Conservative Actor Nick Searcy Slams Obama For National Prayer Breakfast Remarks


A conservative-leaning actor slammed remarks made by President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last week. The president has been criticized across the spectrum since he made the remarks.

The president made the following comment last week:

Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.

Actor Nick Searcy slammed the president on Twitter Sunday. Searcy currently stars in FX’s Justified, and has appeared several films including Cast Away, One Hour Photo, and Moneyball.

02112015_Nick Searcy_Twitter

Conservatives have not been the only ones to admonish Obama for what he said. Andrea Mitchell of NBC News lambasted the president on Meet The Press Sunday.

You don’t use the words Crusades, number one, in any context right now. It’s just it’s too fraught. And the week after a pilot is burned alive, in a video shown, you don’t lean over backwards to be philosophical about the sins of the fathers. You have to deal with the issue that’s in front of you or don’t deal with it at all. Talk about faith.

Speaking Monday on Fox News’ Hannity, Star Parker called the president’s words “verbal rape,” while former Fox News host and former Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas asserted that everything Obama does “is against what Christians stand for, and he’s against the Jews in Israel.”

The one group of people that can know they have his undying, unfailing support would be the Muslim community. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s the radical Muslim community or the more moderate Muslim community.

h/t: TPNN


This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

It’s Easy As ABC: Anybody But Bush Or Christie

Facebook/Jeb Bush

With 21 months until the 2016 presidential race, the GOP field of candidates is large and impressive. Approximately two dozen prominent Republicans have expressed an interest in running for President. Most of the candidates are strong conservatives with solid credentials. Unfortunately, the field also includes two well known moderates, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who both have the ability to raise large sums of money and become a major factor in the upcoming election.

The most serious establishment candidate is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is the odds on favorite to secure the presidential nomination. Bush is actually leading in the polls with the most name recognition. With a brother and father who served as President, Jeb Bush will be difficult to beat.

In recent weeks, he has been aggressively working to lock up big donors and key activists. His campaign organization has been growing so steadily that it forced former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to exit the race. In early January, Romney announced to a small gathering of donors that he was interested in running for President a third time. However, when he started trying to build a campaign network across the country, Romney realized that Jeb Bush has already signed up many of the top GOP contributors and consultants. Romney soon came to the realization that he could not raise enough money to seriously challenge Bush for the nomination. Thus, three weeks after floating a trial balloon expressing interest, Romney officially decided not to run for President.

Bush is a good man from a good family; but he is wrong on an array of issues such as taxes, immigration, and common core. He made the ludicrous comment that Romney lost in 2012 because he ran too far to the right. The country does not want or need another person with the last name of Bush as President. Even Barbara Bush admitted as much in an interview last year. Unfortunately, too many big Bush donors do not realize this fact, showing how seriously out of touch they are with real Americans.

For those moderates who are not enamored with Bush, they have a viable alternative: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is currently in Europe trying to burnish his foreign policy credentials. Christie met with Romney last week, as the former Massachusetts Governor left the race. Christie is considered a moderate on social issues such as gay marriage. He is soft on immigration and has supported the Dream Act. In addition, Christie is a strong supporter of strict gun laws, which may be popular in New Jersey but is likely to be very unpopular in the South. Sadly, like Bush, Christie is just wrong on too many issues.

The moderate wing of the Republican Party, otherwise known as the establishment, has controlled the GOP nomination process since the Reagan years. This wing of the party is usually at odds with the more conservative or grassroots wing of the party, which is often associated with the Tea Party movement. Most moderates view the Tea Party activists with disdain and will work tirelessly to prevent a conservative from achieving the nomination in 2016.

The problem with this scenario is that the moderates are very successful at winning the Republican Party nomination, but horrible at winning the presidential election. As evidence, we can view the failed presidential campaigns of George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. The last true conservative who won the Republican nomination, Ronald Reagan, won a 49 state electoral landslide.

If the Republican Party wants to win the White House again, a conservative needs to be nominated for President. This should be a foregone conclusion, but it is a subject of much debate within the GOP. The establishment wing of the party believes that only candidates like Bush and Christie can reach the Independent voters who are in play for every presidential election. In contrast, only a conservative nominee can reach the blue collar Reagan Democrats who are not typically Republican voters and unite the various groups within the party such as libertarians and evangelicals. Only a conservative presidential nominee will be able to draw a sharp distinction with a liberal Democrat candidate, such as Hillary Clinton, on the critical fiscal, social, and foreign policy issues that will be addressed in the campaign.

In 2016, it will take a strong conservative to win the White House for the GOP and defeat the Democrats. By the next election, our country will have suffered through eight years of a dangerously liberal President. It will be essential for a true conservative to become our next President and rebuild our economy and bolster our national security.

Conservatism works as a framework for both governing and winning elections. Hopefully, a majority of Republican Party voters will come to this realization in time to save their party and, more importantly, save their country.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The Globalization Of Conservatism

Photo Credit: Kianoosh Raika (Flickr)

In our American society that is divided into the supposedly opposing ideologies of conservatism and liberalism, we cannot benefit from either ideology unless we understand what they really are, not just what they are asserted to be. The American brands of conservatism and liberalism are very different from their traditional, historical forms. Throughout most of the world, conservatism has historically sought to conserve the existing political and social order. What that traditionally meant was to protect the existing autocratic rulers such as monarchs, despots, and religious hierarchies. This is the historical context of Europe and most of the world. Liberalism, on the other hand, traditionally has sought to elevate the rights of individuals above the powers of rulers and is thus generally opposed to conservatism. In modern, international news stories, conservatives might be ayatollahs or dictators, while liberals might be professors or journalists. In that non-American landscape where the word ‘republic’ is often a euphemism, the ancient struggle in which liberalism is good and conservatism is evil still prevails.

Traditional liberal ideas created the rights and liberties of the Enlightenment that the founders of the United States embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Thus, traditional liberalism honored the rights of individuals, while traditional conservatism honored the power and stability of strong government.

At the time of the American Revolution, Americans were divided into revolutionaries, being traditional liberal, and loyalists, being traditional conservative. After the Revolutionary War, the remaining conservative loyalists melded with the liberal winners. Thus, post-Revolutionary War America was traditional liberal. The modern division between American conservatives and American liberals grew out of the politics that followed.

In the early 1800s, an element of that traditional liberal society sought to preserve the strict constitutional rights of individuals and enforce the strict constitutional limitations on the Federal Government. They came to be known as conservatives. They sought to preserve the existing American political structure of minimum government and maximum freedom. Thus, a segment of traditional liberals evolved into American conservatives, who were actually more liberal than the remaining traditional liberals. Those remaining liberals had opted for a stronger government, a traditional conservative position. Such expansion of powers was, however, clearly beyond the intent of the ratifiers of the Constitution as documented in detail by writings of the ratification period.

American conservatism hearkens back to American founding principles. Unlike traditional conservatism, its heroes are not kings, emperors, and popes. They are Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and Madison. These were all liberals in their era because they rose up against the monarchists of Europe who tried to transfer their monarchies to the Americas.

They forged their liberal principles into the United States of America, the only nation rising out of the colonies of the Americas that rejected the traditional roles of ruler and ruled. In the process, they upended the definitions of liberals and conservatives. Those revolutionary liberals, whom American conservatism honors today, believed in personal freedom protected by a strong—but tightly limited—government.

Modern America is immersed in globalism to a degree that early Americans could never have imagined. Part of that global culture is to see conservatives as the evil past and liberals as the hope for the future. As the view of American conservatism has been globalized, the evil features of global, traditional conservatism have fouled the image of American conservatism.

Now here is the irony of the conservative/liberal divide in America. Liberalism hearkens back to those same heroes and those same principles of the conservatives, but with one important difference: personal freedom is not protected by a strong but tightly limited government, but simply by a strong government—strong enough to achieve the perceived goals of liberalism—in a perfect world where we need not fear government. But the world is not perfect, and this less-limited government is destroying the “deal” that We The People had with government leading up to the ratification of the Constitution.

As strong as our Constitution is—including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments—the very concept of a tightly limited, “federal” government has been lost in the two-century struggle for control of the unprecedented, American wealth-generating machine. The concept of limited powers was not just an issue of the Constitution; it was the issue. It was, in fact, the issue of the entire American Revolution.

Since the 1770s, American conservatives and liberals have swapped their core principles. American conservatism today stands for the traditional liberal values of personal freedom with a minimal, decentralized federal government. American liberalism stands for the same values but with a stronger, far-reaching national government. This evolution has taken place slowly without many people, especially the younger generations, being aware of the shift.

The transfer of the limited-government principle from the liberals to the conservatives, plus the maligned image of those conservatives promoted by modern liberal institutions, have led to our present condition of an out-of-control national government.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

New Startup Says Rand Paul Is Most Conservative Candidate

Photo credit: circulating (Flickr)

A new startup ranks potential 2016 presidential candidates as the most conservative and the most liberal based on their donors, what they have said, and their issue positions. The startup ranks Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. as the most conservative and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as the most liberal.

Crowdpac was founded by researchers at Stanford University. Their mission is to categorize candidates based on these publicly available criteria: money, speech (what the candidates actually say), and voting history. From their site:

In analyzing the patterns of who gives to whom, our data model is able to make inferences about the issue positions of both candidates and donors. Additional information on candidates’ personal contributions made to other campaigns are incorporated to improve the model’s predictions.

 “To calculate scores on specific issues for incumbent candidates, we use congressional voting records,” the group adds. “For non-incumbent candidates with no voting record, we compare their donors with the donors of incumbents.”

The scale is rated left to right – 10L to 10C – with moderates receiving a zero in the middle. Paul is the most conservative with a score of 10+C, followed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, with 9.7C. Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin scored a 7.8C, followed by former Governors Rick Perry of Texas and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas with 6.9C and 6.2C, respectively.

Former Governors Jeb Bush of Florida and Jon Huntsman of Utah are towards the moderate end of Crowdpac’s scale, scoring 4.2C and 3.0C. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie received a 2.5C

Sanders is the most liberal with 8.3L. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., was close behind with 8.2L, though Warren recently stated she will not seek the Democratic nomination in 2016. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton scored a 6.4L, while former Governor Martin O’Malley received a 5.3L. Vice President Joe Biden scored a 4.4L.

Photo: Crowdpac

Photo: Crowdpac

h/t: The Daily Signal

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

David Limbaugh Destroys Leftist Sally Kohn’s ‘Inconsistent’ Stance On Religious Freedom

Twitter/Veritas Seminary ‏

Conservative author and commentator David Limbaugh responded to a recent Twitter post by his ideological antithesis with a series of pointed rebukes.

Leftist activist Sally Kohn shared her take on liberty and religion in the same post, prompting Limbaugh and others to point out the apparent hypocrisy of her stated position.

Talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh’s brother suggested that her stated support of freedom does not jibe with the attempt many social leftists make to muzzle outspoken Christian conservatives.

Limbaugh went on to assert Kohn feels entitled to treat conservatives with disdain because she believes her views are superior. It is that mentality, however, that he cites as evidence of her hypocrisy.

Limbaugh’s remarks were seconded in numerous other comments, including one by another prominent conservative commentator, Steven Crowder, who pointed out the inherent differences between fundamentalist practitioners of Islam and Christianity.

h/t: Twitchy

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom