Connect with us

Democrats

General election conundrum: Should conservatives cheer for a ‘safe’ Democrat or a radical?

Published

on

General election conundrum Should the conservatives cheer for a safe Democrat or a radical

If you plan to vote for Donald Trump in 2020, the standard response when asked which Democrat you’d prefer to face him is, “It doesn’t matter.” Republicans want to exude confidence, so we shouldn’t really care who the Democrats throw up against us, right? But reality must go beyond talking points. We have to be practical and face the possibility that despite the booming economy and demonstrable obstruction committed by Democrats, particularly with border security, it’s possible that a manipulated electorate driven by leftist mainstream and social media can hack the coming elections and put a Democrat in the Oval Office.

Conservatives are faced with a dilemma. A conundrum, if you will. Do we root for the Democrats who would do the least damage if they defeated the President, or do we root for the radicals who, logically, would have a harder time in the general election with their extreme progressive proposals?

This is more than just Biden versus Bernie. Elizabeth Warren has a real chance of not only beating Bernie Sanders for the far-left vote, but also beating Sanders as the looniest leftist. She’s busy throwing proposals against the wall that, if implemented, would fundamentally change America. That’s not a prediction of apocalypse if all of her proposals came to pass. That’s a prediction of catastrophe if ANY of her proposals saw the light of legislative day.

As for Joe Biden’s hold on the “middle” lane, I’ve long said he’s going to veer left like the rest of his competitors. But even veering left for Biden still falls short of the communist utopia some of the candidates have planned. But he’s vulnerable. He doesn’t have an intersectional bone in his 76-year-old straight white male body. His time truly may be up, which opens the door for one of the less-radical competitors to fill his lane. Pete Buttigieg has always been the candidate I believe on paper has the best chance of taking on President Trump. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard before becoming a Rhodes Scholar. He served in military intelligence, speaks more languages than Melania Trump, and handles himself well in front of a podium. The fact that he’s “just a mayor” is a false negative pushed by pundits that won’t be seen as a negative in the eyes of voters. Remember, Donald Trump was “just a businessman.”

But Buttigieg isn’t really a moderate. He tempers his radical ideas by sounding more pragmatic than the competition, but he has an agenda that is much more radical than it’s being billed as by his supporters. His campaign is playing the middle against itself while flashing occasional progressive credentials when the audience is ripe for it. If it weren’t for a police shooting incident in his home town of South Bend, he would probably be soaring in the polls even faster than he is.

Then, there’s the enigma of Kamala Harris. She reversed herself three times on abolishing private health insurance. Oh, wait. A new report just came across the wire… yep, today she reversed her reversal from last night.

Harris has sounded nearly conservative at times in regards to law and order. As a District Attorney, that was her job. But now she’s been running from her record – the only redeeming quality about her to many in the middle and on the right – and is staking her claim somewhere between radical progressive and mushy moderate. She’s able to have such a wide ideological facade because her focus hasn’t been on policies. Instead, she’s been busy pointing out her status as a woman and a racial minority, highlighting not her credentials but the fact that she’s the most intersectionally-gifted candidate among the frontrunners. In other words, she’s playing the victim card.

It’s still possible some of the other candidates can emerge, especially once the field is whittled down. John Kasich was nowhere in the polls before he was suddenly coming in second in the first New Hampshire primary. Technically, he came in second in the nomination race, not by primary victories but by virtue of being the last person to suspend his campaign.

Can Beto O’Rourke fight his way back to the spotlight? Can Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, or Tulsi Gabbard emerge from obscurity? It’s possible, but if I were forced to make bets I’d say we have our five semi-finalists already.

Every name mentioned in this article poses a different existential threat to the United States. All of them. There is no safe moderate. Even if Biden can keep his campaign from plummeting, he’s quickly becoming a more extreme version of President Obama. He has to in order to keep the leftist base from destroying him, at least that’s what he thinks. And since he’s the candidate I believe has the best chance of securing Independent voters, I won’t give him any advice. But he won’t read this, so I’ll go ahead and tell you, dear reader. If Biden wants to win the nomination, he has to abandon the notion of trying to appease the radicals. He’d have to say something bold such as, “If you support radical policies that are as far to the left as President Trump is to the right, then I’m not your guy. If you want a socialist nation, there are two dozen other candidates to vote for in the primaries. But if you want common sense policies and progress for America, you’ll vote for me.”

Would he make the most vocal Democrats upset? Definitely. But if he wants to learn from President Trump, he’d notice that candidate-Trump pitted himself against the field and it worked miraculously. Biden should do the same if he wants to win. But he won’t. And that’s a good thing.

All of this brings us back to the original question. Should conservatives hedge their bets by rooting for someone less radical? No. We should be cheering for the candidates who offer the sharpest departure from President Trump’s policies. The fact is, his policies are working. He’s not doing everything perfect (I’ve had my share of complaints throughout his presidency) but generally things are much better today than they were under Obama. That means we need to run against someone in the general election who is the ideological opposite to conservatives. Then, we put our ideas up against their ideas. If the result is four more years of President Trump, then there’s hope in America. If the Democrats win with a radical today, any thought that a false-moderate like Buttigieg or Harris would have been safer is just denying the leftist trends in America. They would have delayed the inevitable, not stopped it.

We have to fight like there is no tomorrow if we lose because that’s very likely the case. This is why we’re building the American Conservative Movement. Sign up for updates below.

There is no “safe” Democrat in the race. Conservatives must abandon the notion of hoping a “moderate” wins the nomination, just in case President Trump loses. There are no moderates left. It’s do or die, Trump or bust, for the sake of the nation.

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

0

Democrats

Hunter Biden’s interview a strategic move ahead of the Democratic debate

Published

on

Hunter Bidens interview a strategic move ahead of the Democratic debate

Hunter Biden went on ABC News this morning to answer questions about his tenure on the boards of Ukrainian and Chinese energy companies. The jobs have been a source of campaign fodder for President Trump while also prompting the current impeachment inquiry by Congress after the President asked Ukraine to continue their previous investigation into Biden’s company. But the timing is conspicuous.

It was a strategic move, regardless of what former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign says. They claim the timing wasn’t up to them and ABC had a tight schedule. That’s a lie. If Hunter Biden walked into the studio in the middle of a news broadcast to do the interview there and then, they would have let him. No, this was a very clear and blatant attempt to hijack part of tonight’s Democratic Debate and establish up front one important campaign narrative.

They want Joe Biden to be the victim. They want this established at the beginning of the debate so they can set that tone ahead of anticipated attacks by fellow candidates. And most importantly, they want it to be clear that President Trump is going after Biden exclusively because he’s the one the Trump campaign fears the most.

In reality, he’s a weak candidate. It won’t be apparent until after the nomination process is over if he does win it, but currently the general consensus about Biden within the Democratic Establishment is that he’s still the best bet to take on President Trump. He’s the one who can lure Independents and moderate Republicans, by the DNC’s reckoning. He’s the safe bet.

Whether that’s true or not is for a future discussion. Hunter Biden is the topic of the day, bringing the spotlight onto him and his father ahead of the debate and insuring there will be questions posed to Joe Biden early. It’s a perfect setup for Biden who is great at playing the victim card. He’ll passionately defend his son, probably lobbing out an attack or two against President Trump’s children like, “I’d trust Hunter in a situation like he’s been in before I’d ever trust one of President Trump’s children.”

It will also allow him to point out how scared the Trump campaign allegedly is about a Biden nomination. He’ll say something like, “The President is hoping someone else gets the nomination because the one thing he can’t compete with is common sense.”

The radical progressive wing of the Democratic Party will be on the attack all day on social media. But his competitors on the debate stage will be very careful not to use any of the President’s talking points about Biden, including his attacks on Hunter. Such things are anathema for candidates.

The Democratic debate is going to be interesting. Tom Steyer will be introduced to many who have no idea who he is. Tulsi Gabbard will attack someone. But the Hunter Biden interview adds a new dimension. Will Joe Biden be able to make a move as a result?

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

They don’t want your guns, they want your doctrine

Published

on

They dont want your guns they want your doctrine

Beto O’Rourke may in fact be the most honest of the Presidential candidates. He may have gone full Swalwell in an attempt to revive a disastrous campaign; however in recognizing his present shortcomings, Beto O’Rourke has gone the AOC route of revealing the poorly hidden secrets of the Democrat Party. For years, the right was (falsely) accused of using a straw man fallacy with gun confiscation, but Beto O’Rourke has now been unabashed in championing the policy. O’Rourke merely confirmed what we already knew: the socialists want to confiscate our guns. They want the monopoly on force, so they can upend our way of life.

But this upheaval, revolution, is not about redistributing the wealth, fixing the climate, or reducing violence. Beto O’Rourke’s latest Freudian slip is all the more telling. At the gay town hall hosted by CNN, Beto O’Rourke said that the government should strip away tax exemption from churches that refused to partake in the gay agenda, which includes but is not limited to the performing of marriages, removal of ministry standards that prohibit (blatant) non-Christians, and permitting men to pee with little girls. Put more concisely, Beto O’Rourke wants to use the government to coerce the doctrine of the church.

Blatant unconstitutionality aside, if the socialists have their way, we will be at the mercy of the courts, legally speaking, who have an entrenched precedent of conjuring their own law. There have long been talks by atheist about taxing churches, a less unconstitutional means of persecuting the church. The atheist Freedom From Religion Foundation erroneously claims that we pay more in taxes because churches pay nothing, ignoring the history of the income tax in America. The Supreme Court touched on this issue in 1970, ironically close to Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court maintained in Walz v Tax Commission of the City of New York that:

Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards, but that is not this case. The hazards of churches supporting government are hardly less in their potential than the hazards of government supporting churches; each relationship carries some involvement, rather than the desired insulation and separation. We cannot ignore the instances in history when church support of government led to the kind of involvement we seek to avoid.

The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.

Even a Supreme Court devoid of Christians would have agreed that the Establishment Clause is best maintained through the financial insulation of church and state, that history showed that when the church supporting the state was as threatening to freedom as the reverse. But what Beto is suggesting is a next level takeover. He wants to use government to manipulate the doctrine. So after he has taken your guns, he will use “civil rights” law to target the church. But remember, nothing about Beto O’Rourke is original. He’s just trying to be AOC while also trying to be Eric Swalwell. The Equality Act that Taylor Swift loves to promote would also place churches in the cross hairs of the law, should they remain faithful.

This isn’t a new ambition. Socialism is atheist by its nature and has never existed with a thriving church. In similar fashion, socialism has corresponded with the direct persecution of the church, often with genocidal purposes. An ideology that lumps people in with the collective dismisses the individual pursuit of a relationship with God.

The Second Amendment is a defense mechanism against various forms of government tyranny, among them the aforementioned scenario. Pacifying civilians is never an end but always a means to an end. A disarmed people are neither safer nor freer. In this case, Beto O’Rourke, by the progression of his rhetoric, wants to disarm the populace and coerce doctrine. This is the exact reason to refuse disarming. The socialists want to control our doctrine, by extension, what we think. They ultimately, as Beto O’Rourke’s policy suggestion explicitly demands, want to command us to disobey God, to rewrite doctrine to appease the latest whims of society.

The socialists aren’t floating confiscation just for the sake of confiscation. Institutions that have historically rejected collectivism and adhere to an objective morality standard are natural adversaries to the modern socialist movement. Therefore socialists would see strategic gains in undermining these institutions. This logic is not new or surprising, but is becoming increasingly obvious and less conspiratorial. The words of Beto O’Rourke corroborate the suspicion that gun confiscation is a means to enact religious persecution among other tyrannies.

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

Culture and Religion

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

Published

on

Pete Buttigieg attempts to recreate God in his own image

By Richard Ferguson

During a town hall meeting a CNN host asked Pete Buttigieg that question, “As a Christian, can you point to any teachings in faith that provide instructions to deny services to the LGBTQ community? His answer was a total copy-edit to both Christian and Jewish foundational writings, saying, “When religion is used in that way, to me, it makes God smaller.”

Instead of rebuking Pete’s answer, it was met with thunderous applause.

But just the ‘trinity’ of Pete, the Democrat audience, and it’s sycophants in media want to recreate Judeo-Christian truth into their own image, doesn’t mean the Creator of the universe is in agreement simply because He chose not to rain fire and brimstone from heaven as an immediate response.

Clearly, Almighty God, Creator of the entire universe of all that is seen and unseen can never be small in any way, shape, or form. Only a small mind would view God that way.

If Pete Buttigieg wishes to create a new small religion, it’s his prerogative. Such an effort is supported by the U.S. Constitution and the free will God allows all of us. Maybe he can call it the gospel according to Buttigieg, or just ‘Peteiology,’ but he dare not call it Judaism or Christianity.

Pete’s analogy about a Christian’s rights with his fist ending at the other person’s nose is totally out of place considering we are NOT talking about violence. Unconditional Christian love does NOT mean unconditional approval. Loving others does not mean ignoring wrong behavior that could lead to their annihilation. That is NOT Christian love. Christian love promotes moral guardianship. Just as friends don’t let friends drive drunk, we must not let ‘friends’ corrupt what we know is right.

This is what politicians do best. They frequently twist answers to questions to sound great and loving when in fact they are avoiding the question and giving false answers.

Pete’s form of Christian love seems to be “live and let live” and “let everyone do what’s right in their own eyes” which is not synonymous with the Judeo-Christian ethic. But whether Pete Buttigieg likes it or not, there are many Bible verses about homosexuality. The Judeo-Christian book of Leviticus is very specific.

Are we to have “agape” love for all people? Yes. But trying to copy-edit the Torah is ‘sloppy agape.’ Does the fact that Peter was an altar boy and claims himself to be a very knowledgeable Christian fountain of knowledge make a difference? Satan himself knows scripture inside and out and even quotes it as an ‘angel’ of light.

What is the essence of the one true Christianity? It is simple and absolutely beautiful as written in Matthew 22:36-40

In verse 37 Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.” In verses 38-40 Jesus said, “This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Every other commandment and Christian principle is derived from these two simple and lovingly profound commandments. These are very simple, very profound and very HARD to apply in life in this physical world we find ourselves in today. This is why we must pray to God for His guidance every day.

Praying means we need to be humble before God. I cannot find a trace of humility in any of the Democrat candidates for president. These people have put on a thin veneer of humility, thinner than a worn-out paint job on a 1955 Chevy Bel Air left out in the desert sun too long. You should be able to see through their rusted-out socialist philosophies like a worn-out tissue paper.

So, do not believe our schoolboy altar boy who may envision himself as master of the theological universe. In reality, he is attempting to draw people into his deceptive web that includes false religion and recycled socialist dung. Open your eyes dear people and see the truth of things Petey is hiding from you.

Richard Ferguson is a retired business executive who once traveled the country visiting countless corporations and executives singing the praises of Hewett Packard products. Today he is a full-time author, sounding the alarm of how liberal Democrats are attacking the United States from within.

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