Tagged: Democrats Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 03:19:58 on 2017/07/07 Permalink
    Tags: Budget, Democrats, , Illinois, ,   

    My not-so-hot take on the Illinois tax debacle 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Government cannot spend its way out of trouble. That’s an absolute truth that has been clearly demonstrated time and again, yet we see politicians at every level from local to national continuing to push untenable budgets and asinine tax hikes on the people. The latest example is Illinois and this time it’s more than the usual suspects behind the debacle.

    Republican lawmakers jumped ship and backed an override of their own party’s governor’s veto of the latest budget that calls for increased taxes. This lack of backbone has become a calling card for the modern GOP as so many today seem willing to break from the old school ideology of smaller government in order to play along with their liberal counterparts. The fear of government shutdowns, credit failures, and election day repercussions have pushed the GOP away from conservative and Federalist fundamentals.

    Instead of giving into the Democratic majority’s demands for more government, these Republicans should have backed their governor’s play. He wasn’t asking for much, just term limits and a handful of other responsible actions included in the extremely liberal and oppressive budget plan. They should have forced further turmoil and continued to offer real solutions instead of backing down from fear of another budget-free fiscal year. That’s the problem with the modern Republican Party. They don’t play within their alleged ideologies. Instead, they’re constantly attempting in vain to mitigate damage both real and political.

    In the vast majority of situations, the best solution is to reduce taxes, dramatically cut budgets, and put emphasis on supporting the private sector to solve problems. We the People are more capable than government entities to solve our own problems, but the Democratic-Republicans of modern day America seem bent on convincing us otherwise.

    Here’s the biggest problem: it’s working. More Americans are becoming dependent on government rather than being reliant on self-governance. Fewer Americans are attempting to solve problems and are instead spending their time demanding action from politicians. This more than anything else is why the Federalist Party must rise. We’re losing the battle of independence by pushing off our responsibilities to people and entities who have no business participating in finding the right solutions. The indoctrination and propaganda machines of the left have infiltrated many politicians on the right. Today’s Republicans are looking more like mid-90s Democrats than the party that once believed in shrinking government.

    Illinois, as with so many Democrat-run states, is crumbling under the weight of its own failed fiscal policies. They don’t need a bailout. They shouldn’t be raising taxes. They need to cut, cut, and cut some more. They need fewer programs, lower taxes, and an elimination of the overreach that has plagued them for decades if they hope to recover. Instead, the Democratic-Republicans are going against their fiscally responsible governor in order to push more of the same tired leftist agenda.

    The only real solution is less government and Illinois is a clear example of a state that has proven this to be true by failing miserably with big government. Will they learn the lesson in time? We are actively recruiting a strong leadership team in Illinois to bring the battle to Springfield. Email us at smallgov@thefederalistparty.org if you’re interested.

     
  • feedwordpress 18:49:11 on 2016/04/06 Permalink
    Tags: Democrats, , , , , , ,   

    Donald Trump is the Albatross that Democrats Will Hang Around Our Neck 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    In The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the albatross was considered a sign of good tidings. It followed the ship in the story until the mariner shot it with a crossbow. Metaphorically, it was placed on his neck as a reminder of his sin that turned good tidings into bad ones. “Instead of the cross, the Albatross about my neck was hung.”

    Donald Trump is the albatross for the GOP. His entry into the Republican Presidential race was a good tiding at first. It signaled that despite a diverse field of contenders, the same tired rhetoric was still being espoused by most. He changed the conversation. He brought old ideas of fighting illegal immigration with deportations and walls back into the conversation. He highlighted the faults of the “Establishment” when so many candidates were squarely embedded within it. He went “extreme” with his views on fighting terrorism, causing many in and out of the party to realize that the existential threat of radical Islamic terrorism needs to be handled with harsh measures.

    In essence, Trump was the flying albatross, the symbolic harbinger that acted as a wakeup call to the Republican party. Unfortunately, Trump isn’t just the albatross. He’s also the man wielding the crossbow who is shooting himself out of the sky. By taking good ideas and tainting them with messages of ignorance and often hate, Trump has become the representation of the ugliest parts of conservatism. To make matters worse, he’s shifted his views to be more liberal as he is wont to do and the result is what we have today. Trump is now the fallen albatross that is being hung around the neck of the Republican party.

    As it becomes more likely that Ted Cruz will be the nominee, the Democrats are trying to tie Trump to him. They are comparing the ideas of Trump and Cruz and declaring that Trump is the true representative of what Republicanism embodies. Their hopes of a Trump nomination are fading, so they don’t want to waste the negatives that he brings to the general election. If they can convince voters that Trump will be a part of the party one way or another, they’ll be able to take advantage of the concern that voters have regarding his influence. Even if he’s not the nominee, the Democrats want him to be the face of their opposition.

    It’s time for Republicans to wipe the slate as clean as possible as it pertains to Trump. Some suggested that he was a shill for Hillary Clinton bent on wreaking havoc in the Republican race to ensure her general election victory. I’m not one who currently believes that conspiracy theory, but the only difference between it and apparent reality is motivation. Whether intentionally or not, Trump’s increasing attachment to the party of Lincoln and Reagan is souring voters who don’t like Clinton but who may be too scared to vote against her if Trump is either the nominee or the surrogate of the party.

    A clear message must be sent in every primary going forward: Trump is not an example of what the Republican party represents. In primaries he can win, he must do so by a small margin. In primaries that he loses, he must lose big. To keep Clinton out of the White House, Republicans must coalesce around Ted Cruz. Every single vote counts going.

     
  • feedwordpress 01:49:40 on 2016/02/11 Permalink
    Tags: , Democrats, , , , ,   

    Of All the Years for Trump to Run, Why Do it When the Democrats are So Weak? 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Since 1996, every Republican nominee for President (yes, even George W. Bush) has been weak. Any of those years, we could have used Donald Trump. He’s the wildcard who could have had a chance against (misleadingly) strong Democratic nominees like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I would have supported him. This year, we have the strongest group of Republican candidates, any of whom (yes, even Jeb Bush) would have been better than Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Bob Dole.

    On the other side of the fence, we have the weakest Democrats running for President. Hillary Clinton has a distinct history of corruption and Bernie Sanders is a crazy socialist. A strong candidate like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Marco Rubio would beat them easily. Even Bush or John Kasich would likely win.

    Why are so many Republicans going for the wildcard in the one election where we don’t have to take our chances? I get it. Donald Trump has a great sales pitch and he’s extremely likable with his sound bites. However, he also represents the best chance the Democrats have of pulling off the miracle they need in order to put another Democrat in the White House for four more years.

    This image tells of my frustration with the Republican party. We are finally given the opportunity to nominate a real Reagan-conservative and we’re going to counter one of two weak Democrats with the wildcard Republican/Democrat/Businessman/Entertainer hybrid. Makes no sense at all.

    The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

     
  • feedwordpress 21:13:54 on 2016/01/18 Permalink
    Tags: , Democrats, , , , , , ,   

    Hillary Clinton’s Play for President Obama’s Approval Has Republicans Foaming at the Mouth 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Let’s be crystal clear. Hillary Clinton’s primary goal in speaking to millions of people during last weekend’s Democratic Debate was to address a single person: President Obama. She had been advised that if the President, Vice President Joe Biden, and other past and current members of the Administration didn’t support her, that she could lose. To win their support, she had to come out by promising to honor their work and keep it in play. She had to come out in defense of his legacy in order to get them on board with her campaign.

    Don’t expect the President to come out publicly. Definitely expect members of his staff to hit the phones and let their allies know who should be getting endorsements and donations. This was smart politics for Clinton. It’s also exactly what the Republicans wanted to happen.

    “We have the Affordable Care Act. That is one of the greatest accomplishments of President Obama, of the Democratic Party, and of our country,” she said.

    You don’t have to memorize that line. It’s going to be hammered into our conscience almost as hard as her husband played on the phrase, “Read my lips. No new taxes.”

    It is extremely difficult for a party in the modern era to maintain control of the White House following a two-term President. Al Gore was extremely popular following Bill Clinton, but he was outmaneuvered in the end. This is part of the ebb and flow of American politics to rotate both the executive and legislative branches to maintain a balance. It’s not coordinated necessarily, but dissent is easier to muster than support in a world where things are going wrong every day.

    Hillary Clinton is hoping for a George H. W. Bush moment. While she would love to win the nomination and the Presidency based solely on her merits and policy proposals, she has decided to cave to the third-term effect. She’s hoping that President Obama’s popularity will carry over to her. She reluctantly hopes to win by being the only candidate who will defend President Obama’s actions and legacy and she has a plan to present the Republicans (and Bernie Sanders) as the people who will try to dismantle the “great things” that President Obama has done.

    For Republicans, this simply adds to a growing list of attack points. They already have Benghazi, though it’s unclear whether or not that will be able to play well in the general election. They have the email controversy which will likely continue on until November. They have her complicity in Bill Clinton’s war on women which will definitely continue throughout whether it’s helpful or not. Now, we have her defending things that are clearly broken. It’s not exactly a coup for the Republicans, but it’s great fodder for the campaign strategists to consume.

    It pains Clinton to have to resort to playing the “Obama Third Term” card. She really doesn’t like the guy and doesn’t want to ride his coattails, but it may be required for her to get the nomination quickly. That’s just fine with us. The more she attaches to Obama, the easier it will be for Republicans to take her down in November.

     
  • feedwordpress 07:00:30 on 2016/01/18 Permalink
    Tags: , Democrats, , , , ,   

    Can Bernie Sanders Win the Nomination? 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    The 2016 Presidential election may end up being a snore fest depending on the nominees, but the months prior to the nominations being solidified seemed destined to be unique. Then again, they may also seem to be eerily familiar to Hillary Clinton who is watching a once-dominant lead whither away like it did in 2008.

    While similar, it’s definitely not the same. This is a different Hillary Clinton, a better one though one that is loaded with more personal challenges to her credibility. More importantly, Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama. He is stronger than Obama in some ways, but he doesn’t have the cross-generational charisma that helped Obama rise meteorically. Instead, Sanders, appeals less the younger generation that believes in his socialist principles and the older generation that simply doesn’t like Clinton. In the middle, the pragmatic thirty- and forty-somethings form her formidable base.

    Where Barack Obama represented hope, Bernie Sanders represents angst. Where Barack Obama represented fresh concepts and a statement of progress by being the first black President, Bernie Sanders represents a return to the norm of old white men running the country. Both of these concepts favor Obama’s victory over Clinton while damaging Sanders’ chances, but there’s one more component that must be considered.

    While Obama tried desperately to avoid the idea of having a socialist economic plan, preferring to focus on social liberalism instead, Sanders is the complete picture. Whether it’s the military, taxes, minority rights, gay rights, women’s rights, or income equality, Sanders is unabashedly left and a declared socialist. While it’s hard to imagine as conservatives an America that is willing to bow down to a socialist ideology, we must understand that there are many people who can be easily manipulated to believe that socialism can work… for them in particular.

    This is a powerful force. Sanders will appeal to the selfishness of the individual while giving them the righteous rallying call of income equality. This will work on those who feel entitled and unfortunately there are a lot of them. Then, there are the “euro-snobs,” the American thinking elite that believe that we have it all wrong in America and if we were as progressive as Europe we would be a better fit for the 21st century.

    There’s one other notion that should worry those who want Clinton to be the nominee. She’s taking on the role of picking up the Obama mantle and carrying it on as his “third term.” It might work, considering that he’s still a popular President. Then again, it could backfire greatly, particularly if the economy, the Middle East, or terrorism in America take turns for the worse during the primary season.

    Whether we like it or not, there’s a path for Sanders to emerge with the nomination. The real question that conservatives should be asking is whether or not we want that to happen.

    In Short, No

    Hillary Clinton is a weak politician and a weak candidate. She is corrupt; even her supporters don’t completely believe her. She is someone that Ted Cruz could easily defeat with his principled style of governance and most of the other candidates would have a good chance against her.

    With Sanders, it’s hard to tell whether or not he could win the general election. Common sense tells us that a socialist could never win the White House, but if we’ve learned anything this election cycle it’s that common sense has no place in the 2016 political scope. He’s a wildcard while Clinton is clearly a weak opponent.

    Does this mean that we need to go out bashing Sanders? No. For the Republican party to win the White House, we need the Democratic nomination process to be drawn out as long as possible. The sooner it’s certain one or the other will be the nominee, the sooner they’ll be able to focus on the general election. The Republican nominee will almost certainly go through a long fight. We need the Democrats to fight each other as long as possible.

    Whether or not Bernie Sanders can win the nomination will remain unclear until March. However, if you watch the GOP debates, one would believe that Hillary Clinton has already won. This is a mistake. Sanders must be considered.

     
  • feedwordpress 02:26:34 on 2015/12/19 Permalink
    Tags: , , Democrats, DNC, , , , ,   

    Why Conservatives Should Support Bernie Sanders in his Fight Against the DNC 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Hillary Clinton has a knack for getting rid of competition one way or another. In the case of Bernie Sanders versus the Democratic National Committee, she has used her pull to attempt to eliminate her only real competitor for the Democratic Presidential nomination. If you don’t realize that this is a travesty of justice directly influenced by Clinton, you haven’t been watching her or her husband closely enough over the decades.

    The DNC mandates that a candidate get 10 days written notice to fix any issue before the party can restrict access to its voter database. This rush to judgment and action had one single consequence – get Sanders in hot water before the Democratic debate. It worked. Conservatives who believe in freedom, the Constitution, and the American way should be fuming angry and actually supporting Sanders at this time. We can beat up on him all we want if he is able to get the nomination. For now, we have to be on his side for both ethical and practical reasons.

    The ethics component is easy to see. He’s being wronged by a corrupt and manipulative Democratic Establishment who has already decided they are stuck with Clinton for this election. As a result, they want her to be protected as much as possible through the nomination process and they want her to be fresh to go after whichever Republican wins that nomination.

    As far as practicality, it’s fair to say that Clinton is a weak candidate. The sooner that Sanders can be eliminated, the easier it will be for Clinton to focus on winning the general election. While I would rather go up against Clinton than Sanders, if he can stay in long enough to weaken her, it’s better for the Republican nominee.

    For now, let’s put the practical aspect aside. The battle that Sanders is now forced to fight is righteous. There’s a reason that the company hired by the DNC made it so easy to break the rules. If this doesn’t smell like a total setup, nothing does. One staffer gets access to Clinton’s data and suddenly the hammer comes down on the eve of the debate. This has Clinton’s corrupt odor all over it.

    It’s not like Sanders hired a hacker to break into the files. The defenses were intentionally left down in order to lure some idiot into the nest. This is a blatant attack against Sanders. This is a clear push for Clinton to wrap up the nomination quickly. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the entrapment and overly swift judgment being handed down as a result.

    Unfortunately, the Clinton plan will likely work. It’s a shame. If the enemy of our enemy is our friend, then Sanders needs our support.

     
  • feedwordpress 02:38:49 on 2015/11/27 Permalink
    Tags: Democrats, , , , , , , ,   

    Prepare for Desperate Attacks from the Left as Ted Cruz Rises 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    In a bubble, there are two candidates that the Democrats fear. Some see Marco Rubio’s boyish charm and knack for political expediency as appealing to independents, putting him as a top target. The other target, Ted Cruz, represents the two things they fear the most. That’s why you can expect to see very hot attacks against the Texas Senator in the weeks leading up to Iowa.

    On one hand, Cruz represents the type of candidate that can expose Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. He has stayed more true to his ideology throughout his career than any other candidate, a sharp contrast to the ebbing and flowing of Clinton’s perspectives. This alone would make him dangerous to her, but add onto that his debating skills and his polarizing views that run in contrast to hers and it spells a danger the left simply doesn’t want to have to face.

    It’s more than that, though. The second reason that they fear him over all others is because he is using Obama’s 2008 playbook. They know it works, obviously, and they know that Clinton doesn’t possess the passion that Cruz has now and that Obama had in 2008. More importantly, he has the same basic profile as Obama. Both ran as first term Senators in large starts. They both graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School after editing the Harvard Law Review. They are have polarizing views even within their own parties that put Obama to the left and Cruz to the right of the standard party lines.

    In short, Ted Cruz is the last candidate that the Democrats want to see facing Hillary Clinton or even Bernie Sanders and they will do whatever they can to smear him in the coming months. In an ideal world for them, they would be able to hold their ammunition to attack the nominee after their campaign shifts to the general election, but they won’t risk that with Cruz. They won’t hold back the way they’re holding back with Donald Trump, the candidate they want to run against. With Cruz, they’ll try to destroy him before he has a chance to talk to the general electorate.

    For the last two election cycles, this has played out so that the chosen Republican Establishment moderate will get the nomination. For the last two election cycles, the strategy has been disastrous. While the left continues to put up polarizing personalities, the right puts up milquetoast.

    This year, it can’t happen. Ted Cruz isn’t just the best chance the Republicans have of defeating the Democrats next November. He represents the best chance the country has of prospering. I like most of the things that Donald Trump has to say, but the Democrats will destroy him. That’s why they’re so focused on his bombast rather than his policies. They realize that his bombast can propel him forward as the nominee even if his past and his policies will be annihilated in the general election. That’s what the left wants. That’s what mainstream media wants. Their goals are aligned.

    They will roll out stories calling Cruz a Muslim-basher. They will point to conservatives that Republicans respect as attacking Cruz. They will call into question his eligibility with leftist firebrands like Alan Grayson. They will attack everyone they can associate with him.

    Even though they view Rubio as a different risk, he’s still easier for the Democrats to beat than Cruz. Prepare for wave after wave of attacks. Prepare to defend him and to remain stalwart in your support. Don’t let the left, the mainstream media, or the Republican Establishment convince you otherwise.

     
  • feedwordpress 00:11:27 on 2015/11/17 Permalink
    Tags: Abdelhamid Abaaoud, Democrats, , , , , , , Radical Islam,   

    Politics Aside, They Should Definitely Be Called ‘Radical Islam’ 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    It should come as no surprise that even after Egypt, Lebanon, and France, the Democrats still refuse to use the phrase “radical Islam.” They choose to do this for political reasons because they are the party of political correctness. That means that you should never generalize anything, even things that are general. Seriously, it’s all a little messed up for many reasons, but I digress.

    The Islamic State is 100% the epitome of the phrase. They represent the parts of Islam that are most dangerous, but those parts are still present within the religion itself. The majority of practicing Muslims in America are completely opposed to the actions of the Islamic State. These average Muslim Americans represent Islam without representing radical Islam. The American people are not so stupid that we must be protected from our own ignorance.

    The argument from the left is that if they use the phrase “radical Islam” that people will get them confused with Islam. They claim to believe that the American people are too stupid to make distinctions, that we’re too bigoted to know the difference between our Muslim poker buddy and the terrorists who blew themselves up in Beirut. By this logic, Democrats shouldn’t use a lot of terms:

    • Democrats can’t say “White Supremacists” because Americans will think that all Caucasians want to persecute other races. Instead, Democrats should say “Non-Minority Protesters.”
    • Democrats can’t say “New Black Panthers” because Americans will think all African Americans use intimidation techniques. Instead, Democrats should say “Aggressive Political Activists.”
    • Democrats can’t say “Westboro Baptist Church” because Americans will think that all Baptists protest homosexuals and military members. Instead, Democrats should say “Simple-Minded Non-Denominational Instigators.”
    • Democrats can’t say “Starbucks Barista” because Americans will think that all Baristas serve coffee in red holiday cups. Instead, Democrats should say “Affiliated Coffee Brewers of a Secular Posture.”

    I know, it sounds silly. The logic is definitely silly, but then again the Democratic party is acting silly when it comes to this topic. They hide behind the guise of defending non-extremist ideology that can be wrongly associated with a particular radicalization of religion when in reality they are simply catering to CAIR and other Muslim organizations and their voters. It’s completely indefensible for three very simple and obvious reasons.

    The Islamic State is Practicing Islam

    Radical Islam

    The left likes to call Islam a religion of peace. They either haven’t read the Koran or they choose to ignore the more truthful commands. The truth is that most practicing Muslims have chosen peace and sought to represent their faith in a non-aggressive manner.

    If a Jew decided to stone his children for disobedience, he would be considered someone who was practicing radical Judaism. Unfortunately, the Koran calls for many more actions that are contrary to our western sensibilities. That doesn’t mean that the perpetrators of terrorist acts aren’t Muslims. They’re just radicalized.

    Democrats like to believe that these people are fighting western imperialism. They want you to believe that they’re living in despair and they turned to terrorism because they weren’t given enough prosperity. These thoughts represent a fundamental disconnect with the reality of the situation. They aren’t fighting imperialism. They are fighting for their very narrow doctrine which is why they attack other Muslims, even other Sunnis, in the quest to fulfill the caliphate. They aren’t fighting against economic despair, either. Many of those joining their ranks are leaving plush western lifestyles to live in a desert in order to embody their religious convictions.

    They are Muslims. They represent Islam. They are doing what the Koran commands them to do. The thing that separates their pronouncements of Sharia law and the caliphate from the peace-loving Muslims of the world is secular pragmatism. In essence, the terrorists and warriors of the Islamic State are radical because they take a stricter stance to the whole of the Koran than peace-loving Muslims. In a way, they are practicing a more pure form of Islam than those who are not terrorists, who are not fighting for the caliphate, and who choose to ignore the more detestable aspects of the Koran.

    Stupid Americans Won’t Be Coddled

    Islam Protests

    The other argument for political correctness is that they don’t want to incite further bigotry. Unfortunately, there are plenty of Americans who hate Muslims. They don’t differentiate between radical Islam and peaceful Muslims. You will not change their minds based upon using politically correct variations of terms. In their minds, Islam is an evil religion and Muslims are evil people.

    Don’t coddle them. It won’t work. Don’t attempt to use political correctness to prevent Americans from feeling a certain way. They do or they don’t. They hate or the love. Changing a phrase will not do a single thing to change their minds in a positive direction but it does help to drive more hatred when they see our leaders unwilling to utter something that might offend their voters.

    Bigots might be dumb but they’re not stupid. Every time they hear President Obama or the Democratic candidates skirt around the topic of radical Islam by using unaffiliated phrases, they’re only angering the bigots even more.

    Peaceful Muslims Can Defend Themselves

    Muslims Fighting Against Islamic State

    When a Christian group came under fire for promoting hatred towards the President, I didn’t mark it down as something that didn’t represent me. I’m a Christian and with the media citing this Christian group as a hate group, I felt responsible for setting the record straight. I didn’t go to the press to try to separate my beliefs from the beliefs of this group. I went to the group itself to tell them that they were not doing what the Bible calls us to do.

    The Democrats are giving the Muslim people a free pass. Thankfully, many of them won’t accept it; there are wonderfully vocal Muslims in this country and around the world who will fight the Islamic State for the evil that they bring to the world. This is their right but it’s also their responsibility. If the terrorists are trying to represent them, they should want to set the record straight.

    To do this, they shouldn’t rely on the Democrats to play the game of political correctness. They should be fighting to represent what they feel to be the truth of Islam. When the Democrats try to mask what the Islamic State does as not being within the tenets of the religion, they are actually hurting Muslims who can defend their own religion. They don’t need Hillary Clinton defending their religion. They need all of the Democrats to get out of their way and let them speak for themselves. If that means speaking against the organizations that support (coerce?) the Democrats’ agenda of political correctness, so be it. Non-radical Islam does not need the Democrats keeping them in the shadows.

    Call it What it Is

    Radical Islam represents the darkest side of the religion. Just because the majority of Muslims do not support it does not take away from the fact that radical Islam is exactly what the name implies. It’s radical and willing to commit evil acts. It’s Islam even if most Muslims choose to practice the peaceful side of their faith. The sooner that our leaders become willing to deal with it directly and call them by their proper name, the sooner that this existential threat to society can be eliminated.

     
  • feedwordpress 11:19:17 on 2015/11/09 Permalink
    Tags: , Democrats, , , , ,   

    Bernie Sanders is Far Superior to Hillary Clinton as a Candidate 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Here’s some friendly advice from a conservative to Democrats: you’re making a huge mistake by letting Hillary Clinton be your candidate instead of Bernie Sanders. It’s hard for me to say that since Sanders is the ideological opposite of conservatives, but judging by the way that Clinton is being indoctrinated as the best bet by Democrats, it’s important for me to state the truth.

    Clinton is a scoundrel. She accomplished absolutely nothing as a Senator, but that’s better than the damage she did as First Lady which is better than the greater damage she did as Secretary of State. It’s not just the conservative in me that’s saying those things, either. Keep in mind that I was even more critical of Colin Powell when he was Secretary of State under George W. Bush. Condeleeza Rice was better, but not by much.

    For whatever reason, the media and the DNC have already decided that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ candidate. If I were a Democrat, I would be crying foul and doing everything I could to contest this travesty.

    As a conservative who usually votes Republican, I welcome the possibility of Clinton being the candidate, and as much as I want to keep my mouth shut and let it happen, I consider the ever-so-slight possibility of her winning the general election as being too much to risk. I don’t believe in Bernie Sanders as a President because his policies are obtuse to me, but I would welcome a Sanders Presidency over Hillary Clinton. In fact, I would welcome a Sanders Presidency over Donald Trump or Jeb Bush.

    There are plenty of false claims being made about Sanders. Those false complaints include:

    • Sanders is Too Old: Yes, he’s over six years older than Clinton, but there are multiple sources that say her health is more of a concern than his.
    • Sanders it Too Liberal: First, it’s important to note the distinction between actions and labels. Sanders is labeled as a socialist and he is. President Obama and Clinton are not labeled as socialists, but they are. In the Senate, Clinton and Sanders voted alike 93% of the time. Despite Clinton’s occasional attempt to appeal to the moderates (depending on who she’s speaking to at the time) her record and her declared policies are nearly as liberal as Sanders. The second thing to note here is that being too far to the left or too far to the right has never stopped a candidate. In fact, looking back over the last few decades, the more extreme candidate won nearly every time with the exception of Michael Dukakis who probably would have won had he not been competing against Ronald Reagan’s “third term” with George H.W. Bush.
    • Sanders Can’t Debate: Based upon the single performance so far, one can easily argue that Clinton was the better debater. However, that’s within her own party with a friendly host in the form of Anderson Cooper. We can assume that the debate would be more challenging when she’s up against a GOP candidate. In that situation, I would give the advantage to the ideological Sanders.

    Those aren’t the only falsehoods being put out there, but the biggest thing going for Clinton against Sanders is that people on the moderate side of their party believe that he’s too polarizing. He’s facing the same challenge as Ted Cruz for the Republicans. In both cases, they would be far superior candidates in a general election than their moderate foes.

    Traditional logic would dictate that conservatives would want the easiest Democratic candidate to win the nomination, but as a realist it’s important to consider the consequences. If Clinton were to face Trump, she could actually win the Presidency and that’s a prospect that I cannot imagine. I’d rather take my chances beating a tougher candidate like Sanders than risk the farce that the country would be if Clinton somehow gets in.

    Hillary Clinton Bad President

     
  • feedwordpress 09:14:30 on 2015/10/18 Permalink
    Tags: Democrats, , , , , ,   

    The Fine Line Between Hoping Biden Runs but Hoping He Doesn’t Win 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    There’s a catch-22 being discussed in both Democrat and Republican party inner circles. Joe Biden represents a love-hate gray area for both parties for the exact same reasons from opposite perspectives.

    Here’s the simple truth: Joe Biden is more likely to win the general election if nominated, but if he doesn’t win the nomination he will weaken Hillary Clinton’s campaign by forcing her to spend more money and extend the primary campaign to more states.

    At some point in the last few months, Joe Biden has gone from being a political punchline to somehow being seen as a statesman. He would also represent an extension of President Obama’s administration, something that rarely works but in this case it just might. Both parties realize that President Obama still maintains an approval rating around 45%. This might sound bad, but compared to the same time period in President George W. Bush’s second term when he polled at 32%, Obama is still very popular. To put it into perspective, President Ronald Reagan hovered a little higher than Obama in 1987 prior to President George H. W. Bush’s Presidential run.

    Joe Biden is better suited to beat the Republicans, but neither party knows if he could beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination. The Republicans would want him to run if he ultimately doesn’t win the nomination while the Democrats would only want him to run if he can definitely beat her.

    It’s a fine line.

    For us, we hope that he runs. Weakening Clinton by forcing her to prolong her Democratic campaign will be necessary for a Republican win. There’s very little chance that the Republican race can be determined before the Democrats even if Biden does run, but every day that Clinton has to focus on the primaries, split fundraising, and defend her liberal credentials is a benefit for Republicans.

    Currently Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Jeb Bush are the only ones with enough cash and outside money to compete with the Democrats. If Joe Biden doesn’t run, Bernie Sanders is likely to be the only Democrat close to Clinton and he will dissolve from the race quickly. However, Joe Biden is a risk. If he runs, he could beat her. If he beats her, he has a better chance of beating any of the GOP nominees.

    The only real fear is that Clinton will fade as she did in 2008 and get passed up by the eventual President.

    Joe Biden Running

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel