Saturday, October 31, 2015

Why Taking Out al-Baghdadi is More Important than Taking Out bin Laden

Pretty much every American adult knows who Osama bin Laden was and could point him out in a picture. Very few are familiar with the name Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and have any idea what he looks like. The reality is that he’s a much bigger threat than bin Laden ever was.

The reason that Americans don’t know about him yet is simple. He hasn’t directly attacked America the way that bin Laden and al Qaeda did on September 11, 2001. However, his presence worldwide and his influence in the Middle East through the Islamic State has caused much more death and destruction than anything bin Laden was able to initiate.

There’s a big difference between bin Laden and al-Baghdadi. While bin Laden was a spiritual and military leader, he wasn’t truly revered by his agents. They loved and protected him most did not think that he was anything other than their leader. The Islamic State follows al-Badhdadi as the caliph, the chosen spiritual and temporal leader of the growing Muslim empire.

Osama bin Laden was a leader and his death was felt throughout Islamic extremist organizations. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is more than a leader. He’s allegedly a direct descendant of Muhammed. He ascended to lead the Islamic State against the wishes of bin Laden, a minor note to the western world but an important difference to his followers. They have grown to view bin Laden as a failed leader who was not able to deliver the rise of Islam that he promised. The Islamic State leader, however, is delivering in their eyes.

America put a ton of money and resources towards finding and killing bin Laden. The same money and resources must be put into stopping al-Baghdadi, preferably to capture rather than kill him. He is emboldening the Islamic State. They believe in him in ways that al Qaeda never quite believed in bin Laden. Looking at their pedigree, bin Laden was a rich boy exposed to western culture while al-Baghdadi was a a poor and pious child who worked his way up through the ranks.

Taking out al-Baghdadi will have an immediate effect on the Middle East. It will shake the faith of many in the Islamic State, particularly those who are involved because of the prophetic holy war spoken of in the Koran. Unlike killing bin Laden which was symbolic, taking out al-Baghdadi will be substantive.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1OfGr1V

The Necessity of Faith for the Country and Our Next President

The concepts of religious liberties which were the basis for the earliest foundations of our country are now at the center of American thought whether most Americans realize it or not. It creates a conflict that we all must understand in order to right the course of the country.

Some of the things that I’m about to write may sound non-Christian. Those who know me are aware that my faith is at the heart of everything I do, making this “reality check” challenging to post. For the sake of this faith and the future of America, it’s important that we defend the freedoms that made this country strong. That means that the fight to protect our rights to properly practice Judeo-Christianity requires us to protect the rights of all religions, even those that are in conflict with our own.

Technically, that would be all of them.

Let’s first take a look at what brought us to where we are today.

Abusing the Christian Majority

If one were to look back at the recent history of the country with an honest lens, it’s easy to see that intolerance found its breeding grounds in the churches. It wasn’t too long ago when Christianity was the dominant driving force for many aspects of American society. One doesn’t have to be too old to remember a time when people still said “merry Christmas” instead of “happy holidays.”

This gave us strength, but that strength was abused. It created a form of Christian elitism that left very little room for opposing thoughts. We existed in a comfortable setting for the faithful as well as the majority of people who were inwardly secular but who thrived in a Christian atmosphere. One can view the latter group as the “convenient Christians” who weren’t actually true believers or Bible-reading faithful but who used Christianity as an interpersonal vehicle and the church as a social setting.

Many of the things that emerged from the country’s Christian elitism were on the wrong side of freedom. The Cross was used as a consolidator and even justification for hatred and violent opposition to anything outside of the group. Racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, and violent intolerance were often driven by people who claimed to hold their Christian faith in the highest regard. These people were hate-driven, not faith-driven, but they were clouded in their judgments in ways similar to today’s Westboro Baptist Church.

The hateful use of faith as justification is just the tip of the spear. There has also been a Christian complacency due to our perception of strong numbers that made even the truly faithful look in the wrong directions. This helped to establish an atmosphere of passive intolerance. One did not have to burn crosses on lawns or attack homosexuals to perpetuate a subtle superiority that quashed outside thought. The attitude allowed other faiths to be practiced however they needed to be practiced as long as it wasn’t public. It was this double standard of freedom that built anger in non-Christians. Today, we’re seeing this anger manifest in militant politics.

One can make a case that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) grew to the juggernaut it is today because of the passive intolerance practiced by Christians in the 20th century. In essence, we helped to empower our own worst enemy.

Protecting Christian Freedoms Starts with Protecting All Religions

It’s easy to understand how the anti-Christian and anti-religion facets of society were able to sneak into prominence. Too few saw it coming due to the complacency I described before. I’m guilty of this myself.

The wake up call came as a result of the country’s gay marriage sentiment. In less than six years, over 20% of the country had shifted its perspective. Seeing this made me realize that we’re not seeing the subtle shift that has been brewing for decades. We’ve seen a veritable blitzkrieg of anti-Biblical mindsets infiltrating acceptable perceptions. America was hit by a tidal wave of liberalism.

We can see this clearly in the political atmosphere at every level. The scary part is that this is not an event. It’s a trend. The momentum shifted dramatically in favor of those opposing freedoms and if it’s not halted and reversed very quickly, we will be lost as a country.

There’s a silver lining to this trend: discernment. Now that the enemy’s gameplan has been unleashed, we can wake up from our ease-induced lull and realize that the forces of liberalism and anti-Biblical apostasy are at play. Now is the time to focus, to turn to the Bible for guidance in all that we do. That means learning, practicing, and spreading the Word of God. To do this, we have to acknowledge that all religions must be protected from a political perspective.

Unless we were to become a true Christian nation, we cannot fight other religions politically. That’s to say that the protections that allow Christians to share the Gospel are only possible if we also defend the freedoms to share other perspectives. Until the day comes when the truth is revealed loud and clear to the whole world in the form of Christ’s reign, we have to work on an individual and institutional level rather than on a corporate level. The freedom to practice what Jesus Christ taught is the same freedom that allows others to practice what Muhammed or Christopher Hitchens taught.

To paraphrase Evelyn Beatrice Hall, we may not believe in what others are preaching but we must defend to the death their right to preach it. Religious liberties are a hot topic for some in the current political world. As a country, we have to hold onto these freedoms for as long as they’re available. The machinations of the principalities and powers of this world are already at work to remove those freedoms. This fight, which not too long ago seemed to be impossible to conceive, is here in present day America.

America as a Free Religious Zone

The forces against us both politically and spiritually are trying to reverse the core of the country that is protected by the First Amendment. They are attempting to shift the country away from “freedom of religion” into a country of “freedom from religion.”

Instead of America being a free religious zone, they want it to be a religion-free zone.

Just as the play on words is a small but significant shift, so too would the shift in policies be represented by small shifts. What we once perceived as a protective wall for our faith can very easily be turned into a wall that keeps us from practicing our faith. Again, we saw this in the gay marriage ruling where a slight change in definition was enough to turn the entire concept upside down. The definition of marriage has been shifted from being between a man and a woman into being between two people. Everything else effectively remained the same, but changing a handful of words was enough to turn marriage away from being Biblical to being defined as anti-Biblical.

Popular sentiment has changed. The “convenient Christians” that I mentioned before are the most powerful tools being used by the adversary. They are making it appear as if it’s possible to be a Christian and still espouse the secular beliefs of modern society. We see this in gay marriage, of course. We see it in the change of abortion from being the killing of human life to being the right of a woman to choose what to do with her body. We see it in the notion that black lives matter rather than the truth that all lives matter.

As a country, we’re starting to marginalize the importance of Biblical truths. It’s not being done by other religions. It’s being done within professed-Christianity itself. We aren’t losing the battle because of the attacks of non-Christians. We’re losing it because Christians are allowing their views to be liberalized based upon acceptable secular perceptions.

Bringing Faith to the Forefront with Our Actions

The only way for this destructive trend to turn around is to fight as individuals and unify as a group. The adversary is stronger than most ever imagined in the recent past.

As individuals, it’s important to proceed properly. If you are a Christian, then it’s time to make your faith the cornerstone of all that you do. This is seemingly hard in a world with iPads, hundreds of television channels, and other outside influences changing our perceptions and guiding us to a secular mindset, but as long as we recognize these influences and allow the Holy Spirit to guide all of our actions, these negative forces can be easily overcome. I’ll discuss this further on a future post.

Unifying as a group is something that needs to happen at every level. On the smaller levels such as within the family or community, we must fight the good fight without taking away from others’ rights. Those who believe that our faith is righteous should embrace an open forum. Not doing so was the mistake that so many of us made in the past that has brought us to where we are today. The forums are closing and it’s partially our fault for keeping them closed. Now that society has shifted mindset, we have to embrace the open forums in order to have venues to share the Gospel. This, too, is a much more complex idea than what can go into a few paragraphs, so I’ll discuss it in a future post as well.

The unification that must happen immediately is getting behind the right Presidential candidate. Before President Obama proved me wrong, I believed that the personal doctrines of a politician could not dramatically affect the doctrines of the masses. We’ve seen that clearly happen in America over the last seven years.

Now, with our eyes open, we must embrace a leader who will bring back a Biblical doctrine. No, this is not my call for a theocracy nor does it mean that I think policy in Washington DC can be driven by the Bible. It’s about the guidance of values within the country that starts at the top. President Obama did not have to pass laws in order to shift perspectives. He was able to change the worldview of the country in millions of people through his examples, his words, and the way he operated the country.

I’m not going to use this article to endorse an individual, though it should be known that we have endorsed Ted Cruz for multiple reasons, not just his faith. What I will call on people to do is to look very closely at the faith of all of the candidates and use your understanding of their faith as one of the primary (if not the biggest) reasons to support them. Do not fall into the trap that most have done in the recent past by allowing a candidate’s faith to be secondary to their policy. The office of the President of the United States is not a religious position but the doctrine’s that guide the administration greatly influence the spiritual direction of the country. Again, we’ve seen this very clearly with the current President.

Now is not the time to push our faith down in the hierarchy of our political decision-making. We will lose more than the battle for religious liberties. If we don’t unite very soon, we will lose the country itself.

President Reagan Hand on Bible



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1Mo3WiH

Friday, October 30, 2015

What the Debt and Spending Hike Abomination Means in Layman’s Terms

Since the economic crash of 2006-2009 (often called the downturn of 2008), two things have been clear to economists who are paying enough attention and politicians who care enough to gain true understanding of the situation: the United States economy is only alive through artificial means and there is no feasible way to fix it without extreme measures.

They know this. They’ve been able to maintain a modicum of faux-stability through quantitative easing and the destructive effects of zero interest rates combined with an exceptional disinformation and propaganda campaign that has mysteriously (some would say supernaturally) kept the majority of Americans from feeling true negative effects. I’m not talking about people losing their jobs or living in poverty. Those things are bad enough and are clearly happening around us all. The true negative effects I mean would come from a complete and sudden “bursting of the bubble” upon which we’re riding that will have catastrophic consequences for every non-financial-elite American, not to mention in most countries around the world.

The propaganda has been so strong that it’s almost admirable. After all, if Americans were allowed to look down and see the depth of the precipice we’re currently dangling ourselves over, we would panic. That panic would cause the very bursting of the bubble that we’re trying to avoid, so I understand the reasons for it. However, the continuous debt and spending increases, including the one that just passed in the Senate, have to stop. There is only one possible man-made solution to the problem and it’s the extremely unpopular notion of deep cuts to spending and a renegotiation of the debt situation. Both options are exceptionally ugly as they would have different negative consequences, but it’s the type of hard choice that very few in Washington DC seem willing to consider.

Before anyone calls this a “scare piece” to rally support for Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, or Marco Rubio, we have to take a look at the situation. Here’s the best example I can think of in layman terms:

It’s like a family deciding that they need to take out a high-interest loan to pay off a credit card in order to continue to use the credit card. The sad part is that the family is not cutting back on spending and in fact has decided to spend more with their “clean” credit card. What makes it even worse is that the interest that they have to pay on the high-interest loan is paid by the credit card. It’s a circle of dysfunction that would sink any family, company, or organization. It would also sink any other country that wasn’t the home of the world’s reserve currency, the petrodollar.

Some might wonder how this has been allowed to continue if it’s so damaging. The reason is because we’re dealing with such a dramatic scale – trillions of dollars – that on the surface it seems insurmountable. The money to pay the debt would be borrowed from the lenders who own the debt in the first place. Sounds crazy, right? It’s one of those backdoor deals that only makes sense to those who are either in the middle of it or oblivious to it. In essence, the debtor (the US) is only allowed to keep borrowing money that it clearly cannot pay because the interest alone is so substantial that the lenders couldn’t imagine not receiving it. From the Federal Reserve to other countries, they’re all okay with getting the interest and letting the principle continue to grow. Yes, grow.

Don’t even get me started on Social Security and other government black holes that are so deep in the debt pool that reconciliation is practically impossible. We owe trillions of dollars to Social Security, military retirement, government employee retirement, and disability. In other words, the US government has borrowed money from the US government in a paper shifting scheme that puts Ponzis to shame for not being that creative. We are literally borrowing money from ourselves that doesn’t even exist.

This is worse than a scam. It’s worse than a racket. It’s worse than a con. At least with a scam there’s a winner and a loser. Raising debt ceilings and increasing spending is making today’s economy lose a great deal while making the future economy lose even more.

It’s my contention that if the American people knew how all of this was working, that they would cry at the top of their lungs to make it stop immediately. That would have a humongous effect on current politicians and would cause a shakeup never seen before in the country. That’s the biggest reason that nobody is being told exactly how bad the situation is. This isn’t like Greece. This is much more akin to what’s currently happening in Venezuela.

The greatest tool the government has is that everything is so utterly unfathomable that most people don’t know what’s happening while the vast majority of those who do know are unwilling to let the cat out of the bag.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1SdHJJn

What happens if Venezuela’s economy collapses?

Venezuela Protests

We’re living in an age when countries that should be doing okay financially are falling apart. Greece is the easy example to point to, but Venezuela faces a much harder fall. It’s not that their economic woes are so much worse. It’s that they don’t have the EU or the United States to bail them out. They chose to align with Russia and China, two countries that have their own economic troubles brewing.

How did the country with the world’s largest oil reserve get to the point that they may not survive another two years? One can point to their leadership in general, but it really comes down to one word: socialism.

The difference between socialism and fiscal conservatism is that under socialism, everything has to line up perfectly and indefinitely. That’s why it has never worked and will never work regardless of the economic clout of a country. The world economy isn’t just unpredictable. It’s bound to ebb and flow and socialism does not allow for sustained down times. Now, the people are carrying around bags of currency that is on pace to be completely worthless in a couple of years at best. It might even collapse entirely in a matter of months.

To combat this, they’ve started selling off their gold.

This isn’t being done in order to help the starving people. It’s just for the sake of paying of their massive debts that are coming due next year. After $45 billion in loans from China and promises of strength from Russia, they’re still so deep in this hole that the future looks almost certainly catastrophic.

So, what’s going to happen to Venezuela and the rest of the world as a result?

We will likely not see an uprising like the 2002 coup d’etat. The people are too weak and the resources simply aren’t available for a military solution. Protests have gone badly and the middle class is already seeking new homes elsewhere. This means that the poor will be fending for themselves and that’s where it gets really bad.

Chaos is going to compound on chaos and they will start to flee. The problem is that the situation in other countries isn’t terribly better and tensions are too high. The only viable solution at this point is for the government to either beg for help from their friends in Russia and China or to find new friends. Not matter what happens, this is likely not going to end well for the people of Venezuela.

The post What happens if Venezuela’s economy collapses? appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1Wnft7I

Will Ryan Placate or Listen to the Freedom Caucus?

The conservative minority in Congress, which includes the Freedom Caucus and a handful of others who are conservatives but who haven’t officially joined the unofficial collection of right-wingers in the House of Representatives, will be watching new Speaker of the House Paul Ryan very closely. Is he going to follow in the tragic footsteps of his predecessor John Boehner in an attempt to placate the conservatives or will he truly allow them to have a voice and therefore give Congress a true conscience?

While many are already beyond skeptical about the moderate Ryan, the majority of the Freedom Caucus relented after making undisclosed promises to the minority group. Unfortunately, two things already do not bode well for him, the House of Representatives, the conservative wing, or the country itself.

First, he certainly made deals with others in Congress. To get the quick support he needed and to have the unified voice that he declared was a requirement for him to run, he likely had to talk out of both sides of his mouth. To the Freedom Caucus, he had to promise a voice in decision-making. To certain parts of the rest of the Republican party majority in the House, he had to promise to rein in the renegade right-wingers.

Second, his words are already betraying the concept of placation rather than cooperation. Here’s what he said to the body after receiving the gavel. We’ve put the key statements and language in bold.

“We need to let every member contribute — not once they have earned their stripes but right now,” Ryan said. “Open up the process. Let people participate. And they might change their tune. A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith.”

Why does the Freedom Caucus need to change its tune? Why do they have to work in good faith? It certainly sounds like the kind of placating language that sends the wrong message. That message is this: Congress isn’t going to embrace conservative values with its Republican majority. It’s going to figure out how to keep conservatives from objecting to moderate perspectives.

Some might look at this and think that it’s fair. Since the majority of Republicans in Congress are moderates, that moderate voice should determine directions. However, the country is in desperate need of stronger conservatism. The effective Congress of the mid-90s didn’t placate and despite having even fewer true conservatives, they were able to enact very conservative legislation. With the current President, moderate deals are logically the only possible forward movement, but the logic only works on the surface. Dig deeper and one quickly realizes that the GOP-controlled House and Senate means that if the President wants anything substantial to happen in his final year in office, he’s the one who must start making deals.

A strong Congress can save this country. It requires conservative concepts leading the way, not being pushed aside as fringe ideas that won’t work because of the President’s veto power. If anything, they should be forcing the President to veto as often as possible so close to the election. Doing so can help the Republicans win back the White House in 2016.

 

The post Will Ryan Placate or Listen to the Freedom Caucus? appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1P9ioAj

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Move over, Trump. ‘The View’ fired a bigger insult about Fiorina’s face.

Carly Fiorina Smile

It wasn’t okay for GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump insult fellow candidate Carly Fiorina by saying, “look at that face.” ABC’s popular show, The View, made it very clear that they didn’t appreciate the misogynistic attack. Then, they decided to go a step further to call her smile and face “demented.”

The left-wing elitist celebrities of the view, Whoopi Goldberg, Michelle Collins, Joy Behar, and Raven Simone, were demeaning of Fiorina’s appearance during the first question of the GOP debate, even going so far as to make fun of how scary a Fiorina mask would be. Goldberg was in rare form in her hateful attacks of anything conservative, but took it a step further by jumping in on the Fiorina hate.

Even mainstream media outlet CNN took offense to the remarks made by the hosts.

To be fair, Collins has a tendency to look pretty demented from time to time as well.

Michelle Collins

The post Move over, Trump. ‘The View’ fired a bigger insult about Fiorina’s face. appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1PTPmWV

Ted Cruz has an audiographic memory

Ted Cruz Benjamin Netanyahu

Most people have heard of a photographic memory, but until hearing about an “audiographic memory” on Glenn Beck’s show, I didn’t know what it was. Apparently, GOP Presidential candidate Ted Cruz has one, meaning that he remembers everything that he hears.

Verbatim.

There are only a few listings for it on Google and none of them seem very scientific, but listening to Cruz speeches, knowing his debate skills, and seeing how he operates when he has the floor in the Senate, it starts to become clear. This “unfair advantage” is the type of trait that could be very beneficial for anyone in politics, but it’s a huge advantage for a President even more so than for a Senator, particularly when talking to foreign leaders.

Here’s the video of Beck describing the conversation he had with Cruz on the subject.

The post Ted Cruz has an audiographic memory appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1LZvNGH

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

The Irrelevancy of Jeb Bush, CNBC, and 8 Other Takeaways from the #GOPDebate

Judging by social media, the talk of GOP debate night was centered more around the moderators at CNBC than the actual debate. This was more of a win for the GOP as a whole than any one candidate, but there should still be some movement as a result.

There will be ton of comments about CNBC following this odd display, but we need to look at the candidates themselves as well.

Here’s the video followed by the transcript if you’d prefer to read it:

The third GOP debate hosted by CNBC was by far the strangest to date. With moderators that tried desperately to maintain control in the beginning to Chris Christie magically appearing out of nowhere for a few moments, it was the type of debate that should eliminate some of the candidates once and for all while propelling others to a tougher fight going forward.

The first big loser was Jeb Bush. I listened intently and I can say with all honesty that I barely remember anything he said. It’s as if his voice and visage casts a spell on the listeners to make them forget the words. Every response was scripted and he needs to fire whoever wrote them because they failed to inspire anything other than John Kasich supporters who are hopeful that they can steal some of his moderate donors.

Speaking of Kasich, his response to the first question of the debate completely avoided the question and it only went down from there. He was trying to be the establishment candidate with the track record but his continuous drumbeat of successes in Ohio and with balancing the budget were better suited for an interview than a debate. Some analysts will say it was a good night for him, especially with Bush bombing, but I’ll preemptively disagree. He promised to deliver a new twist on his campaign because he’s mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore, but other than a couple of quick shots at Donald Trump and Ben Carson, he didn’t deliver on his promise.

For Trump’s part, it was a good debate. He was more reserved but delivered a few strong lines that should be noted. While it wasn’t the infusion of freshness that he wanted to deliver to rejuvenate his campaign after losing ground to Ben Carson, it definitely didn’t hurt him with his current supporters and may have endeared him to a few people who were on the fence.

Carson was somewhat of an enigma. I hate to admit it because I like the guy a lot but his responses were off a bit tonight. I don’t question his heart nor his intelligence but I am a little worried about his ability to resonate with voters in a general election, especially when debating a fiery Hillary Clinton or scrappy Bernie Sanders. The Republicans need a strong debater who addresses the issues and he fell a little short sometimes. This wasn’t a killer and he won’t be hurt too much because some of his answers were stronger, but he didn’t pull away from the pack with this performance.

Just as I’ll disagree with assessments about Kasich, I’ll go ahead and disagree with those who think Marco Rubio failed tonight. He was the best prepared of the candidates and handled the attacks very well. It wasn’t a breakout moment, but with his problems in the Senate and the media attacking his voting record, he nicely deflected the controversies and came out looking stronger than before the debate.

Carly Fiorina was on the defensive. She did okay and proved once again that she’s a great debater but there wasn’t a ton there. We heard her trying to reply a lot and getting shot down multiple times by the moderators even when she tried to speak over them. Any time she’s on the debate stage she’ll get a bit of a bump because she’s likable but we won’t see her shooting up in the polls like last time.

Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee were there. That’s about all we need to say about them.

Ted Cruz had the zinger of the night by attacking the moderators themselves. Let me read his comments in case you didn’t hear them:

“The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match. Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?” Cruz added, “How about talking about the substantive issues?”

This changed the entire flow the rest of the night. The other debaters followed his lead and were aggressive with the moderators. It was a great demonstration of his famous debate skills since it was clearly unscripted and demonstrated the fearlessness that we need in a President. The only other memorable moment from Cruz came when he mentioned that his father left his family before being saved and returning home. It gave a sense of humanity to him that Carson has had for the last month and should help his poll numbers rise.

The real winner tonight was Chris Christie. That’s hard for me to say because I’m not a fan of his politics but he was an extremely capable debater and did one important thing: he turned his attacks towards President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Those notes were memorable. He seemed like a candidate who should be in the top tier and if any of the bottom tier can move up as a result of tonight’s debate it’s Christie. His performance coupled with the poor performances by his fellow moderates Kasich and Bush will keep him alive a little longer.

The big loser, as most commentators will note, was CNBC. They utterly embarrassed their network and as individuals they seemed more like reluctant parole board members questioning convicts about why they should be released to the general population. Most of the candidates handled them nicely after Cruz turned the spotlight onto them with Christie having a nice zinger about how their actions would be considered rude even in New Jersey.

We should see a little shakeup coming after this debate. Hopefully, some of those who have no chance will take the hint and abandon their campaigns.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1MjZgdV

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Why Conservatives Must Give Paul Ryan a Chance to Embrace Conservatism

The last thing that any conservative wants to hear is that another John Boehner clone is given the gavel, but that’s exactly what’s happening. For the sake of the country and the conservative movement, it’s important to give Paul Ryan a little (very little) room to show his conservative side.

Below is a transcript from the commentary followed by the video itself.

Right before Paul Ryan is announced as Speaker of the House, lame duck John Boehner did him a favor in the form of what is turning out to be his most egregious act of cowardice. He gave President Obama a clear path for the rest of his Presidency, effectively declawing the Republican majority. It was the crowning achievement end Boehner’s career of battling his own party and failing his country.

In essence, he saved Ryan from having to do the dirty work once he took over the Speaker’s seat. It’s horrible, but it’s done. Now, we have a clean slate with Ryan and as conservatives it’s extremely important to give him the fresh start he needs. It’s not for his sake. It’s for the sake of conservatives and more importantly for the sake of the country.

The Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party, and consistent conservatives like Senators Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are facing a backlash from all sides. Obviously the Democrats are against them and always will be. Mainstream media is against them, painting the conservative movement as obstructionist and against any forward movement. Neither of those things can really be changed.

There are two other fronts where we can change the perceptions. The Republican Establishment, for all of its evils that have been manifested by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, has unified against the conservative wing of the party. Then, there’s the people. Because the other three angles are against the conservatives, the people have, for the most part, followed suit. There are still plenty of supporters of the Tea Party movement and conservatism in general, but its losing momentum. These two facets – the Republican Establishment and the general feelings of voters – are both areas that conservatives can win back. The key to this is Paul Ryan.

Paul Ryan

No, I’m not suggesting that Paul Ryan should be handled with kid gloves, nor do I believe that he’s inclined to do the right things. He’s demonstrated that with his various moderate positions, amnesty being the most profound. However, there are two courses of action that conservatives can take. We can assume the worst and start our attacks now before he’s had a chance to do anything or we can accept that he’s the new leader of the House of Representatives and guide him towards the right. It’s a question of civility. By giving him a chance up front, there’s less of a chance that conservatives will be blamed if he fails. If we start attacking like we’re all inclined to do at this point, then his successes will be his successes while his failures will be pinned on conservatives obstructing him.

There are bigger things at play right now than fighting for a conservative voice in Congress. First and foremost is the Presidency. The thought of having another moderate candidate win the nomination should be completely obtuse to every Republican after two horrendous Presidential elections. The second important thing to remember is the near future of the conservative movement. We need to be winning seats in the House and Senate, not losing them, and at this point every obstruction that the conservatives put up that isn’t clearly righteous will be used to usurp candidates in 2016 and 2018.

I don’t believe that Paul Ryan will be much better than John Boehner, but we have to give him the opportunity to either prove us wrong or prove us right. If we start swinging in the early days of his tenure as Speaker, we’re just turning ourselves into the scapegoats that will lose now AND in the future.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1GwyfaZ

Trump on Afghanistan

In the world of politics, flip-flops are bound to happen. No Presidential candidate can make it through an election without being called out on switching positions. Donald Trump has been heartily accused of doing so when compared to his very liberal perspectives a few years ago. However, now it seems like he’s making 180-degree turns within weeks, something that doesn’t bode well for a serious run at the White House.

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.

The post Trump on Afghanistan appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1Mr77g0

Why Republicans Should Be Cheering on Sanders to Give Clinton a Run for Her Money

A quick look at an active Republican’s social media account will usually yield four types of political posts: GOP candidate support, GOP competitor bashing, Hillary Clinton bashing, or Bernie Sanders ridicule. In between selfies and pictures of our lunch are posts about the Presidential election and it’s only going to heat up from here until election day.

One of the popular posts, the ridiculing of socialist Bernie Sanders, should probably be put on hold if you’re a Republican. At this point, Bernie Sanders is a Republican’s best friend. Rather than helping to push him out of the race, we should be cheering him on to compete with Hillary Clinton. With Joe Biden out and not much of a challenge put up by Martin O’Malley, Sanders is an important piece to the puzzle if the goal is to get a Republican in the White House in 2017.

Here’s why…

Keep Clinton Focused on Primary States

Once Clinton gets the nomination wrapped up, she’ll no longer have to do much travelling, campaigning, or money spending in the inconsequential primary states. Before the nomination, the order of the primaries and caucuses helps determine where a candidate is going to spend time and money. Once the nomination is in the bag, the candidate can shift attention to the swing states.

This is why unchallenged incumbents have such a huge advantage even if they aren’t popular. President Obama didn’t have to spend much time in or money in Oklahoma because he knew that he wasn’t going to win it and didn’t need to win the primary there. Clinton and Sanders will likely be fighting for the Democratic vote there, assuming that Sanders is still in the race on March 1.

Manipulation of the Republican Nomination Process

Republicans are going to take longer to find their nominee and Clinton will be able to affect that decision based upon her actions once she’s no longer focused on beating Sanders. Let’s say that Donald Trump is in a heated race with Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz in May while Clinton already has the nomination secured. She’ll most likely want to face Trump in the general election, so she’ll be able to have her teams attack the other candidates in hopes of helping Trump secure the nomination.

It’s not that she can influence them much, but every little bit counts, particularly in the primaries that aren’t winner-take-all.

Cash on Hand

The moment she feels like she has the nomination locked in, two things will be able to happen. First, she’ll be able to save money instead of focusing on winning primaries. Second, she’ll be able to spend more time fundraising and less time winning primary voters.

As sad as it may sound to some of us, the amount of cash a candidate has available has a tremendous effect on the outcome of a general election. Tracing back over the decades, we can see that those who were financially strapped approaching the general election almost always lost. This is going to be an exceptionally expensive campaign year for the Republicans because so much of the early money is being split by a multitude of candidates.

The Hope that Bernie could Win

We’ve always considered Clinton to be an extremely weak Presidential candidate, but Sanders might be even weaker. His performance in the first debate was decent, but Clinton did better. Both have areas that the Republicans can attack, but there’s something that we must remember about Clinton: she knows how to manipulate the perspectives of American voters.

We cannot trust that voters will be swayed by Benghazi, email servers, ineffective public service record, lies, scandals, or any of the other things that go on Clinton’s resume. After all, more Americans now believe that the Benghazi inquiries are more dishonest than Clinton herself. Yes, the left-wing media and the ignorance of many voters can never be underestimated when it comes to spin.

Socialism, on the other hand, is something tangible that the GOP nominee can utilize. It may not be as compelling as the case against Clinton, but it’s easier to quantify. I’m hopeful that America is not ready for a socialist President. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I find it unimaginable that Americans would elect Bernie Sanders. I could be wrong, but I’m still hopeful.

Whether you like Sanders or not, the worse thing that can happen to the Republicans is a quick and tidy Clinton nomination. We need her to be weakened by Sanders as much as possible before she takes on the eventual GOP nominee.

Bernie Sanders vs Hillary Clinton



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1jOFtx1

Monday, October 26, 2015

Power of the Purge for Ted Cruz

JD Power of the Purge for Ted Cruz

We’ve seen 1st term Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Rand Paul express frustration with how Congress operates. Some are saying it’s a wake up call for them to get more experience before trying to make big changes.

I believe they are the wake up call for Congress to make the changes necessary to act. With a Republican majority, we’re seeing no change. Some say we need a Republican President before this can happen. I say we need both – a strong conservative President and a shake-up in the Senate to bring action to the table.

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.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1ibqf3g

Sunday, October 25, 2015

Donald Trump Says the Right Things but He’s Not the Right President

It must be understood up front that I really like Donald Trump (or perhaps I’ve just grown to appreciate him). What he’s done to the Republican party is nothing short of imperative. He woke up the party, forced conversations that were being tiptoed around, and paved the way for a candidate other than Jeb Bush to get the Republican nomination. He is not, however, the answer to the country’s problems.

Many of things that he’s said over the last four months have clearly resonated. His standing in the polls proves that he’s reaching people on the surface and waking them up to the needs this country has when it comes to immigration, national security, and the economy. The problem is that it’s all on the surface. Digging even a little deeper into his proposed policies around immigration, national security, and the economy reveal a combination of impracticality and utter impossibility.

On immigration, you can’t build a strong and beautiful wall while still being cheap, yet he intends to attempt to combine those three attributes. Not possible. To do what he wants to do is going to be extremely expensive and it definitely must be done, but to say that it will be cheap is either misleading or ignorant.

On national security, he’s been all over the board. He wants the Russians to do exactly what they’re doing which can only yield two possible endings for America. Either they’re successful in securing Bashar al-Assad’s regime by pushing ISIS out of Syria and eliminating the American-backed resistance or they’ll fail and put America in the catch-22 of needing to help him achieve a goal that in part goes contrary to our goals. Either way, the Trump/Obama solution is weak at best and dangerous at worst.

Then, there’s the idea of improving the military, again something that must be done. However, he’s still claiming that he can do this while staying revenue neutral after cutting taxes and renegotiating trade deals to force companies to build American factories and hire American workers. On the surface, this seems like a viable plan. The unfortunate reality is that the things he can affect with “fair trade” will take many years to realize while his tax cuts are planned to go in effect very quickly. The three things don’t jive together. You can’t drastically increase spending, cut taxes, and try to make up for it with trade deals that will have zero effect until his second term at the very earliest (assuming he can renegotiate them at all).

Donald Trump Policy

Donald Trump has some good ideas. In the right hands, these ideas can be turned into practical fixes. His heart’s in the right place but he’s not the right person to make these things happen. He opened up the conversations. Now it’s time to let someone make real changes that can actually work.

Here’s a video we did on our new sister channel that goes into a little more detail.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1GrJHES

Are Donald Trump supporters starting to see through his rhetoric?

 

Donald Trump Rhetoric

Since he first announced his decision to run for the Republican nomination for President of the United States, Donald Trump has been building up passionate and vocal supporters. Nobody, not even Hillary Clinton, has been able to build up the social media groundswell of support that Trump has. Now that we’ve had four months of his speeches, attacks, and policy shifts, are supporters starting to second guess him as their first choice?

The polls are painting different stories. Some show that he’s rising. Others show that his support is shifting, particularly among conservatives who view him as more moderate than they originally believed. He’s still very right when it comes to immigration, but on nearly all other issues he is much closer to the center than other candidates, even Jeb Bush.

The video below is an exploration into the realities of Donald Trump’s candidacy. Will voters listen or will the Republicans nominate their third consecutive moderate failure?

The post Are Donald Trump supporters starting to see through his rhetoric? appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1O1JKK6

To the four candidates at the kiddie table: get out quickly

George Pataki

The role of President of the United States requires perseverance, patience, and fortitude of spirit. It also requires the ability to see when things aren’t working out and for Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Lindsey Graham, the time for discernment is now.

The four candidates who will be at the “kiddie table” for the third GOP debate are not going to win the nomination. They are hurting themselves, the party, and the country by remaining as distractions for those who are still willing to listen to them. Perhaps they’re hoping for a VP spot or a cabinet position. Perhaps they love to run for office as has been accused of perennial election-loser Rick Santorum. Regardless of their reasons for staying in this long, it’s time to throw in the towel.

As this Tweet implies, there are others who should probably be on the kiddie table list. John Kasich, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul also fall into the category of having no chance at this point. For Paul and Jindal, there’s more at stake than just this election. Paul is coming dangerously close to being pushed out of the Senate come next election and both he and Jindal are viable options for 2020 if the Republicans lose in 2016 or in 2020 if they win.

Do the right thing, guys. Leave while you still have a modicum of dignity.

The post To the four candidates at the kiddie table: get out quickly appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1Xrgb6a

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Cruz Racking Up ‘Endorsements through Disapproval’ with Koch Brothers Comment

Republican Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is making a habit of getting on the wrong side of the right people. First, John Boehner called him a jackass. Then George W. Bush said he “just doesn’t like that guy.” Now, the Koch brothers have expressed disappointment. At this rate, Cruz will get the nomination simply by making enemies of the people that conservatives don’t like.

If the American people in general and the conservative wing of the Republican party doesn’t like someone, they probably don’t like Ted Cruz.

Charles and David Koch have been widely panned by both parties for meddling in political affairs with their billions of dollars on hand. They represent the negative side of the Republican party that bows down to liberals, the side that produced Mitt Romney. While they hide behind the precepts of Libertarianism, their actions and money often follow the moderate candidates. Don’t be fooled by their donation of $15 million to a super PAC that supports Ted Cruz. They weren’t expressing interest in his views. They were attempting to buy his favor.

Now that they know that Cruz won’t be bought, hopefully the American people will see this as a positive thing. Only true conservatives like Cruz have what it takes to make this country what it was always meant to be.

The post Cruz Racking Up ‘Endorsements through Disapproval’ with Koch Brothers Comment appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1McHPvD

After Obama, the Country Desperately Needs Christian Values in the White House

There was a time not too long ago when I wrongfully believed that strong Christian faith was important but not necessarily crucial for a Presidential candidate. It wasn’t that I felt faith was secondary. I simply though that the office of the President of the United States could not do much to supersede the faith and values of Americans. President Barack Obama proved me to be very wrong and it’s imperative that we correct that in the coming election.

Unlike many conservatives, I do not believe that President Obama is a Muslim. He claims to be a Christian and some of us take that at face value. Just because he’s sympathetic to Muslims and against Israel does not mean that he prays to Allah. I find it much more likely that he’s lukewarm in his faith and not a conscientious follower of the Bible. He wants to be a uniting force between religions and follows a secular mindset. That concept is actually more dangerous than if her were actually a Muslim because it gives license to non-Biblical ideas. As a result, gay marriage is now accepted by American society and backed up by the Supreme Court.

The last seven years have demonstrated how the non-Biblical ideals of a President can permeate throughout the population. When he was elected, over 60% of Americans were against gay marriage. Now, the polls are showing that the exact opposite is true with over 60% supporting gay marriage. This is the danger that I didn’t recognize before, the danger of a President’s belief system trickling down into society’s mindset.

It isn’t just gay marriage. It’s also the fundamental shift in worldview that allows for concepts like racism, hatred towards American exceptionalism, and reliance on the government to solve our problems to creep into the thought processes of the common person. The Christian Conservative movement has been accused in the past of being at the forefront of hatred and many representatives of the movement proved to be wolves in sheep’s clothing pushing bigotry and hatred. However, the core of Christian Conservatism yields brotherly love, independent thought, and notions of personal responsibility that would fight the hatred we’re seeing in America today.

In other words, true Christian Conservatism is exactly what the country needs if we’re going to fight bigotry from the extremes, whether it’s the police-hating Black Lives Matter movement or the everyone-hating Westboro Baptist Church. By seeking common ground in the precepts of the Bible to guide the country towards unity, we can finally be where we were always meant to be in leading the nations as a beacon of worldly light. That’s not to say that everyone in the country must be converted into evangelicals. It simply means that with faith-driven leaders fighting for the people, we’ll be able to overcome the challenges that have been created during the Obama administration.

The coming election is a crossroad for the country that represents extreme divergence. The left is polarizing their base further to the left. The right must do the same. It’s time for the nation to choose whether we are going to be a liberal nation or a conservative one. Democrats have no true middle-leaning options with Jim Webb out of the picture. Republicans still have moderates like Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, and John Kasich as possible nominees.

A President cannot push the country towards the extremes in faith or secularism, but the office has the power to shift perceptions as we have seen with President Obama. The only way to correct this course is with a true conservative Christian in the White House.

Ted Cruz Ben Carson



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1kDMbpz

What’s All the Fuss About the Feasts?

If one were to read the Bible without any preconceived notion or idea and hadn’t listened to commentary, theories, another man’s opinion, or modern Christian tradition, then one may be able to actually discover truths not seen before. That is where we are coming from and from that perspective it’s very difficult to understand what the fuss is about.

The topic of whether Christians should observe the feasts is hotly debated by Bible scholars, pastors, and laymen. When looking at Scripture on this topic, we couldn’t find anything that tells us to do otherwise. In fact, our own Messiah kept these things. Paul himself kept the feasts after Jesus’ death. Was it because Paul was required simply because he was Jewish? Was Paul afraid of the Jews and what they might think? Did he not teach that believing gentiles were grafted into Israel?

It seems that although Jesus, His disciples and Paul kept these feasts, Christians have separated themselves. Many Christians are willing to accept the inheritance of Israel, yet they don’t want anything else to do with her, in part for fear of legalism (and rightly so). It is true that following the oral Torah’s ordinances is legalistic and those ordinances were said to be nailed to the cross. However, God’s Laws were never included in the abolishing spoken of by Paul.

Believing that the appointed times of God are only for Israel means that one fails to understand what they truly are. The irony is that one of the portions of Scripture that makes this clear is often used as proof text to declare that the feasts are no longer in play.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.Colossians 2:16-17 (KJV)

Peter said that what Paul said could be confusing, and as we can see in the previous verse this misunderstanding has caused great confusion among pastors and seminaries. To understand, we have to have a clear perspective on the times and the people with whom Paul was speaking. The Colossians weren’t being tormented or judged because they weren’t keeping the feast or because they were keeping Sunday as their worship day. The latter wouldn’t even be introduced to the church for hundreds of years.

Paul is telling the faithful in Colossae that they should let no man judge them because they were following the Law of God. They were keeping God’s feasts and following His Sabbath as the law prescribed and Paul was telling them to continue doing so despite the persecution they would receive. Paul and Jesus both kept Sabbath. They both kept the feasts. These verses confirm this with Paul, but convenient Bible teaching has reversed the teaching to match modern doctrines that are simply not supported by the Bible.

The feasts were specifically said to be a shadow of things to come. For instance, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Passover and Unleavened Bread, First Fruits and Pentecost. He even fulfilled Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) being the blood sacrifice that atoned for the sins of the world. When referring to Passover specifically, Paul said to keep this feast because Jesus was our Passover Lamb, God forbid we forget.

What could be the harm in remembering these things? Didn’t Jesus tell His disciples to “do this in remembrance of Me?” The bread which he took and described as His body was unleavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. The bread Jesus broke of that feast is symbolic in that it is made without leaven (free from sin). This feast was a prophecy of His body being sacrificed so that death would pass over us IF we believed in Him, praise God for His mercy!

These feasts are said by God to be His. They were given as a gift because of His mercy and love, because through them His people were sanctified, purified and forgiven. And through them we can also see that His plan all along was to provide His own Son as a sacrifice for sins, not just for Israel’s, but the entire world. If remembering these things by observing the feasts offends any Christian, then how can any Christian justify any feast or holiday?

With all that said, it is clear through scripture that the observance of feasts isn’t a salvific issue. After the death of our Messiah it became a choice one could make rather than an obligation; just as the Law was written on a man’s heart so that a man would keep them wholeheartedly.

Anyone who chooses to observe the feasts of the Lord should never boast in them or condemn others who don’t. We just don’t see what the argument is. It makes no sense, other than a misunderstanding of scripture.

The post What’s All the Fuss About the Feasts? appeared first on Judeo Christian Church.



via Judeo Christian Church | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1GyTBEi

Friday, October 23, 2015

Jeb Bush is in serious trouble with a sinking campaign

Jeb Bush Sinking Ship

In May, there were already people calling it a near certainty that Jeb Bush would face Hillary Clinton in the general Presidential election of 2016. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders changed things quite a bit with the former doing much more damage than the latter.

Now, Bush is making severe cuts to his campaign finances and changing his strategy to combat what appears to be a sinking ship.

Clinton seems to have recovered nicely after Sanders failed to pull in enough support to push past her in the only Democratic debate and with Vice President Joe Biden deciding not to run. Bush was quickly pushed aside and even demonized by Trump and his supporters. When he would get some traction, another candidate such as Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz would muscle past him.

Now, he’s calling for a lifeline.

His plan going forward is to focus on the early states. Basically, he’s telling his donors that the nomination isn’t as “in the bag” as he thought so he’s going to have to fight for his political survival. This means placing well in three of the first four primaries in February and winning New Hampshire outright. Going into March 1 super Tuesday, he’ll need a good number of delegates or his campaign could be over with losses in Georgia, Texas, and other states that were supposed to be friendly to him.

Even in Florida where he was once governor, he’s dropping staff and expenses.

Those who support Trump, Carson, or Cruz shouldn’t be happy about Bush falling so quickly. He is currently holding the Republican Establishment at bay, but if they jump ship to a stronger candidate, it could mean a tougher fight for conservatives.

The post Jeb Bush is in serious trouble with a sinking campaign appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1kAYgfn

A Facebook Post, a School Board Race, and in Insane Ruling that Spits on the First Amendment

The real problem with cyber warfare: appropriate response to attacks

Drone Strike

Cyber warfare is a relatively new concern for the world, and it wasn’t until recently that many Americans began to question whether our government is prepared for some of the worst scenarios imaginable.

Russia was the first to synchronize cyber attacks back in 2008 with its invasion of Georgia. Finally, in 2009 America decided to establish a Cyber Command and only now have other countries followed. The problem with cyber security is that the threat is not usually well understood and many times the origin cannot be determined. Additionally, the affects of cyber attacks are in many cases not immediately known. But, as we’ve seen in the Russian invasion of Georgia, it is highly effective.

Cyber terrorism is very obscure, and one of the reasons it is so difficult to combat is not knowing how to respond if and when you find out who is responsible. For instance, if a country decides to wage cyber warfare against another, the result of which creates calamity within the targeted country, would any degree of military intervention be justified? In other words, if that calamity is limited to system failures rather than human casualty, then what would be a justifiable response?

Currently there is no systematic response to cyber threats because cyber security has many limitations. Martin Dempsey correctly stated that it is “one of the most serious threats to national security.” Yet, the seriousness of the threat is not what needs to be recognized. It’s the lack of knowing how to respond and who should held accountable.

The post The real problem with cyber warfare: appropriate response to attacks appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1QZPKR6

Thursday, October 22, 2015

J.C. Watts on Equality

J.C. Watts on Equality

Former Republican Congressman J.C. Watts knew a lot about equality. A Democrat in the 80s, he shifted allegiance after seeing what equal rights really needs to look like in America.

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.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1PFdGMc

Kate’s Law Should Be a Standalone Vote

There are a lot of things that Bill O’Reilly says and does that don’t fit with conservative concepts, but when it comes to Kate’s Law, he’s spot on. Republican candidate Ted Cruz agrees, of course, since he’s the one who introduced the bill in the first place. Unfortunately, Mitch McConnell doesn’t seem to agree with O’Reilly and Cruz that Kate’s Law needs to be a standalone bill.

This needs to get passed. There are two ways to get it passed – make it a standalone vote in the Senate or attach it to a “must pass” bill, both of which are tactics supported by Cruz. With the first scenario, the bill with either pass or the Democrats will have to go on record as siding with aggravated felons who reenter the country illegally. The second will get the bill passed as long as it can get attached.

We support the first option. As a standalone, it would most likely pass which is the end goal. It will also expose Democrats who fight the bill for political reasons. Such a bill draws criticism from the left for some of the most insane reasons, even in the left-leaning media. For example, The Atlantic says that it would cause a swelling of the prison system.

Then, there’s the New York Times. This beacon of falsehoods tried to turn the conversation about Kate Steinle’s death into rhetoric about the assailant being the victim. He was a poor homeless man who accidentally gunned down Steinle when a bullet he fired randomly from a gun he had stolen ricocheted. Sadly, the left is embracing this as justification for not wanting to deport aggravated felon illegal immigrants from coming back across the border multiple times.

The most important thing that needs to happen is for Kate’s Law to be passed. If this can happen as a standalone vote that exposes those against the bill as the harmful politicians they are, even better.

Here’s O’Reilly interviewing Cruz on the topic. It should be noted that O’Reilly is not a fan of Cruz, even neglecting in most broadcasts to mention the Senator who introduced the bill but promoting candidates Donald Trump and Ben Carson for supporting it. Obviously we’re not fans of O’Reilly’s pseudo-conservative views but we have to look at everything issue by issue. On Kate’s Law, we stand behind O’Reilly.

The post Kate’s Law Should Be a Standalone Vote appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1jDrXMu

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

With Biden Out, Bernie Sanders is the Only Hope for the Democrats

When Barack Obama took office in 2009, there were tons of Republicans who assumed that his facade would fall, that the country would see him as a bad President soon enough. I didn’t see that. It’s not that I supported him. I simply thought his ideas and personality appealed to the people. I knew it would be hard to beat him in 2012.

This time, the Democrats aren’t looking at a charming, idealistic person as their most likely candidate. They have Hillary Clinton. The silver lining to Republicans if she’s able to win is that she would effectively and quickly demonstrate her incompetence in office. Unlike Obama, Clinton would not be able to win a second term and will set the Democratic party back to the last time they had a one-term President in Jimmy Carter.

Hillary is no Bill. She’s no Barack. She’s an ambitious but ineffective politician. If her name wasn’t Clinton, she wouldn’t even be in consideration.

Bernie Sanders is the candidate that scares me. He’s the Democrat who could win the hearts and minds of the people with his socialist ideas and willingness to attack everything big. Banks and corporations should fear him, which is why the American people will likely love him (at least those in the middle and to the left).

Hillary Clinton isn’t likable. She’s so transparently fake as an individual that even Anderson Cooper asked if she would be willing to say or do anything in order to get into office. That will hopefully shine through in the general election. If the American people, whether Republican, Democrat, or Independent, is able to see her for who she really is, they won’t vote her into the White House.

The lack of Biden or any other viable candidate for the Democrats means that Hillary Clinton will likely get the nomination. This is a coup for Republicans, but it also means that if things get crazy for Hillary, we’ll have a real candidate in Bernie Sanders to battle. That might not end as well.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1XlrI73

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Benghazi Victim’s Mother Still Waiting for Call Promised by Hillary Clinton

For liberals, the Benghazi scandal won’t seem to go away. First, they ignored it. Then, some Republicans gave them a free pass by saying it was a political issue to damage Hillary Clinton. Now, they’re trying to make it about the “damn emails” instead of being about 4 American lives. In the background, one mother still waits for answers.

According to Patricia Smith, mother of the fallen hero Sean Smith, then-Secretary Clinton told her to her face that she would be calling to tell her the story of what happened to her son. That was three years ago and the grieving mother is still looking for answers.

It’s sad that this has been politicized by both parties. This really should be about finding out why the tragedy wasn’t averted, why help wasn’t given, and who all was involved. We know that Clinton was involved but she’s only part of the story. The CIA was reported to be the ones giving the order to US security forces in the area to stand down. What about Congress? What about the President? Nobody has truly been brought to justice to take responsibility for the incompetence and potentially willful negligence that led to the death of the 4 Americans.

Lest we forget…

This isn’t a new request. Smith has been looking for answers for a long time.

The truth needs to be known about everyone involved even more than Clinton’s involvement. We already know what we need to know about her ability to be President. There should have been zero doubt that on the infamous day of September 11, an American asset was attacked and Americans were killed as a result. Clinton’s story was that it was because of a YouTube video. Either she is utterly ignorant and unfit to be Secretary of State, let alone President, or she intentionally lied to cast doubt on the event before the Presidential election. Either way, she should never be even a remote consideration for any American, liberal or conservative, to sit in the Oval Office.

Now is the time for the full story to come out so we can find out where the breakdown occurred and eliminate any possibility of it happening again.

The post Benghazi Victim’s Mother Still Waiting for Call Promised by Hillary Clinton appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1W4kl6X

Senate Democrats Vote for Building Majority Over Protecting American Citizens

Today’s failure by the United States Senate to move forward the bill that punishes sanctuary cities and violent illegal aliens is an undeniable case of Democratic voting majority protection. Their refusal to protect American citizens is an example of the party’s interests superseding the country’s interests.

The vote, which garnered 54 of the required 60 to be able to push it forward, was labeled as “the Donald Trump Act” by Senators who want to demonize anything that could lead to smart legislation about immigration. It’s important to keep this in mind because the details of the bill itself would not have hurt their cause of bringing in as many left-leaning immigrants as possible. It would have opened the door ever so slightly to additional legislation and that’s a risk they weren’t willing to take.

This is “common sense legislation,” a phrase that the left often uses when discussing gun legislation. The difference is that their version of common sense legislation, such as the legislation that was passed following the Sandy Hook shooting, doesn’t really make a lot of sense. Had the laws passed in Connecticut been in place before the shooting, they would have done nothing to stop the tragedy from happening.

The same cannot be said about “Kate’s Law,” a provision in the bill that would have created mandatory five year prison sentences for anyone reentering the United States if they were previously convicted of illegal reentry or of an aggravated felony. Kate Steinle, who was killed by an illegal immigrant that fell into this category, would still be alive if this legislation had been passed before. That’s common sense legislation, but Steinle’s death and the crimes perpetrated in sanctuary cities and elsewhere in the country by illegal immigrants will never move Democrats to act.

“A vote ‘no’ is to say the next time, the next murderer like Kate Steinle’s murderer comes in, we should not enforce the laws, we shouldn’t have a mandatory five-year prison sentence, instead we should continue sanctuary cities that welcome and embrace them, until perhaps it is our family members that lose their lives,” Senator Ted Cruz said.

To Democrats, people like Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez must be protected at all costs.

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez

They’re trying to build a perpetual majority. They realize that the more immigrants they can bring in and legalize, the more loopholes they can create, the easier it will be for them to win back a majority in the Congress and keep a Democrat in the White House. In essence, they consider the victims of illegal immigrants to be acceptable collateral damage for the greater good of progressive causes.

It’s time for the country to enact laws that will protect American citizens. There are ways to properly handle immigration and to expand prosperity of everyone in the country, but blocking common sense legislation that punishes criminals is driven by political motivations that should be disgusting to any law-abiding American including (perhaps especially) legal immigrants.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1LBJonA

Joe Biden was against bin Laden raid before he was for it

Joe Biden

Before Vice President Joe Biden announces whether or not he’s going to run for President, he’s trying to clear up whether or not he supported President Obama’s decision to raid the compound in Pakistan where terror leader Osama bin Laden was killed. His answers to the question that nobody seems to be asking are almost as confusing as his Presidential campaign.

On the record, he, the President, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have said that he was against the raid in the main cabinet meeting about the raid. Now, he’s saying that privately he encouraged the President to go, to follow his instincts.

Just like his Presidential bid, we may never know the real story. Meanwhile candidate Clinton will do everything she can to keep him from throwing his hat in the ring.

The post Joe Biden was against bin Laden raid before he was for it appeared first on Uberly.



via Uberly http://ift.tt/1LmpQpm

Ted Cruz Gets Big Endorsement in the Form of George W. Bush Insults

I’ve always considered George W. Bush the second worst President since Jimmy Carter left office. He made a mockery of conservatism with his idiocy, propelled the country into wasteful wars, tanked the economy, and would have nothing of substance on his resume if it weren’t for the 9/11 tragedy. Only President Obama has been worse. Yes, even Bill Clinton was a better overall President.

With his brother’s Presidential bid tanking, G-dub went on the offensive against Senator Ted Cruz, the man he considers to be Jeb’s “most formidable” rival.

His goal was to bolster his brother’s campaign, but this should act as a rallying call to Republicans that Cruz is the right person for the job. If anything, this should be considered an endorsement just as John Boehner’s attacks were considered a good thing for the Cruz campaign. Other than his support for the military, George W. Bush was a moderate. Sure, he ran as a conservative, but his actions in office included raising taxes, attacking individual freedoms, and empowering the welfare state. Jeb Bush is even more moderate.

I know that a lot of Republicans still appreciate and admire George W. Bush. Despite his incompetence and poor decisions, I always liked his patriotism and I thought his heart was mostly in the right place. However, his attacks on Cruz, while sincere, are a representation of everything that that is wrong with current Republican leadership. Those who want to save the country must stop catering to the whims of the Democrats. If we’re going to turn the country around after 24 years of failed Presidencies, we must turn to conservative concepts delivered by a man who will not bend to the left.

This attack from Bush will not hurt the Cruz campaign. It might help his brother get a little bump from the Republican Establishment, but there’s one key takeaway. Bush recognizes that Cruz, not Trump or Carson, will be the one standing from the conservative lane of the party deep into the primaries. Rather than focusing on that battle, perhaps Jeb should be making sure he’s be the mainstream candidate still standing.

Jeb and George Bush



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1QOL3tq

Monday, October 19, 2015

Ted Cruz on Israeli Relations

Ted Cruz on Israeli Relations

There is one true democracy in the Middle East. There is one true ally to the United States in the Middle East. There is one Jewish state. Israel is not just our best strategic relationship in the region. They’re also the country with which we maintain a kinship in history.

The Obama administration has done everything it can to eat away at this relationship. Ted Cruz, as have most of the Republican candidates, has declared that abandoning Israel is a huge mistake. In January, 2017, our relationship with Israel must immediately improve.

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.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1NRW2V9

Does President Obama Fear Hillary Clinton More than a Republican President?

No, he doesn’t, but it’s probably a closer call than you think. President Barack Obama would love for a Democrat to follow his Presidency to protect his legacy. However, he really hopes that it’s someone other than Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate who could hurt his place in history almost as much as most of the Republicans.

Let’s call it the way that it really is. President Obama clearly never liked President Bill Clinton and even resented the notion that he needed his support to win reelection. The only major Democrat he likes even less is Hillary. Her appointment as Secretary of State was part of a deal to get her support in 2008 and more importantly the support of the powers behind her.

That’s all history that has been covered. Looking to the future, President Obama sees Clinton as the ultimate Democratic threat to his legacy. Being the first black President is a major accomplishment but it would be overshadowed by the first female President. That’s not a huge deal but it’s in the back of his mind. That’s the petty stuff. Now let’s look at what’s real.

As National Review pointed out, Joe Biden would be considered an extension of the Obama mandate while Clinton would be a “new new deal” who would try to overshadow Obama’s Presidency. She is against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (as is Bernie Sanders), already attacked the President’s stance on immigration, and nitpicked about Obamacare. She’s supported his gun control perspectives but would be the President who made them a reality on her own. Biden, on the other hand, would simply be continuing what he had already tried to do with the President.

Most importantly, Clinton is incompetent and the President knows it. He’s seen first hand that she’s not capable of Presidential leadership. Moreover, she will likely blame the trouble’s she’s certain to have on a combination of the Republican Congress and her predecessor’s inability to bridge the gap. That’s right – Hillary Clinton will throw President Obama under the bus and he knows it.

If she absolutely, positively has to be the nominee, he will support her but he won’t like it. Ideally, Biden will run, win, and continue his legacy for a single term. During that time, President Obama will find a suitable replacement to finalize what he started.

Barack Obama Hillary Clinton Can't Be President



via Soshable http://ift.tt/1RRjzEi