Connect with us

Opinions

If only someone had warned them…

Published

on

If only someone had warned them

Nobody saw this coming?

The man who could switch his perspectives at any point in his life, who went from gun bans to pro-2nd Amendment, from partial-birth abortion supporter to pro-lifer, from “deport them all” to “the softening” back to hardliner and now back to caring about the DREAMers… how is his shift on DACA suddenly surprising to anyone?

It shouldn’t be.

Donald Trump DACA Immigration Reform Deal | National Review

https://www.nationalreview.com/morning-jolt/451362/donald-trump-daca-immigration-reform-dealGee, if only someone had been around in 2015 and 2016, to warn these poor folks that Trump had no ideological principles; that he was erratic, mercurial and quick to seek out scapegoats; that he had almost no knowledge about how the federal government worked and little interest in learning; that he was temperamentally ill-suited to the daily pressures of the presidency and the inevitable criticism from the press, and that he was more focused on gratifying his own ego and feeling an abstract sense of “winning” than particular policy outcomes or building broad coalitions to enact his agenda . . . Read more…

Democrats

An open letter to those who are truly Liberal

Published

on

By

An open letter to those who are truly Liberal

First of all, a sincere apology for your treatment from those on the Right who use the term Liberal as a pejorative.

Despite the fact that there is a vast difference between the words Liberal and Leftist, many on both sides still confuse the terms. So, by way of an introduction, let us run through the basics to clarify our terms.

1. The fundamental debate in politics is between individualism and collectivism.

The individualist considers the rights and freedoms of everyone on an individual level. The collectivist considers rights and freedoms in terms of the collective ‘good’. The individualist favours individual Liberty as in the right to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness’. The collectivist is only concerned about these values in terms of groups or collectives. The individualist values each and every person in and of themselves, the collectivist values each person by what they can contribute to the collective.

By example, the individualist considers the right of self-preservation an individual right. The collectivist considers this to be – you guessed it – a collective right.

2. Politics is also a division between those who desire control over others and those who do not.

This was expressed by author and Engineer Robert A. Heinlein as follows:

“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein

There are those who do not care about controlling others, while there are others who lust for this power.

The first general category simply want to live their lives with minimal interference from the government. The second general category are those who want to manage others and control their lives. It logically follows that Individualists would fall into the first general category, while collectivists would fall into the second category.

3. Freedom is trampled as government expands.

As Thomas Jefferson [and founder of the Democratic Party] stated it:

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

It should be self-evident that as government grows in size and power, individual Liberty decreases. The historic record shows this to always be the case. It logically followers that those truly imbued with the precepts of Liberty would oppose government expansion.

Individualists have little desire to control others, preferring Limited government to protect Liberty.

Collectivists want control others preferring the destruction of Liberty with expanded government.

How do these three points compare with the definitions of the words Liberal, Conservative and Leftists?

By definition, Liberals favour ‘individual rights and freedoms’ and ‘individual liberty, free trade’ are individualists. They have lot in common with Conservatives who favour ‘free enterprise’ and ‘private ownership’.

Conversely speaking, Leftist political philosophies are collectivist. By definition, those favouring ‘socialist views’ [Collectivism] are on the Left.

So why is this important?

Simply put, those who are truly Liberal have much more in common with Conservatives than the Left. True Liberals and Conservatives are individualists by nature, without much in the way of a desire to control others. These are people who want the government to be limited since that is the only way to maximise Liberty.

Leftists on the other hand, are collectivists by nature, desirous of control over the people who prefer expanded government over Liberty.

It is important to point out these fundamental principles since they clearly differentiate Liberals and Conservatives as on the political right from those on the political Left. Everyone needs to understand these precepts with regard to where they truly belong. For far too long, the Left has co-opted the term Liberal – a word based in freedom – for their designs in power. As is the case with their many other labels and talking points, their exploitation of that label is 180° Degrees out of phase with reality.

Those of you who are truly Liberal need to rejoin your allies in Liberty on the Right.

Frankly speaking, the Left has been lying to you over the decades. While they talk a good game about freedom and civil rights, they act in the opposite manner. Consider their actions:

  • They have worked tirelessly to undermine our individual Liberties of free-speech, freedom of the press, the right of self-preservation and even due process and the presumption of innocence.
  • Meanwhile they have asserted more and more sovereignty over the lives of ordinary Americans down to strict controls on their property to the types of drinking straws they can use.
  • This while they seek to expand government power to unheard of levels with total control over your health care and other ‘free stuff’ that will only serve to set everyone in their servitude.

The Left is the biggest threat to the cause of Liberty at present, those who value this important cause are realising this to be the case and are jumping ship, hence the burgeoning #WalkAway Movement. While many in that movement talk of leaving Liberalism the case presented shows that this isn’t entirely the case. Leaving the Left actually means rejoining the Liberal cause.

Ask yourself: Do you want to stand with the ochlocracy of the Left or the rationality of the Right?

The #WalkAway movement has seen many leave the Left for good, having become fed up with it’s irrationality and mob rule. Do you want your name to be connected to the increasingly violent rhetoric, If not actual violence from the Left?

Recent studies have shown that far-Left activists are a small percentage of the population, while the overwhelming majority are tired of it’s antics. Rejoining those who value Liberty will put you in the majority, instead of with a small segment of the population who value collectivism, political power and expansive government that is destroying Liberty.

Despite their overwhelming advantages in dominating the culture, media and government indoctrination [Public education] system the Left has been on a losing streak. They are down to the desperate measures of trying to control speech along with other Liberties – despite their labeling as well as threatening violence.

Do you condone these actions? If you do not, then you should #WalkAway.

If you truly value individual rights and freedoms, as well as free trade, then you belong with those who have these in common. The Far-Left political minority does not hold these values as important, so why should anyone be a part of it?

Continue Reading

Democrats

Three terrible decisions this week exemplify why Democrats keep failing

Published

on

Three terrible decisions this week exemplify why Democrats keep failing

Keep in mind, it’s only Tuesday. We still have three awful decisions by Democrats to discuss. In fact, “awful” or “terrible” just aren’t strong enough to describe how bad these decisions were.

It’s been my contention that since the mid-90s, Democrats have been trending away from sensibility and towards unhinged lunacy. At the time we thought the Clinton administration was going too far, but let’s be fair. Outside of his sexual deviations, they weren’t pushing the crazy ideas of today’s Democratic Party. Socialism wasn’t even a consideration. The 2nd Amendment was relatively safe, Brady bill aside. Economic growth was strong (in large part because of the internet). Crime was low.

No, I’m not defending Bill Clinton’s presidency. I’m simply suggesting we thought it was so far to the left at that moment, but his actions were clearly moderate compared to the far-left lurch we’re seeing today.

It isn’t just the policy shifts. Their styles of campaigning and governing have gone completely bonkers ever since Barack Obama took office. Since Sunday, we’ve seen three glaring examples of extremely poor decisions that are indicators of two undeniable truths.

They are lost in their leftist lunacy and they don’t even know it.

Here are the decisions that exemplify the path of today’s Democratic Party.

Sunday: 60 Minutes “interview” is a bickering battle

There’s one thing leftist mainstream media hasn’t learned for some reason. If they let the President answer questions, as they did during the 2016 primary season, he will say things that either don’t match reality or that paint him into a corner. It seems like every set of questions, whether at a press conference or interview, turns into an attempt by the “journalist” to debate the President rather than let him answer the question.

Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes Sunday was no exception. If anything, it was a shining example of how the press handles the President. Not a question went by where she didn’t interrupt his answer or challenge him in some way. It was a stark contrast to the first time President Obama took was interviewed in the Oval Office.

There’s one glaring difference between 60 Minutes’ interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

http://noqreport.com/2018/10/14/theres-one-glaring-difference-60-minutes-interviews-presidents-obama-trump/“Journalist” Lesley Stahl spoke over the President multiple times. If you watch the entire interview, you’ll see that this happened throughout. She would ask a question, most of which were attempts at “gotcha” responses, then would interrupt the President any time he didn’t give the answer she was wanting.

Now, compare that to the interview in the early days of the Obama administration.

Some may attempt to argue that mainstream media is not part of the Democratic Party. To this, I eloquently reply, “LOLOLOLOLOLOL.”

Monday: Someone told Elizabeth Warren releasing her DNA test was a good idea

It started off as a real winner for the Democrats when headlines started popping up that Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) had released a DNA test conducted by an award-winning scientist that demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that she had substantial Native American heritage. Mainstream media started pushing the story immediately. Leftists cheered.

Then, things started coming to light. First, the initial report required a correction because their math was off. This highlighted the possibility that she is only 1/1024th Native American, which is actually below the national average. Then, it was revealed that the test couldn’t confirm actual Native American heritage, but that the results could have revealed a distant ancestor from South America.

Things were looking pretty bad as social media started taking her bold declaration and mocking it profusely.

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA proof that she’s at least 1/1024th Native American. Twitter responds appropriately.

http://noqreport.com/2018/10/15/elizabeth-warren-releases-dna-proof-shes-least-11024th-native-american-twitter-responds-appropriately/The test shows she is at most 1/32nd Native American if she is six generations from her Native American ancestor. That’s her best-case scenario. At worst, her ancestor was as far back as ten generations which would make her 1/1024th Native American. To put that into perspective, if she were to honor her heritage by engaging in 1/1024th of a four-hour Native American Sweat, she’d be in and out of the lodge in 14 seconds.

Okay, so it may not have been a great idea to release the results. Instead of backing her claims in the past that she’s part Native American, they seemed to refute them. Democrats started pointing in other directions, including the President’s promise to give $1,000,000 to a charity of her choice if she could prove she had Native American ancestors.

It was a good ploy, but then the hammer dropped on the whole thing.

Cherokee Nation responds to Senator Warren’s DNA test

https://www.cherokee.org/News/Stories/20181015_Cherokee-Nation-responds-to-Senator-Warrens-DNA-test“A DNA test is useless to determine tribal citizenship. Current DNA tests do not even distinguish whether a person’s ancestors were indigenous to North or South America,” Cherokee Nation Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said. “Sovereign tribal nations set their own legal requirements for citizenship, and while DNA tests can be used to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual, it is not evidence for tribal affiliation. Using a DNA test to lay claim to any connection to the Cherokee Nation or any tribal nation, even vaguely, is inappropriate and wrong. It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven. Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

Someone gave Warren really bad advice by telling her this will get her in the spotlight and help her launch her presidential campaign. Whoever it was should probably give up on being an adviser. This was a bad idea that could be seen from a mile away.

Tuesday: Heidi Heitkamp outs sexual assault victims in an ad without getting their permission

The singular purpose of an ad placed in the Bismarck Tribune was to showcase that Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) was sensitive to victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape. Moreover, it was intended to show that her competitor, Kevin Cramer, was not.

Her campaign wanted it to appear they had reached out and were assisting these 127 survivors of abuse. The problem is they weren’t helping these survivors and they didn’t reach out to many of them. Some went to social media to voice their outrage of being outed by a United States Senator to the public. A few claimed they weren’t even victims. At least one said she’d never heard from Heitkamp nor did she support the Senator.

This should have been extremely easy. Do what you claim by reaching out, getting feedback, and offering support to women. 127 is a lot of people to contact, but it must be done if that’s what your ad claims you’re doing. Instead, the campaign failed to do the most basic tasks of actually contacting the people they claimed they contacted. It’s turned into a major debacle.

Heidi Heitkamp just blew her reelection hopes to smithereens

http://noqreport.com/2018/10/16/heidi-heitkamp-just-blew-reelection-hopes-smithereens/“Sexual assault is a serious crime – and one that too many North Dakota women have experienced,” Heitkamp said. “In an attempt to bring awareness to this issue and push back against dismissive comments toward sexual assault survivors by Kevin Cramer, our campaign worked with victim advocates to identify women who would be willing sign the letter or share their story.”

This should be the end of her campaign. In a sane world, you can’t do something like that and still keep your job. This is the political world where sanity is not required, but hopefully the people of North Dakota will hear about this and be rightly disgusted.

Her chances of reelection were slipping away, but now they should be essentially zilch.

Today’s Democratic Party

It’s only Tuesday. There are plenty of days left in the week to make a bigger mockery of the party of failure.

My biggest concern isn’t that the party keeps failing. That’s actually a good thing, especially considering how far to the left their ideologies have become in recent years. The real concern here is that they’re becoming more of a wounded dog than a fighter, which means their activists are becoming more and more likely to engage in extreme measures to make their points heard.

When their leaders continuously fail them, the leftist activists will have no choice but to become more vocal, more defiant, and more violent. Party leadership can’t get anything done, so the far left in the trenches are becoming more of a threat than ever before. If they can’t legislate their agenda, they’ll attempt to force it upon us. That’s troubling.

The modern machinations of the Democratic Party are marked by mistake after mistake. They seem like a party without a cause other than trying to stop the President. Even in this singular goal, they’re failing miserably.

Image via The Nation.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democrats’ road to victory is paved with the broken promises of the GOP

Published

on

Democrats road to victory is paved with the broken promises of the GOP

In the push leading up to the November mid-term election, Republicans and faux conservatives have completely abandoned any semblance of integrity concerning the promises they made when America gave them full control of Washington two years ago.

One area where their betrayal has been most obvious is their promise to repeal Obamacare, a promise they made in 2012, 2014, and 2016, and again a few months ago if voters let them keep their majority.

Despite their repetitious “repeal Obamacare” mantra, Trump and the GOP recently passed an $854 billion spending bill that included a boatload of betrayals, including funding for Obamacare.

While they attempted to hide the fact that the spending bill provided a big boost to Obamacare and government-run, single-payer healthcare, Trump and the GOP aren’t even trying to hide their betrayal any longer as they have begun to support the “good” parts of Obamacare, such as pre-existing conditions.

This healthcare slight-of-hand is clearly nothing but a lame attempt to buy a few votes in November for Republicans, but it appears to be having the opposite effect. GOP betrayals have created votes for Democrats, giving the party of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi fresh wind in their sails.

With no Republican resistance and momentum on their side, Democrat candidates for governor in red and purple states are openly pushing to expand Medicaid while “Medicare for all” — the politically correct way of saying single-payer healthcare — has been adopted on the national level as a 2020 campaign issue.

It appears that Democrats can and will win on this issue.

In Pennsylvania — a state Trump narrowly won in 2016 — Democrats are surging in popularity thanks to the GOP’s broken healthcare promises. Besides a likely victory for Pennsylvania’s incumbent Democrat senator and governor, the blue party could pick up six Congressional seats, 25% of the seats they need to retake the House.

Trump’s Medicare policies along with his long history of supporting socialized medicine and single-payer has already put America on the path to Obamacare’s ultimate goal of government-run healthcare, but now we’re hearing about Trump making overtures to Democrats ahead of their likely takeover in November in an effort to secure a few policy “wins” for himself ahead of 2020.

Which begs the question: If Trump’s willing to sell out to the Democrats with Republicans in charge, what do you think will happen to healthcare if his buddies Chuck and Nancy are running Congress?

I think we already know the answer to that question.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report