Connect with us

Featured

Salon Magazine: ‘MAGA, Christians Bigger Threat to America than Hamas’

Salon Magazine: 'MAGA, Christians Bigger Threat to America than Hamas’

(ConcernedPatriot.com) – According to a recent Salon article that is receiving a lot of backlash for its “gross” claims, today’s Republicans and Christian nationalism pose a bigger threat to the US than Hamas, which has carried out numerous terror attacks, including the most recent massacre that claimed the lives of over 1,000 civilians.

After the bloodiest attack on Jews since the Holocaust by the Nazis, an essay in Salon Magazine declared that Christian supporters and MAGA Republicans posed a “bigger threat” to the United States than did the terrorists from Hamas.

Playboy’s former senior White House writer Brian Karem is a columnist.

His essay, “MAGA and Christian nationalism: Bigger threat to America than Hamas could ever be,” was published on Thursday.

https://twitter.com/Salon/status/1720108596585713705?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1720108596585713705%7Ctwgr%5E048b5fdc2b31698ff2336f989a375bdc7fdec009%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fpolitics%2F2023%2F11%2F02%2Fsalon-magazine-maga-republicans-christian-nationalism-bigger-threat-america-hamas%2F

The essay begins with a warning that the globe “inches closer to a war that only psychopaths want to see,” painting a bleak picture of the current political landscape while contrasting the threat of Christian nationalism and the MAGA movement in America against the terrorist organization Hamas.

In contrast to external terrorist threats, Karem contends that the Republican Party’s radicalization and internal conflicts, as exemplified by individuals such as newly appointed Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, represent a larger threat to American democracy.

He writes, “While the world burns, Johnson and the MAGA wing of the Republican Party are embracing the darkest verses of the Bible, apparently pushing for the apocalypse with enthusiasm only rivaled by Saul’s slaughter of Christians before he changed his name to Paul. They seem to have swallowed the evangelical movement while also embracing it (a T-1000 morphing into Sarah Connor is just about the right image).”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s attempt at a bipartisan response to the risks posed by artificial intelligence is one aspect of the article’s larger political background.

But even members of the GOP who support aid to Ukraine, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), are becoming less and less popular, he says, since they despise collaboration.

Conversely, he asserts, the MAGA faction—now headed by House Speaker Mike Johnson—is committed to establishing a Christian theocracy.

He writes, “The House of Representatives, now led by Johnson, offers a discounted version of the cataclysmic orgasm the religious fervent have long fantasized about.” “They seem intent on turning the United States into a theocracy ruled by people who will thud you with the Bible, but they haven’t read much of it,” said the person who revived the Inquisition.

Furthermore, he charged that Republicans and their adherents only accepted “the angry God of the Old Testament and the apocalyptic parts of Revelation brought on by ergot poisoning.”

Such Republicans, in Karem’s words, “want no separation of church and state.”

He claims they appear “hellbent on returning to the Middle Ages, driven there by the first Christian nationalist House speaker,” and that they “want an isolationist country surrounded by walls and dedicated to the proposition that the First Amendment guarantees them the right to worship any way they want— while forcing the rest of us to worship the way they choose.”

Additionally, he asserts that contemporary Republicans don’t give a damn about the potential for theocratic challenges to freedom.

“They take great pleasure in being sly. He writes, “They are content to play games with a government shutdown—the current equivalent of fiddling while it all burns—and detest freedom of opinion and independence.

The veteran White House correspondent ends by discussing President Joe Biden’s declining popularity as well as the nation’s larger problems, which range from climate change to the possibility of mass violence and political unrest.

Many people responded by expressing their displeasure about the article on social media.

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and the owner of X (previously Twitter), said, “Good grief.”

The most significant terrorist attack in Israel’s history was carried out by the U.S.-designated Islamic terror group last month.

The group’s radical ideology led to the operation. The group’s charter openly calls for the slaughter of Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state through relentless jihad.

In an attack last month, some 2,500 terrorists broke into Israel via land, sea, and air. They opened fire on attendees of an open-air music festival.

Others went door-to-door in search of Jewish men, women, and children living in nearby towns, who were subsequently subjected to rape, torture, execution, self-immolation, and kidnapping.

The attack was similar to scenes from the Nazi Holocaust.

Within the Jewish state, the attack claimed the lives of nearly 1,400 people, injured over 5,300 more, and captured at least 242 hostages of all ages.

Numerous Americans are among the many civilian victims, who make up the great majority of the casualties.

The GOP was referred to as the “world’s largest white supremacist” organization and a “de facto terrorist organization” in an essay published in the progressive magazine last year.

In a previously published interview, Salon described “the Republican fascist movement” as “objectively evil” and charged “white Christians” with endorsing fascism, terrorism, falsehoods, and white supremacy.

Copyright 2023. ConcernedPatriot.com

Continue Reading

Featured

Former Democrat Tops NH Trump VP Poll

tulsi-gabbard-speaks-during-cpac-conference

In an electrifying and unexpected development, a new poll from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center reveals that former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii tops the list of preferred running mates for former President Donald Trump. This strategic choice underscores Trump’s commitment to broadening his appeal and strengthening his base with an unconventional but highly effective candidate.

Tulsi Gabbard, who initially ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, courageously left her party two years later to become an independent. Now, she emerges as the favorite among nearly a quarter (24%) of New Hampshire voters who are not supporting President Biden. Gabbard’s ability to connect with a diverse electorate and her staunch opposition to the far-left agenda make her a powerful ally for Trump.

Gabbard’s support stands seven points ahead of biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, indicating a strong preference for Gabbard’s unique blend of political independence and principled leadership. This shows that voters are looking for leaders who are willing to stand up against the establishment and fight for American values.

Ramaswamy, along with other notable figures like Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have endorsed Trump, yet Gabbard’s lead suggests a deeper resonance with voters seeking a fresh and unifying voice. Her conservative principles, military background, and dedication to freedom and the Constitution make her an ideal running mate for Trump.

Trump’s consideration of Gabbard is a testament to his strategic thinking and commitment to broadening his appeal. Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq War and an officer in the Hawaii National Guard, brings a wealth of experience and a compelling personal story as the first Samoan-American elected to Congress. Her transition from a progressive Democrat to an independent has been marked by her steadfast dedication to fundamental freedoms, resonating with many conservatives who feel disenfranchised by the current political climate.

In a Fox News town hall in February, Trump hinted that Gabbard was on his short list for running mates. Her praise for Trump, acknowledging his resilience and willingness to fight against the Washington establishment, underscores a shared commitment to challenging the status quo and defending American values against the encroachment of socialism and government overreach.

Gabbard’s familiarity with New Hampshire, a crucial swing state, adds another layer of strategic advantage. Her presence in the state during her 2020 presidential run and her support for Republican candidates in 2022 have cemented her popularity among voters who are tired of the same old politics and crave genuine change.

By considering Gabbard as a running mate, Trump demonstrates his ability to think outside traditional party lines and appeal to a broader coalition. This bold move could be the key to uniting the nation behind his campaign, bringing together a diverse group of voters eager for a leader who prioritizes American values and freedoms.

As the 2024 election approaches, the prospect of a Trump-Gabbard ticket promises an exciting and dynamic campaign. This powerful combination of leadership, experience, and dedication to conservative principles is poised to capture the imagination and support of Americans from all walks of life, ensuring a strong and united front against the progressive agenda threatening our nation’s future.

 

POLL: Would you support Tulsi Gabbard for VP?

 

Continue Reading

Featured

SCOTUS Sides With “Three Strikes” Laws in Support of Second Amendment

usa-national-flag-waving-wind-front

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on May 23 in favor of the federal government in a case pivotal to the enforcement of a federal three-strikes gun law aimed at ensuring repeat offenders are appropriately penalized. This ruling reinforces the principle that those who repeatedly break the law, particularly with violent felonies or major drug offenses, should face stringent consequences, thereby protecting law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Justice Samuel Alito, a stalwart defender of constitutional principles, authored the majority opinion in Brown v. United States, consolidated with Jackson v. United States. In a remarkable alignment, the decision saw a blending of ideologies, with one liberal justice joining the majority and a conservative justice siding with the dissenters. This highlights the importance and clarity of the case beyond traditional ideological divides.

Federal law rightly prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) of 1984 was a significant step to address the disproportionate number of crimes committed by repeat offenders. The ACCA mandates a 15-year minimum sentence for individuals found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm if they have three or more prior convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies committed on separate occasions.

The recent Supreme Court ruling ensures that the severity of the law remains intact. It emphasizes that sentences under the ACCA should be based on the laws in effect at the time of the original convictions, maintaining the law’s integrity and original intent to deter habitual criminals. This is a win for those who believe in the Second Amendment and the rule of law, ensuring that dangerous individuals are kept from undermining our right to bear arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett stood firm in the majority, reflecting their commitment to upholding strict penalties for career criminals. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined parts of the dissent, showcasing the robust debate within the court. Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known for their liberal leanings, also contributed to the discourse.

Justice Alito’s opinion clarified that the ACCA’s requirement for a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence remains for those convicted of illegal firearm possession if they have a history of serious drug offenses or violent felonies. The definition of a “serious drug offense” includes state crimes that carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years and involve a controlled substance as defined by the Controlled Substances Act.

Alito highlighted that state crimes qualify as serious drug offenses if they involved a drug listed on federal schedules at the time of the original conviction, not based on any subsequent changes to those schedules. This prevents loopholes that could otherwise allow habitual offenders to evade justice based on technicalities, thus preserving the stringent measures intended by the ACCA.

The government’s interpretation aligns with the ACCA’s objectives, focusing on the inherent risk and seriousness of certain offenses likely committed by career criminals. This approach ensures that those with a history of significant drug or violent offenses face enhanced penalties, protecting society and upholding the sanctity of the Second Amendment by ensuring firearms do not end up in the hands of dangerous individuals.

Justice Jackson’s dissent argued for applying the drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearms offense, a perspective that the majority rightly found unconvincing given the ACCA’s clear intent and context.

This ruling follows the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in March 2022’s Wooden v. United States, affirming that multiple convictions from a single criminal episode do not count as multiple under the ACCA. The current deliberations on Erlinger v. United States, which question whether a judge or jury should decide on the application of enhanced sentencing, continue to underscore the Court’s dedication to ensuring fair yet firm justice.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision is a significant victory for the pro-Second Amendment community, reinforcing the importance of strict penalties for repeat offenders. This decision ensures that the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms are protected by keeping firearms out of the hands of those who pose a danger to society.

 

Supreme Court: Illegal Immgrants Can Be Detained Without Bond

POLL: Do you support this ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States?

 

Continue Reading

Featured

HILARIOUS: Biden Not On the Ballot in Ohio… Yet

polling-station-sign-on-election-day

In a delicious twist of irony, President Biden—who has tried to block former President Trump from appearing on ballots in several states—might himself be excluded from the Ohio ballot come Election Day. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued this hilarious warning on Tuesday, showcasing yet another instance of Democratic incompetence and hypocrisy.

Despite receiving weeks of warnings from LaRose’s office and the state legislature, the Ohio Democratic Party has hilariously bungled their way into potentially disqualifying Biden from the ballot. LaRose, a Republican, pointed out that the Democratic Party has yet to offer any solution that complies with existing law.

Ohio’s election law requires parties to certify their presidential candidates at least 90 days before Election Day. But in a move that screams “amateur hour,” the Democratic Party plans to certify Biden at its national convention in Wisconsin on August 19, just 75 days before the election—blatantly flouting the law.

“I’ve said from here to Colorado that it’s in the best interest of voters to have a choice in the race for president. I’m also duty-bound to follow the law as Ohio’s chief elections officer,” LaRose stated, barely containing his exasperation.

“As it stands today, the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee will not be on the Ohio ballot. That is not my choice. It’s due to a conflict in the law created by the party, and the party has so far offered no legally acceptable remedy,” he continued, likely shaking his head in disbelief.

“The Ohio House speaker said today there won’t be a legislative solution, so I’ve sent a letter to Ohio Democrats’ chair seeking (again) a solution that upholds the law and respects the voters. I trust they’ll act quickly,” he finished, probably chuckling at the absurdity of it all.

Ohio Democrats previously floated the idea that Ohio could accept a “provisional certification” for Biden’s candidacy, but LaRose quickly shut down this laughable suggestion, pointing out that state law makes no such allowances.

LaRose emphasized that either the state legislature must change the law to allow Biden’s certification, or the Democratic Party must get its act together. Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens, another Republican, bluntly stated that lawmakers won’t bail Biden out. “There’s just not the will to do that from the legislature,” Stephens told reporters, likely with a smirk.

Even Democratic Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo couldn’t hide her frustration with her own party’s ineptitude, stating, “We’ve seen the dysfunction here in this place. And I think we’ve seen that folks have not been able to put aside partisanship and hyper-partisanship and infighting.… I think at this point, you’re probably going to see either, you know, some sort of inner party effects or perhaps court action.”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine assured voters that Biden would be on the ballot come November, arguing that if the legislature doesn’t act, then it’s “going to be done by the court.”

Ohio Democrats have yet to respond to LaRose’s Tuesday letter. The irony of Biden’s predicament—potentially being excluded from the ballot while having sought to exclude Trump—is nothing short of poetic justice. This fiasco is a fitting testament to the chaos and mismanagement that has become the hallmark of the Democratic Party.

 

us-president-joe-biden-gives-thumbs

POLL: Will Biden be the Democrat nominee in November?

 

Continue Reading

Trending