Connect with us


As certain as SMOD, the GOP is dead



As certain as SMOD the GOP is dead

If we looked in a telescope and saw a 300-mile-wide asteroid headed right toward Earth’s orbit to smack us in the kisser, we could do the math and determine if it’s really going to hit us. And if we knew it was going to hit us, we could predict with nearly 100 percent accuracy that all human life on the planet would end.

It’s called an Extinction Level Event (ELE).

The GOP looked into a telescope in 2015 and saw Donald Trump. The difference is that the GOP didn’t have to follow an orbital path toward its own destruction. But it did, in a deadly dance with destiny. Mathematically, they knew this was coming: The GOP’s ELE.

I wrote in December 2015:

The final Whig president of the United States was Millard Filmore in 1853.  He marked the death of the Whigs, and the rise of the Know-Nothings.  Today the GOP faces its own death, and the continued success of Donald Trump in the polls reflects the fact that the Republican Party is staring into its own grave.

I wasn’t being prophetic, or demonstrating some Gnostic power to foretell the future. I was just looking in a telescope, the same as anyone else could have done.

Donald Trump’s message resonates with many Republicans because he speaks what most of us know, and doesn’t hold his tongue or make excuses for our elected representatives’ failure to deal with immigration problems over the last three decades our failure to end the rise of Islamic terrorism, and our failure to keep the American economy growing.

But Trump’s promises are nothing but Styrofoam—light-weight and filling lots of volume.  When heat is applied to Styrofoam, it evaporates, leaving a void.  If nothing fills the void, the party will fall of its own weight.  It’s nobody’s fault but our own if Trump destroys the GOP—and he very well could (take this seriously).

I am not the only one who saw it. Susan Wright also observed ELE coming to smack the GOP in the kisser.

I have a different take. The Democrats have already won. They played the game masterfully. Republicans would have never of thought of sending in one of their own, a lifelong conservative, with a solid record of backing socially and fiscally conservative causes and candidates, to register as a Democrat and then run on the Democrat ticket.

And now we know. It has come to pass.

Now is the time for a conservative third party option to emerge. The time has come and to not take this leap of faith may very well consign our nation to certain ruin. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

I only disagree on one point. It’s not desperate to move to a third party. It’s rational, like evacuating from the path of a Category 4 hurricane bearing down on your home. Even GOP legislators are starting to abandon the party. It’s bad, and I believe it’s unrecoverable. It’s an ELE.

The Trump SMOD ELE was perfectly predictable for the GOP. It’s time to move to a different party before everything dies.

Managing Editor of NOQ Report. Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading


  1. Rob

    September 8, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    Some knob has reported every page on your site as unsafe. It must be killing traffic.

  2. Jack Krevin

    September 8, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    Well Happy Trails then, Mr. Berman. I sincerely wish you luck in finding a party a better fit for you political/morally.

    As for myself…where Trump leads us I follow. For good or ill. I owe him that much at least since when I, and others, needed a voice he was the only one who showed up.
    -Respectfully, Jack Krevin

    • Steve Berman

      September 9, 2017 at 4:38 am

      Jack…it’s not me who left the GOP, it’s the GOP who left me. I cannot, could never, follow Trump for Trump’s sake. If he speaks for you on one issue that’s all good and fine. But what happens when he starts speaking against you?

      • Jack Krevin

        September 10, 2017 at 12:09 pm

        I would never ask you, or anyone, to follow Trump against their principals. I spoke only for myself without arguing for or against either position.

        As for if/when Trump “starts speaking against” me? I believe a man must own the result of his actions. Good or bad. I made what I considered the best choice to achieve my goals as I saw them. I still do. If that brings me glory or failure I accept that.

        -Respectfully, Jack Krevin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Roy Moore’s loss does not signal a ‘Democratic wave’



Roy Moores loss does not signal a Democratic wave

Contrary to what the Washington Post claims, there is no “Democratic wave.” Even if there was one, the idea that Roy Moore’s loss in Alabama yesterday was indicative of anything resembling a wave is utterly ludicrous.

More Americans are waking up to the reality that the Democratic Party doesn’t have their best interests in mind. This is why they’re losing membership almost as quickly as the Republicans. As more people become Independents or join the Libertarian, Green, or Federalist parties, it’s a signal that the Democrats are not rising or part of some wave. There is an anti-GOP wave. In the current two-party system, that results in Democratic victories.

The real wave points to the idea that third party and independent candidates can start winning elections in the near future. It may not happen in 2018. It may not even happen in 2020. It will happen at some point. The corruption in both parties is too blatant for them to hold on to their duopoly for much longer.

Regarding Moore, mainstream media has been putting out stories about how improbably his loss was and how ruby red Alabama is a sign of the end for the GOP. Their end may be in sight, but Moore’s loss is not a result of it. The more truthful narrative is that the Democrats barely won by 1.5% against a man accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct with minors, including at least two accusations of pedophilia. Ruby red or not, that doesn’t sound like anything resembling a wave.

The WaPo article below is a pep talk. It’s a rallying cry. It’s an attempt to get the Democratic base excited about its prospects going into the midterm elections. Perhaps more importantly to their narrative is the idea that this is the sign of a trend towards removing President Trump from the White House, whether soon through legal means or at the latest during the 2020 election.

In other words, it’s opportunistic propaganda riding the wave of the Moore loss and trying to pretend it’s a Democratic wave instead.

Democrats did absolutely nothing to win in Alabama. The Washington Post did all the work. Now, the same publication is trying to translate their first big win of 2017 into more victories for their agenda in 2018. They, not the Democrats, are the GOP’s biggest threat until we’re able to mount a formidable challenge from outside of the duopoly.


2018 looks like a Democratic wave’s improbable victory was much more than a rejection of Moore. It reflected a broader trend within the American electorate since the 2016 presidential election. Trump’s presidency has divided Republicans and energized Democrats. As a result, Democrats have made substantial gains in special and off-year elections.

Last month, Democrats won the Virginia gubernatorial election by a larger-than-expected margin. More surprisingly, they made substantial gains in the Virginia House of Delegates, coming close to regaining control of that chamber. At the same time, Democrats were making inroads in special elections across the country, including flipping three GOP-held seats in the Georgia legislature.

Continue Reading


Chip Roy makes the Texas 21st district race much more interesting



Chip Roy makes the Texas 21st district race much more interesting

The diminishing sway and coordination of the various Tea Party factions has had an effect on 2018 GOP primary races. Most of them are Establishment Republicans versus slightly-less-Establishment Republicans. Following the 2016 election season that didn’t treat conservatives very well, they seem hesitant to throw their hats back in any races.

An exception has popped up in San Antonio, Texas. Despite a flurry of Republicans entering the race for the seat of retiring Representative Lamar Smith, a known conservative name has joined the fray. Chip Roy, the former Chief of Staff for Ted Cruz and more recently the director for the Center for Tenth Amendment Action at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, is bringing his distinct brand of conservatism to town.

Chip Roy, former chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz, is running for Congress’s campaign is being staffed by a number of Cruz veterans. They include Jason Johnson, the chief strategist for Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign; John Drogin, the campaign manager for Cruz’s 2012 U.S. Senate bid; and Jordan Berry, another alum of Cruz’s 2012 bid.

Since Smith announced his retirement, more than a dozen Republicans have lined up for the seat. Some of the more prominent names include state Rep. Jason Isaac of Dripping Springs, ex-Bexar County GOP Chairman Robert Stovall and former U.S. Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco of San Antonio.

My Take

This site favors the rise of the Federalist Party, as do I. My attachment to the Republican Party ended last year, but until the Federalists are putting out candidates, I have to jump on the opportunity to support constitutional conservatives like Roy. I’ve followed him since before his stint with Cruz and, unlike some of his former bosses, he’s stayed consistent with his conservative stances. His leadership at the TPPF was exemplary. I’d love to see him in the House of Representatives.

Continue Reading


Food stamps and federalism: Why putting more control in the states’ hands is a great idea



Food stamps and federalism Why putting more control in the states hands is a great idea

Getting Americans in poor financial situations help acquiring the basic need of food has been under the control of the federal government for decades. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the food stamp program, has been been in a continuous state of increase even as the overall fiscal health of the nation has improved.

The USDA has released a promise to push the program towards a federalist solution. By giving more control over the delivery and administration of food stamps to the states, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue hopes to pull more people off the program and down the road to self-sufficiency.

“SNAP was created to provide people with the help they need to feed themselves and their families, but it was not intended to be a permanent lifestyle,” he said.

Details of the move have not been released, but the general theme of the pledge is to bring it in line with federalism. This is a great thing. Here are three reasons why:

Localizing welfare programs improves accountability

As with any federal program, the food stamp program is rife with corruption. Having the federal government dictate how states administer the program takes responsibility away from the states to monitor how it’s all handled.

One of the benefits of localizing government is making people responsible for their own actions. When messes are pushed over to DC for accountability, they can get lost in the mix. Localizing allows people closer to home to ask the tough questions. That’s not to say there’s no corruption in local or state governments, but it’s much easier to identify and sort out when the buck stops locally instead of getting pushed up to the federal level.

Let states innovate as the labs of government

SNAP was intended to be a stopgap solution, but history has proven it isn’t. More people join the food stamp program than leave it. Some of this is due to the direction the economy is going where higher prices of basic living expenses outpace lower end wages. Most of the problems can be attributed to lack of innovation.

The federal government is not known for innovation. It’s just too big.

By applying the basic tenets of federalism to allow states to be the laboratories of government they were intended to be from our founding, we can see a diverse mix of solutions attempted. As some fail, other states can learn from those lessons. As others succeed, policies can be adopted and improved upon based upon those successes. The goals of both the federal and state variations of the agencies should be to help those who need it now by getting them food and in the future by making them self-sufficient. Opening up innovation at the state level is the best way to achieve both goals. This leads us to the most glaring reason we need federalism applied to food stamp (and most other) programs…

DC doesn’t shrink anything, ever

We want fewer people on food stamps. This isn’t just for the sake of taxpayers. It’s for the sake of the Americans in need. There will always be some who prefer to game the system and be supported for their whole lives. There are others who have no choice. However, there are millions who can and should be able to get back on their feet. All they need is a little help.

Washington DC is incapable of this because it goes against the nature of our current federal government system. Until we elect true federalists to enough offices across America, we’re stuck with the Democrats and Democratlites (also known as the Republicans). Both parties have grown accustomed to keeping DC in a perpetual state of growth. For every positive move like this one, there are five more programs getting boosts for no good reason other than earning the current party in power some votes.

What the USDA is proposing is that rare opportunity when a federal agency is relinquishing power to the states. We should take the successes that come from the move and use them as shining examples of how the principles of federalism can be made to work better than the current big-government system that rules over just about everything in DC.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.