The Strident Conservative

Posted By The Strident Conservative on January 25, 2012

At least, that’s the position taken by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver – the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus – in an interview with The Daily Caller.

Following his appearance at Republican Rep. Allen West’s Black Conservative  Forum, Cleaver elaborated on his past comments about Obama’s image in the  African American community, saying, “The point I was making is that black people  hold the president in such high esteem, that they would not dare march on the White House even though unemployment is at 15 percent  and higher and if there was a white president we would do that because we’ve had  white presidents since George Washington.” (emphasis mine)

Of course, playing the race card when it comes to dealing with the Community Organizer-In-Chief has become standard operating procedure for certain leaders in the black community.

• It was Jesse Jackson who claimed that blacks were genetically wired to support Obamacare and therefore CBC members had to support it.
• It was Eric Holder who called America a nation of cowards when dealing with racial issues and it was he who accused those who would question him over Fast and Furious as racist.
• It was Juan Williams who accused Newt Gingrich in the S.C. Republican debates of racist motivations in some of his policy positions.
• And of course, Obama himself – as can be documented from his books along with his political career – has used the color of his skin to deflect criticism his whole life.

Civil Rights Leader, Martin Luther King Jr. – whose birthday was celebrated last week – had an opinion on race that I find appropriate on the topic.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

I’m not sure why the Emmanuel Cleavers of the world haven’t figured this out yet when it comes to dealing with the Anointed One.

Maybe it’s because Obama is half-white. Naw, that would mean that blacks would have to march. . . . . . . . . . . . . . doesn’t it?

 

What others had to say:

• CBC  chairman: African Americans would ‘march on the White House’ if Obama wasn’t black – The Daily Caller
• Black Caucus Leader: We Won’t March Against Obama – Newsmax
• CBC’s Cleaver: We would be ‘marching on the White House’ if Obama weren’t president – HotAir.com
• Alan West Republic

Category: 2012 Election, Congressional Black Caucus, Democrats, Emanuel Cleaver, Jesse Jackson, Juan Williams, Obama, politics, race card, racism, racist, satire, unemployment | No Comments »
Tags: 2012 Election, Congressional Black Caucus, Democrats, Emanuel Cleaver, Jesse Jackson, Juan Williams, Obama, politics, race card, racism, racist, satire, unemployment

Posted By The Strident Conservative on January 24, 2012

When I started this website a few years ago, I wanted to give it a name that was a reflection of my convictions in the world of politics and religion. After I thought for some time on the subject - along with a great suggestion from one of my fellow conservative friends – The Strident Conservative was born.

I chose the word “Strident” because it means to “be sharply insistent on being heard” and “Conservative” – well, as the “about” me page says:

 

Our government has lost sight of the fact that they work for us, not the other way around. Our “leaders” spend money they don’t have, to pay for socialistic programs we don’t need, while practicing a “progressive” liberalism that borders on the same facist premises we haven’t seen since WWII Germany.

Our religious leaders are compromising the true Gospel for a watered-down, psycho-babble message that is more concerned with how you “feel” than whether you are going to heaven or not. They are willing to sacrifice the message of the cross, for a feel good message that believes that “we’re all basically good” and “there are many ways to God.”

And the most frustrating part of all of this is that it seems that no one is listening. The voice of reason has been replaced with the voice of political correctness.

Of course, this is my personal definition, but I believe that it reflects a core set of beliefs that drives me every day as I try to do what I can for the cause of Conservatism and Liberty. However, I learned tonight from the Republican debates that I have been waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off-base.

Mitt-the-flip Romney – the candidate of choice by the Republican power-brokers who love conservatives for their votes and their money, and then sweep us under the rug until the next election – was asked by the Never ending Barack Channel (NBC) moderator what he has done for the Conservative cause, this was his response:

“I raised a family! I’ve worked in the private sector!”

Now, I’m not a genius - a genius is a guy like Norman Einstein (Joe Theismann quote in honor of the upcoming Super Bowl) - but I would think that a RINO Republican candidate from Massachusetts might have had a better answer. You know, things like:

When I was governor, I fought to restrict abortion and protect life – I helped protect the rights of gun owners – I fought to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Of course, he couldn’t say these things, because he didn’t do any of them. Nope, his only Conservative credentials are having a family and starting a business.

Now I may be wrong, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there are alot of Liberals, Moderates, Progressives, etc. who have families and have started businesses. Seems a liberal-to-moderate  Republican would have done a little bit more to pad his resume if he was going to run as Conservative.

All this time I thought I had a fair understanding of what being a Conservative meant. Apparently, all I had to do was start a family and a business.

At least, that’s how Romney defines it.

What others had to say:

• Most Boring Guy Wins Most Boring Debate? – National Review Online
• The Florida Debate: Losers and More Losers – Townhall.com
• The First Florida Debate – Human Events

Category: 2012 Election, conservatives, debates, liberal, liberals, Newt Gingrich, November election, politics, Republican, Republicans, RINO, Romney, satire | No Comments »
Tags: 2012 Election, conservatives, debates, liberal, liberals, Newt Gingrich, November election, politics, Republican, Republicans, RINO, Romney, satire

Posted By The Strident Conservative on January 21, 2012

In a win that has been described as a political earthquake, Newt Gingrich shook up the race for the Republican nomination by pulling of an upset against the “electable” Mitt Romney.

I’m still trying to figure out how a man who loses two out of three primaries is more electable. I guess as a conservative, I’m just not as smart as the Republican power brokers who ordained Mitt Romney before we even got started.

However, I think my friend Erick Erickson over at RedState.com has put his finger on the reason Newt pulled the upset in S.C., and why Mitt is likely to see more nights like tonight.

If you read a lot of the Republican commentary coming out of Washington even before the polls closed, suddenly South Carolina is irrelevant and the hick rubes of the Palmetto state are just petulant children.

Actually, like with Iowa, it is a rather desperate scream to get another player on the field.  It is a red flag.  It is the giant “Danger” sign ahead for the general election.

Newt Gingrich’s rise has a lot to do with Newt Gingrich’s debate performance.  But it has just as much to do with a party base in revolt against its party leaders in Washington, DC.  The base is revolting because they swept the GOP back into relevance in Washington just under two years ago and they have been thanked with contempt ever since (emphasis mine).

Of course, we know that the “base” he refers to are people such as the T.E.A. Party and others who make up the conservative base of the Republican party, and Mitt has made no attempt to work with them. Considering his flip-flop history on issues important to conservatives, it’s easy to see why it would be hard for a man who was left of Teddy Kennedy to woo the base.

Probably more vital to how S.C. voted however is the fact that conservatives refuse to accept an “Obama-lite” candidate again. We had that in 2008 McCain and it not cost us the White House, but it also lost the Congress. To go back to Erick’s analysis:

People are mad as hell they are about to be stuck with another boring, moderate, uninspiring choice that has at best a 50/50 shot at losing to the worst president since Carter. They are flocking to Newt not because they think he’s a great guy, but because right now, he’s the only one fighting for conservatism and GOP voters are looking for a vessel to channel their anger with Obama and their complete disappointment with the GOP establishment which is now embodied perfectly by Romney (emphasis mine).

The Republican Establishment had better wake up!

 

What others had to say:

• Newt Gingrich Wins.  What It Means. - RedState.com
• Earthquake: Newt Defeats Romney in S.C. Rout – NewsMax
• Gingrich  won women’s vote in SC primary, exit polls show - The Daily Caller
• BREAKING: Newt Gingrich Wins South Carolina Primary – Townhall.com
• The R In Romney Stands For RINO – Strident Conservative

Category: 2012 Election, debates, Newt Gingrich, politics, Republican, Republicans, RINO, Romney, satire | No Comments »
Tags: 2012 Election, debates, Newt Gingrich, politics, Republicans, RINO, Romney, satire

Posted By The Strident Conservative on January 18, 2012

███ █████ War █████ ████ ███ ███ is peace. █ ████ ██Freedom ██is███ ███ █████ slavery. █████ █████Ignorance████ █████is██ █ strength███! ███ █████ █ ████ All ██ ████████ █████Hail██████Big███ ███Brother███! ██ ████Obey! **Parts of this comment have been found in violation of H.R. 3261, S.O.P.A and Senate Bill 968, P.I.P.A. and has been censored for your protection.

What others had to say:

•  ██ ████████ █████
•  ██ ████████ █████
•  ██ ████████ █████
•  ██ ████████ █████
• HotAir.com

Category: cybersecurity, free speech, freedom, internet, PIPA, satire, SOPA | No Comments »
Tags: cybersecurity, free speech, freedom, internet, PIPA, satire, SOPA

Posted By The Strident Conservative on January 17, 2012

On a day when America celebrates the life and legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., Juan Williams (proof positive that FOX News is not the bastion of conservatives that liberals believe it to be) decided to celebrate the day by playing the race card in a question he asked in tonight’s Republican Presidential Debate.

He asked Newt Gingrich if he could see why so many people, and particularly  African-Americans, would be insulted by his controversial statements concerning  child employment. He also asked, after making mention that his email account was full of  messages from “people of all races” – not exactly sure how he knows the race of these messages – he wondered if Gingrich’s comments were intended to belittle minorities and the poor.

The question was roundly booed and Newt knocked out Juan with one punch. Oops, did that statement sound like I’m encouraging violence against minorities?

 

What others had to say:

• Gingrich Defends Himself From Charges Of Racial Insensitivity, Gets Standing Ovation - Daily Caller
• Gingrich Defends ‘Food Stamp President’ Comment, Explains How He’d Handle Unemployment Benefits – The Blaze
• Video: Gingrich vs. Juan Williams on the “food-stamp president” – HotAir.com
• Juan Williams Question Booed At Republican Debate – Hot Air Pundit
• Newt Gingrich absolutely obliterates Fox News race baiting hack Juan Williams – Fire Andrea Mitchell
• Do Black Americans Want Pay Checks Or Welfare Checks? – The Neosecularist

Category: 2012 Election, debates, election, FOX News, Juan Williams, Newt Gingrich, November election, race card, racism, racist, Republican, Republicans, satire, unemployment | No Comments »
Tags: 2012 Election, debates, election, FOX News, Juan Williams, Newt Gingrich, November election, race card, racism, racist, Republican, Republicans, satire