville, NC. This makes the party seem racist, and there are plenty of people who might otherwise associate with or vote for Republicans but won’t because of the racist perception.

There’s a big difference between “send her back” and the President’s Tweet that included the words, “Why don’t they go back and help fix..” The President improperly expressed his frustration towards “The Squad.” The chant at his rally is racist.

Ilhan Omar is a United States citizen. She may have challenges, as evidence seems to indicate, and may very well be in real trouble if more is revealed about her second marriage if it turns out she committed fraud. But until that is proven in a court of law, she is a United States citizen. We do not send back United States citizens without legal cause. As of now, there is none. This is why the chant is far more damaging to the President’s reelection hopes than anything he Tweeted himself.

Challenge Ilhan Omar over her terrible policy proposals. Chide her for her anti-American and anti-Semitic positions. Call her out for her lies. But do NOT turn this into a race issue. That’s exactly what she wants. Her victim card is big and she’s not afraid to use it.

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

Conspiracy Theory

Evidence that Ilhan Omar married her brother

Published

on

Evidence that Ilhan Omar married her brother

The story from Ilhan Omar’s camp is that any insinuation that she married her brother to help him become an American citizen should be relegated to fake news and right-wing bloggers. But as we detailed last month, even the newspaper that endorsed her is starting to ask questions.

Mainstream media will start picking up on the story more, though it’s unlikely any of them will reveal the information they find unless it’s conclusive. When dealing with conservatives, mainstream media tends to run with any accusation regardless of credibility as long as a scandal is involved. When the subject is a progressive, media outlets only reveal the truth when they’re absolutely sure there’s no way around it and the cat is already being let out of the bag. Otherwise, they sit on it.

But as the President calls attention to it, the media will have to at least check on it. Most will still dismiss it as a right-wing conspiracy theory, but those willing to do their jobs properly will find the evidence is at least worthy of further investigation. Even in bits and pieces, it’s very damaging. A new video by Alpha News MN details an opening round of evidence that should be worth a watch. There is more to come next week.

It seems it isn’t a matter of “if” but “when” Ilhan Omar’s history catches up to her in the public eye. In that scenario, how will the “Squad” member react? She’s thought about it. Others likely have as well. Will she ever tell the truth?

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

18th century firearm technology, 21st century lies

Published

on

By

18th century firearm technology 21st century lies

Repeating and semiautomatic firearms existed long before the recent phenomena of school shootings

One of the Liberty Grabber Left’s favorite lies is to claim that repeating or semiautomatic firearms are the cause of mass murder tragedies because they only recently came into existence. Hence the line ‘21st Century laws for 21st Century weapons’ line of Bovine excreta parroted by the Marx for our lives Astroturf effort.

This is a continuation of our ‘Conversation’ on guns in honor of Gun Pride Month and AR-15 Appreciation Week. In the usual circumstances, this ‘conversation’ consists of accusations of collective guilt of more than 120 million innocent gun owners with a lecture that we should be glad to give up more of our Liberty. All of this is predicated on outright lies such as that previously referenced.

The problem for gun confiscation brigades is that – as is typical – this often repeated lie fails to match up with reality. We’ve already proven that there were many ‘assault weapons’ technologies that existed long before the 21st Century and Long before the writing of the US Constitution.

Firearm technologies didn’t start in the 21st Century.

Perhaps Leftists fail to realize that weapons technology has always been on the cutting edge [pardon the pun]. They also fail to realize that small arms are usually mass-produced, very durable and extremely valuable antiques. This means that many examples of these weapons in reside in museum and other collections with patent numbers and other indicia that prove their lineage.

This means that there are many examples of these Pre-Constitutional Assault weapons as well as patents and other forms of documentation that eviscerated the ‘They only had single shot muskets at the time of the Constitution’ lie from the Liberty Grabber Left. The fact that many of these technologies existed long before the time of the founding fathers destroys that mythology.

The ‘Cambrian explosion’ in assault weapons technology of the 19th Century.

The development of self-contained cartridge ammunition changed the world with the assault weapons of the 1800s. Cartridge ammunition combined the essential elements of propellant, projectile and primer [ignition] into one unit, that could be easily loaded into the breech of a gun. From that point on, it was just a matter of working a lever or bolt to load and fire a cartridge. Thus it was this point in time mid 19th Century that someone could quickly load and fire a number of rounds.

This innovation also vastly improved the revolver, repeating firearm technology that had already been around for centuries, resulting in the famed ‘six-shooter’ seen in every western. Easily loaded and carried, a couple of these guns could have made for a deadly mass shooting during the early 1800’s.

The fact is these early ‘Assault Weapons’ were around 170 years ago and over a century before the school shooting phenomena. Proving the point that these mass murder tragedies were not caused by the presence of repeating firearms.

The 19th Century development of semi-automatic technologies.

Later on in the same century, it was discovered that the excess chemical energy from the combustion of the propellant in a cartridge could be used to unlock the bolt, eject a spent casing and load a fresh round. This semi-automatic process made it far easier to use a firearm, with the working skills built into the weapon. This is why these are in common use, and wildly popular with the more than 120 million gun owners in the country. It is also the reason these very reliable and easy to use firearms are the prime target of the Liberty Grabbers.

The Borchardt C-93 was the first commercially viable semi-automatic firearm produced in 1893. For those counting up the Leftist Lies, this still wasn’t the 21st Century. Please take note that these are the types of weapons used in school shootings and were on the scene 70 years before these became a phenomena. Not to belabor the point, but this also proves that guns aren’t a factor in recent occurrence of these tragic events.

Other weapons and mechanism were developed at this time to the point that the technology was relatively mature at the turn of the Century [This would be the 20th Century – still not the 21st Century]. To the point that any miscreant of recent times could have replicated one of their crimes over 100 years ago – but did not.

The steep rise in school shooting in the 1980’s and 1990’s

Dennis Prager recently discussed this issue in a “Fireside chat” and a column: Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask The Right Questions And You Might Find Out.

America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower. Grant Duwe, a Ph.D. in criminology and director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, gathered data going back 100 years in his 2007 book, “Mass Murder in the United States: A History.”

In the 20th century, every decade before the 1970s had fewer than 10 mass public shootings. In the 1950s, for example, there was one mass shooting. And then a steep rise began. In the 1960s, there were six mass shootings. In the 1970s, the number rose to 13. In the 1980s, the number increased 2 1/2 times, to 32. And it rose again in the 1990s, to 42. As for this century, The New York Times reported in 2014 that, according to the FBI, “Mass shootings have risen drastically in the past half-dozen years.”

[Emphasis added]

Link to the book: Mass Murder in the United States: A History by Grant Duwe

The Takeaway

Repeating and semiautomatic firearms have been around for Centuries, mass shootings are only a recent phenomena of the past 40 years. A phenomena that has been on the decrease as of late: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be.

Guns aren’t the problem, they have been around for over 500 years. If they were the problem, why didn’t these take place 300, 200, or 100 years ago? It wasn’t the sudden appearance of guns at the onset of these tragedies soon after the sixties, then what was it? In his column, Dennis Prager had some thoughts. We will explore that issue in a later column.

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