Here are a few stories about Nikki Haley, and at the end, I’ll tell you who should vote for her.

First one, this is new from this week, reported in the Washington Examiner:

Many Republicans envisioned Haley as a viable alternative to the current front-runner, former President Donald Trump, for voters in the Republican primary. Yet such hopes could be dashed after an absolute clunker of an appearance by Haley on Fox News on Tuesday. The former South Carolina governor declared her support for eliminating anonymous accounts and unverified users on social media platforms. And, without stating where such power would actually come from, Haley also announced, as one of her first acts as president, she would force all users to be verified.

“When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms. Let us see why they’re pushing what they’re pushing,” Haley said during an appearance on Fox News. “The second thing is every person on social media should be verified by their name.”

[…]@NikkiHaley comments on Fox News on Tuesday should raise red flags for all Republicans. One cannot be the party of freedom & all things good in the country but declare an intent to eliminate anonymous political commentary.

This one is also new, from yesterday, reported in The Daily Caller:

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley met with several Wall Street executives in a series of events Tuesday in her bid to be the Republican nominee for president, according to the Financial Times.

Haley attended a small meet-and-greet breakfast in New York where CEO of BlackRock Larry Fink was in attendance, followed by a fundraiser later in the day co-hosted by Gary Cohn, former president of Goldman Sachs, according to the FT. BlackRock has been criticized by conservatives in recent years for its adoption and promotion of Environment, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG) policies, which aim to invest in companies based on their commitment to social and environmental causes.

“Let’s call ESG what it really is: corporate socialism,” Haley’s campaign said in a previous statement to The Hill. “What we need is capitalism and not businesses caving to the left. When they do, everyone loses.”

Republican-led states, like Florida and Texas, in opposition to BlackRock’s use of “woke” ESG investment, have pulled their money from the investment firm. Altogether, Republican-led states pulled almost $4.5 billion from the company in 2022.

This one from the far-left Washington Post:

“I saw something on the internet that said you gave China thousands of acres of land in South Carolina. Why would you do that?”
— audience member asking a question at a Haley for President town hall in Boone, Iowa, Oct. 9

“Don’t believe what you read on the internet. … We didn’t sell any land to the Chinese. But, yes, I recruited a fiberglass company.”

— former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R), in response

In her campaign for president, Haley has warned repeatedly about Chinese investments, including land purchases, in the United States. Yet as governor from January 2011 to January 2017, she recruited Chinese companies to her state. Chinese capital investment in South Carolina more than doubled from $308 million in 2011 to nearly $670 million in 2015.

The audience member asked whether she “gave China thousands of acres of land.” She answered that “we didn’t sell any land to the Chinese,” specifically mentioning a fiberglass company.

This is political sleight of hand — denying something that was not asked.

The fiberglass deal did not involve the sale of land — but that’s because the company received almost 200 acres of county-owned land free of charge if promised investments were made. By our count, Chinese companies received about 1,500 acres while Haley was governor, much of it through land sales, despite her denial at the town hall.

Another one, from The Iowa Standard talks about her tweet about George Floyd, who is now known to have died from a drug overdose, and who had a long, long criminal record.

Nikki tweeted:

“WE SPENT THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS CELEBRATING OUR SON’S GRADUATION. TONIGHT I TURNED ON THE NEWS AND AM HEARTBROKEN. IT’S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEATH OF GEORGE FLOYD WAS PERSONAL AND PAINFUL FOR MANY. IN ORDER TO HEAL, IT NEEDS TO BE PERSONAL AND PAINFUL FOR EVERYONE.”

More from the article:

Tucker took exception to Haley’s declaration that it needs to be “personal and painful for everyone” in order for healing to happen.

“Really, why’s that,” Carlson said. “And of course, what happened next was personal and painful for everyone. Our cities burned down. A lot of people died. And I thought, ‘Why should what happened between a cop and George Floyd outside a convenience store in Minneapolis be personal and painful to anybody else? What are you even talking about? Oh, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re trying to please the people whose opinions you actually care about at The New York Times.’”

Another one, from the Washington Examiner:

[…][B]ack in 2020… it was initially reported that someone had tried to racially intimidate NASCAR driver Bubba Wallace by allegedly “placing a noose” in a garage Wallace was assigned to before a race in South Carolina. Quicker than one could say, “Start your engines,” Haley rushed to condemn the supposed act of hate even while the incident was under investigation before anyone had all the facts.

‪“We should all stand with @BubbaWallace today against the cowards who secretly put the noose in his garage stall,” Haley posted on Instagram. “Watch your back cowards. Bubba has a bigger army than you do. #HateWontWin #WeStandWithBubba.” ‬

But there weren’t any cowards. No army was needed. The story was bogus and not a hate crime. No one “secretly put the noose in his garage stall.” It was just a regular garage pull that had been there long before Bubba Wallace was assigned the garage. Haley didn’t have to make such a statement. She could have waited until all the facts were known.

[…]At a time when she could have shown the country how principled, strong, and tough she was, Haley bought the Left’s narrative, caved, and rushed to do her best CNN or MSNBC anchor impression.

Who should vote for Nikki Haley? Anyone who would also vote for Hillary Clinton. She is the Hillary Clinton of the Republican party. Always putting her foot in her mouth trying to pretend to be something she’s not, and never apologizing for any of it.

It seems like every day now we are seeing how dangerous it is to let no-STEM-degree secular leftists run the police and federal law enforcement. In this post, I look at a couple of recent articles showing you how bad it’s getting.

First one, from Daily Wire… it’s Matt Walsh:

Two years ago, a woman named Shayla Workman was driving in her car with her two children, aged 3-years-old and 1-year-old, near an apartment complex in Nashville, Tennessee. That’s when a man in his 20’s, Shaquille Taylor, opened fire. He shot the roof of the car at least two times as Workman drove away. The attack was not random. In fact, the motive couldn’t have been clearer: Workman had recently testified against, “Someone he cared about.” What was that man’s crime? As Workman put it, “His brother was locked up for shooting at me initially in May.” A few months later, on August 2nd, Taylor found Workman at the RiverChase apartments and also started shooting at her: “The bullet hit the top of my car and bounced off. Had I not been driving, it would’ve gone through the window and shot my son in his head.” Authorities then arrested Taylor, and he confessed.

[…]Shaquille Taylor, after shooting at a moving vehicle with a mother and her children inside, apparently in retribution for that woman’s testimony in a criminal proceeding, did not go to prison for the rest of his life. He didn’t receive any kind of lengthy prison sentence at all, for that matter. Incredibly, Shaquille Taylor never even went to trial. Instead, in May of this year, less than two years after he started shooting at Shayla Workman’s car, Shaquille Taylor was released from jail and his charges were dismissed. The judge who made that decision was Angelita Blackshear Dalton, who happens to be a Democrat and the first black woman elected to a judgeship in her county.

[…]It didn’t take long for the consequences of the judge’s decision to become very clear. A week ago, on Tuesday — just about six months after his charges were dismissed — Shaquille Taylor shot and killed an 18-year-old freshman music student at Belmont University named Jillian Ludwig.

There’s a video about the woman in the article:

More:

That report — and most reports on this case — manage to undersell Shaquille Taylor’s criminal history. The shooting incident involving the mother and her children happened two years ago, but it wasn’t the only serious crime that Taylor committed. According to the local news channel, WSMV-4, “Taylor’s background also includes charges for vehicle theft, robbery, handgun possession and multiple aggravated assault charges. One affidavit … said he shoved a man to the ground .. back in 2015 before stealing money from him. Taylor’s most recent aggravated assault charge was in May of this year, but the District Attorney’s Office did not prosecute.”

[…]Speaking of that career, just a few weeks ago, on September 21st, Taylor was arrested in a grocery store parking lot driving a Ford-150 that had been carjacked a couple days earlier. Prosecutors charged him with felony auto theft, but then a judge let him out of jail on just $20,000 bond. This is after he shot at the mother in her car, and after he was caught in the stolen F-150. Of course, Taylor then missed his court appearance, and went on to kill a college freshman.

Will the judge who released this career criminal face any consequences? Probably not. The judge is a woman, and a minority, and the motto of America these days is “don’t judge”. In fact, “don’t judge” is probably how this judge got through her non-STEM degrees, and onto the bench. According to her bio, “Judge Dalton… received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English from Lane College in 1993 and her Juris Doctor Degree from the University of Toledo College of Law in 1997.” ENGLISH.

I’m a visible minority too, but my degrees are STEM degrees – in computer science. You can’t get out of STEM programs by parroting the opinions of your woke professors. You have to do math. You have to write code that compiles and runs. You have to read requirements. You have to solve problems.

Here’s another example from yesterday:

I guess the lesson for conservatives here is “don’t live in a blue city, in a blue county, where your law enforcement is chosen by far-left billionaire George Soros.” Your education, career, and finances all have to be carefully chosen in such a way as you don’t live in a place that is run by the “don’t judge” people. They won’t protect you from evil, even though you are paying their salaries with your taxes.

Next article. This is from the New York Post:

The gunman who killed Texas SWAT Officer Jorge Pastore in a shootout that also left two hostages dead was wearing body armor and night vision goggles — and was on the FBI’s terror watchlist, according to reports.

He was on the terror watchlist, but why was he allowed to commit a crime? Oh, maybe it’s this:

[…][A] local organization called the Round Rock Area Muslims said they were all family members of a “beloved brother” who was well-known in the local community.

They were mom Eman Ahmed El Nemr-Nassar and two of her sons, Ahmed Mohammed Nassar, 35, and Riad Mohamed Nassar, 32, according to a group member’s since-deleted post shared by the Daily Mail.

Just like the law enforcement in Britain, our law enforcement does not want to enforce the law, if they will appear to be “racist”. After all, the top priority of the Biden administration, in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attack, is cracking down on “Islamophobia”. After all, according to the Biden administration, the real criminals are concerned parents and elderly pro-lifers. Those are the REAL “domestic terrorists”, Democrats say. And we are paying their salaries. Is it worth it?

Be careful where you live.

I’m a proud evangelical Protestant who thought very highly of Pope Benedict. But I don’t like Pope Francis at all. In this post, I will link to two recent stories that explain two of my reasons, although I have many more beside these.

First one, reported in NewsMax:

Conservative Catholics have launched a barrage of challenges to Pope Francis before a big Vatican meeting, with five cardinals demanding clarifications on same-sex couples and other issues, and a women’s group saying only men should vote at the event.

The cardinals from Asia, Europe, Africa, the United States and Latin America said on Monday they had sent the pope a set of formal questions, known as “dubia” (“doubts” in Latin), about the gathering.

In an open letter to Catholics, they said they had announced their challenges “so that you may not be subject to confusion, error, and discouragement but rather may pray for the universal Church.”

The action was the latest latest clash between the pope and minority conservatives, who have accused him of undermining a number of traditional precepts.

And I thought this was very interesting:

Church leaders have been preparing for this week’s closed-door meeting – known as a bishops synod – for the past two years, asking Catholics around the world to share their vision for the future of the Church.

Topics will include the role of women, greater acceptance of LGBT Catholics, social justice and the effects of climate change on the poor.

Conservative Catholics are definitely unhappy:

Last week, the conservative U.S.-based Catholic women’s group Restore Tradition decried the fact that women were given a vote at the meeting equal to that of a cardinal or bishop, saying some of the women had advocated “heretical doctrines” against tradition.

“We wish to be represented only by bishops,” the group said, citing “divine law” that only men could receive sacramental ordination.

The international conservative group, “Tradition, Family and Property,” sent participants a 100-page booklet calling the gathering a dangerous “Pandora’s Box.” In the forward, Burke says he fears the synod will sow “confusion and error and division.”

As a Protestant, I know that when denominations move away from the text of the Bible, and cater to the feelings of the “don’t judge” compassion crowd, then doctrine gets watered down. That’s the way it is in mainline Protestant denominations, and that’s why their numbers are declining, while conservative evangelical Protestant churches are thriving.

While the Pope is very friendly to the secular left on social issues, conservative leaders in the Catholic church are getting punished.

Church Militant reports:

Pope Francis has removed a Texas bishop from his office, a move shocking many in the Church.

[…]Known by some as “America’s bishop,” Strickland is one of the few U.S. Catholic bishops to be vocal in his support for the Church.

He was the only U.S. bishop to attend the June 16 protest against the Los Angeles Dodgers for the team’s support of the blasphemous Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. It created something of an embarrassment for L.A. Abp. Jose Gómez and his auxiliary bishops.

Strickland was also outspoken against COVID mandates, which were promoted by Catholic leaders. (Where is that in the Bible?)

Strickland is not the only one:

Pope Francis does have a record of removing bishops who claim to be merely following the Catholic faith.

In March 2022, Pope Francis ousted Daniel Fernández Torres as bishop of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, because he allegedly “had not been obedient to the pope, nor had [he] had sufficient communion with [his] brother bishops of Puerto Rico.”

Torres refused to sign a joint statement urging the moral obligation of COVID-19 vaccinations, a stance he defended as a conscientious objection recognized by the Church. The bishop noted, “I have opposed what I consider to be using episcopal ministry to advance political agendas.”

He was disobedient to the Pope, so he had to go!

I have some friends who are conservative Catholics, and I’m so curious to know how they see their commitment to that organization shaping up in light of these changes. As a Protestant, I pick the denomination that adheres most closely to the teachings of the Bible. But conservative Catholics seem to be stuck with this Pope. What will they do now?

I wrote a post previously explaining why I am not a Roman Catholic.