PODCAST: Not Everything Is Political With Jake Tapper

As part of our podcasting here at The Resurgent and with my radio show, I do conversations in which I talk to people in and around politics about things that are not political. On today’s podcast, I talk to Jake Tapper about cartoons. Jake wanted to be a cartoonist growing up. It didn’t work out and he transitioned from cartoons to writing to being in front of a camera.

If you want to subscribe to the podcast you can text the word SHOW to 444999 for links to Apple iTunes and Google Play or just search for The Erick Erickson Show in your favorite podcasting app.

Mark Cuban Would Run as a Republican for President

In an interview with Fox News’ OBJECTified host and TMZ publisher Harvey Levin that aired last night, billionaire investor and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban said he may run as a Republican against President Donald Trump in 2020.

Levin asked him if he’d run as a Democrat or a Republican, to which he answered “Republican.” He also noted that he is “fiercely independent.”

“Probably Republican,” he said. “Because I think there’s a place for somebody who is socially a centrist, but I’m very fiscally conservative, but I think there’s better ways now to make governments smaller.”

“Again using technology, government as a service can have a dramatic impact on how we live our lives,” he added. “If you don’t understand technology and you don’t understand the impact it has on jobs that technology is having and will continue to have, then you’re gonna run into some severe roadblocks.”

Cuban has been highly critical of President Trump. They have regular back-and-forth spats on Twitter. Earlier this year, Cuban told CNN to view President Trump’s tenure as “political chemotherapy.”

In the past, Cuban has taken both conservative positions and not-so conservative positions.

In 2014-2015, he communicated his discontent with net neutrality laws. In contrast, last fall he said paying higher taxes is the most patriotic thing a wealth person could do. Hmmmm. Conservatives will wonder how he will reconcile these contrasting issues if he touts fiscal conservatism.

Speaking of technology, Cuban has signed on to an interesting venture: the Mercury Protocol. Here’s more about it:

Modern communication is outdated. Centralized communication platforms built on private servers are only as secure as their weakest defense, user privacy is habitually violated as service providers sell behavioral data to advertisers, and content is restricted to a single platform.

The solution is the Mercury Protocol, an open-source project for communication platforms to utilize decentralized blockchain technology at minimal cost. Any communication platforms that integrate the Mercury Protocol will be able to exchange messages and content, increase user privacy through pseudonymity, leverage tokens to encourage user participation, and provide stronger network security than any private system that has a single point of failure.

 

This actually looks really interesting and forward-thinking.

Cuban is also noteworthy for his involvement with Shark Tank, which is a highly addictive show if you’ve watched it. Cuban and his fellow “sharks” are at times ruthless to aspiring entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, they help launch people to success.

It’ll be interesting to see if Mark Cuban is testing the waters or simply teasing the American public with this exclamation to run for president. Time will tell.

 

Why Do The Liberals Rage?

“All of civility depends on being able to contain the rage of individuals.”  Joshua Lederburg

That America is in the midst of turmoil seems an obvious understatement. Anger, resentment and vitriol is escalating exponentially, rumor,  conspiracy and scandal appear to lurk around every corner.

As summer recedes into a gloriously beautiful fall, a look back at the last six months shows a time of hostility not seen in our country for some time. That the conservative populist community on the right is angry is undeniable. This anger isn’t new, it has grown from a simmer to a full boil over the last decade or so.

This is anger grown from frustration, frustration of the common U.S. citizen over excessive government regulation, and over the growing stench from the swamp in our nation’s capital. It is anger that comes when hope for the future dims, and when aspirations for one’s children seem too much of a mountain to climb.

Where many writers have erred is in conflating this anger with the happenings on the liberal social justice progressive left. Since the election of President Trump, liberals have morphed from resentment, resistance and anger into rage. Boundless, unlimited full-blown rage.

A rage which has manifested itself into physical violence against those who disagree, judicial violence against the constitution, and immoral violence against centuries of our closely held and cherished Judeo-Christian ethic. It is this rage which is so bewildering at times.

It’s high time to ask ponder the origins of this rage. It is a gross oversimplification to cast this as an anti-Trump thing. The White House changes hands every eight years, and we’re all accustomed to that change, in fact we expect it.

I believe this rage emanated from the hope based on the previous presidency. Former President Obama attempted to fundamentally change America as we know it. He made no secret of it, he bowed to foreign leaders, he fomented racial and class divides, his administration flouted the rule of law and the constitution in a myriad of ways, not the least of which was open borders, and socialized medicine.

The liberal mindset coming into the 2016 election cycle was one of a predetermined path for our country. Hillary would win, and would continue the America leftward movement, would continue to build upon the liberal’s hostility to conservatives, and use a heavy hand to protect any and all liberal gains.

Liberals believe they are better then conservatives and the common citizen. They believe we are a bible-thumping, football loving, tobacco chewing basket of deplorables who lack the intellect to understand what is best for us. They burn with white-hot anger over losing power, and the privileges that go with it. Their belief in central government is all-encompassing, and they believe we ought to trust their hand at the helm of the federal ship. Which means the following:

Their rage is understandable once you realize their God is the federal government. They bow down to the alter of an all-knowing, all-seeing federal seat of power upon which their Queen Bee was supposed to reign.

It wasn’t and isn’t President Trump the person, it is President Trump the Destructor.  It is Justice Gorsuch tilting the court to the right, it is Tillerson reforming the State Department, it is Scott Pruitt completely revamping the EPA, Rick Perry righting the Energy Department ship, Betsy DeVos championing charter schools, and Jeff Sessions’s insistence on the rule of law and a secure southern border.

The liberals see their gains in abortion, and gay and trans rights being thwarted in legislation and in the courtroom, they understand fraud at the ballot box is being challenged, and they no longer have access to the easy money Obama illegally provided via the Treasury Department.

It is as if a crowd has thrown a rope over the statute of their god and has toppled it to the ground. Make no mistake, they hate us for this rebellion against their god. They bubble over with a malevolent rage, and will stop at nothing to stem the conservative populist tide before its too late.

This is why Antifa is allowed to thrive regardless of their thuggish violent activities. This is why the MSM or Democratic Congressional leaders won’t condemn this terrorist group. Don’t be misled, Antifa is actually their military arm. It attacks without reason, accuses all who resist and believes only in their cause.

This is why Hillary was so protected and worshipped, even though she and Bill are so very flawed. It is why Hillary never understood “Its my turn” was such a losing proposition. They can’t fathom the deplorable not comprehending the role of federal government and in turn worshiping at its throne as well.

This is also why Democratic leaders continue to appease the fringe left even though poll after poll shows that to be a losing solution. No longer are they content to hide their true colors, no longer are they interested in compromise, instead they take pride in being “The Resistance”, and as a result have obstructed in every way imaginable.

King David in Psalm 2: 1 ask this simple question:

“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?”

You see, the people’s rage, and the devising of futile and empty schemes isn’t new. When through several generations, a people trade respect for God’s law and His church, and a genuine sense of shame, for a false god and overt lawlessness; this rage is inevitable.

1 Kings 18 details the wonderful story of Elijah challenging the false prophets of King Ahab, pitting them against the one true God. Just as the false prophets were worked into a rage as the impotence of their false god Baal was exposed, so liberals today burn with the same rage at all who would deny the omnipotence of their federal god.

This rage exist where there is no grace and ultimately no hope. It is a rage built upon the importance of self, and is woefully lacking in love for others. It is the prideful hubris of social justice rather than the works of kind and faithful stewardship. It is joyless, empty and dark, built upon shifting sands presenting a perilous future.

Yes it’s true, we are in an age of rage. But we don’t have to succumb to that same destructive rage. We can be angry and yet have hope and love. We can demand change and yet have patience. Also, and most importantly, we can preach truth to power and still have love.

It would be far better to have civility in our political discourse, sadly though for now, the people rage. However, as the Psalmist King David answered in verse 4:

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

Suddenly, The U.K. Wants the UN to Believe Women Aren’t People

For 41 years, the UN had in place a treaty that protected pregnant women from the death penalty. And for 41 years, women were people. But now, the brave new worlders across the pond have discovered a shocking fact: Women aren’t people.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is up for a rework, because we all know that UN international agreements on civil rights are always followed to the letter and everyone in the world is completely protected by them. Sorry, I can’t help myself from the sarcasm.

In the ever-so-politically-correct chambers of Whitehall, those who study these agreements word by word have determined that the term “pregnant women” does not offer sufficient protection for all the possible people who can be pregnant. So they have suggested “pregnant people,” so as not to “exclude transgender people who have given birth.”

This buys into the lie that a man could possibly carry a child to term in his uterus and give birth. In the last 41,000 years, or the last 41 years, men have not developed the ability to grow a uterus. Men do not have physical, biological bodies that could nurture, carry, or birth a child. It has always been, and continues to be, impossible.

So what we’re talking about is women with gender dysphoria, who dress and act like men, even taking male hormones to grow facial hair, who also stop those hormone treatments, revert to their natural state, become impregnated (by a biological man), carry and birth a child. The U.K. word-pickers want the UN and all the countries that give International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights due consideration before denigrating and enslaving women to use the correct terminology.

They want to validate those nations where women are treated like second-class citizens by acknowledging that women have even lost the ability to perform their unique biological function of giving birth and nurturing the young. It’s not women who become pregnant, it’s people with uteruses, which could now include men with women’s reproductive organs.

At least one feminist has retained her sanity on this.

“This isn’t inclusion. This is making women unmentionable. Having a female body and knowing what that means for reproduction doesn’t make you ‘exclusionary.’ Forcing us to decorously scrub out any reference to our sex on pain of being called bigots is an insult,” said feminist author and U.N. commentator Sarah Ditum.

Well said. The more these “gender” lines are erased, the more that women, violence against women, and human trafficking can be ignored and sacrificed to the gods of political correctness.

Women around the world experience gender-based violence at incredible rates. According to the United Nations’ own numbers, 35% of women worldwide have experienced some form of sexual violence; 750 million women and girls were married before their 18th birthday; 120 million girls were raped before they were 18; 200 million have experienced female genital mutilation; and women and girls account for more than 71% of humans trafficked across the globe.

These pencil pushers in London really need to check their priorities. If they really cared about protecting “pregnant people” from violence, they’d stop trying to say women aren’t people.

Signs Point To Democrat Wave Building For 2018

2018 is shaping up to be a year of great uncertainty. What will happen to Obamacare? Will tax reform become law? What of the myriad investigations of Russian interference in the election? Along with these questions, there is growing doubt about the Republican Party’s ability to hold its congressional majorities in the 2018 elections.

Josh Kraushaar of National Journal writes that many House Republicans are “increasingly alarmed” that Republican congressmen in vulnerable seats are not doing the fundraising work that is needed to defend themselves from Democrat challengers.

“Of the 53 House Republicans facing competitive races, according to Cook Political Report ratings, a whopping 21 have been outraised by at least one Democratic opponent in the just-completed fundraising quarter,” Kraushaar writes. “That’s a stunningly high number this early in the cycle, one that illustrates just how favorable the political environment is for House Democrats.”

Among the Republicans Kraushaar mentions by name are Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.), who only raised about a third as much as his leading Democrat rival, John Culberson (R-Texas), Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) and Leonard Lance (R-N.J.). These seats are all rated as “lean Republican” by the Cook Political Report, but the incumbent Republicans are falling far behind Democrat challengers in fundraising.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who has been criticized for his support of Vladimir Putin and Russia, has only $600,000 in the bank according to the report. His Orange County, California district is in an expensive media market where much more advertising money will be needed. Rohrabacher’s seat is currently rated as a tossup.

Adding to the Republican finance problems are primary challenges from the right. Rohrabacher will be facing a Republican primary challenger in addition to a Democrat in the general election. Former White House strategist and sometimes Trump supporter Steve Bannon is supporting primary challenges to many sitting Republicans.

Republicans currently hold a 46-seat majority in the House of Representatives. If Democrats can win 23 seats, it would tip the balance of power in the lower chamber. Per the Cook Political Report, Republicans currently have 12 tossup seats in the House. This includes two open seats in Washington and Michigan. An additional 23 seats lean Republican, but this includes the four seats mentioned earlier where the Republican incumbent is likely to be outspent by large margins.

In contrast, Cook only rates three Democrat seats as tossup. These are all open due to retirements. Six seats lean Democrat and one of these is Florida’s 27th congressional district where a Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, is retiring.

In fact, Ros-Lehtinen is only one of 18 House Republicans who have announced their plans to retire in 2018. Cook’s David Wasserman notes that so far only four of these retirements are in vulnerable districts, but, with a months to go before the primary season starts, that could change.

In the Senate, things are a bit more solid for Republicans. The only two tossup seats are Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Dean Heller (R-Nev.). Democrats have three seats rated as tossups (Donnelly in Indiana, McCaskill in Missouri, and Manchin in West Virginia) so they would have to run the table to bring the Senate to a tie. In that case, Vice President Pence would cast the deciding vote on legislation, but Republican bills would be even more vulnerable to defections by mavericks like Rand Paul (R-Ky.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The reason for the Republican fundraising slump is likely two-fold. Donald Trump’s popularity is not good. This is especially true in swing districts held by vulnerable Republicans. Some Republican incumbents may be tainted by their association with the unpopular president.

Even among Republican voters, the current Congress is not popular. The failure to pass any sort of Obamacare reform bill cemented the perception of a do-nothing Congress. A CNN poll last month showed that twice as many Republican voters support the president as Republican congressional leaders.

As the congressional stalemate has become more apparent, Republican donors have closed their wallets. The party is pinning its hopes for 2018 on the success of tax reform since it has few other accomplishments to show for its majority. A senior House Republican strategist said that he expects many more Republicans to retire if tax reform fails.

It is far from certain that Democrats will take control of the House in 2018, but current trends are not looking good for vulnerable Republicans. If the Democrats win control of the House, it would fundamentally change Donald Trump’s presidency as the Republican takeover of the House in 2010 did for Barack Obama. More ominously for President Trump, a Democratic majority would open the door for a possible impeachment.

Austin Peterson Attacks Never Trump Movement And It Backfires

In trying to get Trump people on his side to vote for him in Missouri’s U.S Senate election, Austin Peterson decided to go all in on the Trump kool-aid and attack conservatives who were apart of the Never Trump Movement by calling them, “Neo Cons” and “Trotskyites”. He also accused them of supporting Hillary.

 

 

 

 

This caused many reactions from those who were part of the Never Trump movement and I have to say, it doesn’t end well for Peterson:

 

I am not sure why Peterson thought this was a good idea. Attacking Never Trump folks will only make it harder to win the senate seat.

Most importantly, it’s sad to see people like Peterson throw their principles just for the votes.

 

 

 

New: Myeshia Johnson Says Trump ‘Made Me Cry Even Worse’

The widow of US Army Sgt. La David Johnson has finally broken her silence about the phone call she received from President Donald Trump. Reports that the president was disrespectful in the phone call set off a controversy about the treatment of Gold Star families last week.

Myeshia Johnson appeared on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Monday morning to give her side of the story. The appearance is the first time that Mrs. Johnson has publicly spoken about the controversy although Sgt. Johnson’s mother had previously corroborated claims by Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Fl.) that Trump’s comments during the call had upset the family.

Mrs. Johnson spoke with ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos in a recorded interview. Johnson said that the president called as they were arriving at Dover AFB to meet Sgt. Johnson’s body. She asked that the phone speaker be turned on so that other relatives could hear.

From the ABC News transcript, Mrs. Johnson tells what happened next:

“The President said that he knew what he signed up for, but it hurts anyway. And it made me cry ‘cause I was very angry at the tone of his voice and how he said he couldn’t remember my husband’s name. The only way he remembered my husband’s name is because he told me he had my husband’s report in front of him and that’s when he actually said ‘La David.’ I heard him stumblin’ on trying to remember my husband’s name and that’s what hurt me the most, because if my husband is out here fighting for our country and he risked his life for our country why can’t you remember his name. And that’s what made me upset and cry even more because my husband was an awesome soldier.”

Johnson said that after the call she was “very, very upset and hurt” and that “it made me cry even worse.” She added that Rep. Wilson was a longtime family friend and that her claims about the content of the phone call were “100 percent correct.”

Mrs. Johnson also said that she has questions about the circumstances of her husband’s death in Niger. “I want to know why it took them 48-hours to find my husband,” she said, adding that she was never allowed to view her husband’s body.

“They just told me that, um, it was a massive gunfire and my husband as of October 4th was missing, they didn’t his whereabouts,” Johnson said. “They didn’t know where he was or where to find him and a couple days later is when they told me that he went from missing to killed in action. I don’t know how he got killed, where he got killed or anything.”

Myeshia Johnson said that she intends to keep pushing for answers about her husband’s death and that she “want[s] the world to know how great of a soldier my husband was and [what] a loving and caring father and husband he was to our family.”

“He died as a hero,” she said.