Connect with us

Opinions

“Conservative” con men

Published

on

Every conservative who has ever engaged in politics on social media has, at one time or another, felt the wrath of a full blown hissy fit from a member of the Left. They’ve been called racists, sexists, Islamophobics, and any other word that liberals can think of as an insult.

Nowhere was this more evident than during the 2016 Presidential election. However, the sources of the online attacks during the 2016 Presidential election were different in that these attacks were also coming from those who claimed to share our ideology and our values. Some of them were new to politics. Others had involved themselves in political debate for years.

Then there were the long-time conservative talk show hosts and writers who, inexplicably, decided to put the full weight of their celebrity behind a life-long Democrat with no accountability record in real politics. They threw their support behind a man who had been a long-time friend of and donor for the woman who he would ultimately face in the general election; a man whose politics had aligned with a plethora of other politicians who didn’t even come close to sharing the values these conservative talk show pundits have claimed to themselves hold.

Of course, the man I’m writing of is Donald Trump: a man who wrote a book named “The Art of the Deal,” (more appropriately titled “The Art of the Con”). In the book, Trump details how he lures people into believing that he will fulfill their fantasies, all the while knowing he never would.

The conservative talk show hosts I speak of began with a correct premise, and that was the allure. They believed that Washington was thoroughly corrupt and that the GOP was really far more aligned with the Democrats than with the GOP’s espoused conservative principles. These hosts weren’t wrong. The problem for the rest of us, however, started when these hosts wanted us to support a lifelong Democrat. To follow their logic: the solution to hollowing out a corrupt GOP who worked for the Democrat agenda was supposed to be a guy who had been a Democrat most of his life. What? They wanted us to support a man whose daughter was close friends with Chelsea Clinton, and a man whose wedding to his current wife was attended by the Clintons? This should have given everyone – and I mean EVERYONE – who had ever listened to these people, a moment of pause.

For some of these “conservatives,” their support of the “latest thing” wasn’t surprising in the least. Take Ann Coulter, for example. She had already sided with every liberal Republican that had come along in a decade: Christy, McConnell, Romney. During the 2014 mid-terms, when asked about Matt Bevin running against McConnell in the primaries on Sean Hannity’s radio shown, she said “This isn’t the time for primaries,” and “McConnell is a conservative.”

Frankly, if you cared at all what she had to say after that statement, then I own a bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you.

I could write an entire article breaking down just those two statements and how utterly asinine each statement is, but I’m going to give my readers the benefit of the doubt and assume they’re smart enough to understand this on their own. The only thing I WILL mention is that during that election McConnell had a PAC who’s aim was to destroy conservative opposition to him.

Do you know who donated $50,000 to that PAC? Donald Trump.

What about Lou Dobbs? I certainly hope the Fox Business News host is better at financial analysis than he is at political principle, but that’s obviously not true. His knowledge of Trump came, naturally, from their mutual presence in the business world. Dobbs should have known from this experience alone that Trump was a con man and that Trump didn’t mean a word he said. Yet, Dobbs led his viewers down the primrose path anyway.

As for Rush Limbaugh, the “Mayor of Realville,” he seemed to become completely disconnected from reality as the 2016 election progressed, diving deeper and deeper into the insanity of the inexplicable: Trump popularity within the GOP.

Sean Hannity too. Perhaps no one dove off the deep end more than he. Though he claimed impartiality all throughout the GOP primary process, his manner toward Trump verses the other candidates revealed the fallaciousness of that claim. To anyone who observed Hannity, even casually, it was clear that he was in the bag for Trump. Worse was Hannity’s insistence that anyone who was conservative MUST vote for Trump once he won the nomination. This came after years of arguing with liberal callers to his radio show that “I’m not a Republican, I’m a registered conservative.” Yet, now Hannity had become a mouthpiece for the GOP he had claimed to not be a part of for years.

Hannity, and others, told us we HAD to support Trump just to stop Hillary Clinton. This was a legitimate, yet pointless argument coming from someone like Mark Levin who reluctantly boarded the Trump Train. This argument wasn’t only coming from those like Hannity. On a tray of 17 sandwiches of various appeal, Hannity et al picked the crap sandwich and then expected us to eat it just to avoid eating the crap sandwich the Democrats were serving. No thanks. Those of us who don’t like crap sandwiches decided to keep our integrity and wait for the next meal.

Back to the present, the reactions of all of these pundits to Trump’s recent collusion with Democrats over his signature campaign issue of immigration has been varied, but equally hilarious.

Ann Coulter has tweeted some revisionist history in the last week. She claimed that there was no alternative to Trump, that there was no one who had his ideas and was more trustworthy. This of course was a flat out lie. Rubio, Cruz, Walker – any of these would have been far superior to the lifelong Democrat and Clinton supporter. The truth was that Coulter saw an opportunity to use Trump’s popularity to write and sell books, making herself a quick buck in the process.

Hannity and Limbaugh blame Congressional Republican leadership. While, yes, men like McConnell and Ryan definitely share the blame for not pushing a conservative agenda, Trump has hardly had the laser like focus it takes to push through an agenda opposed by nearly half the country and most of the mainstream media.

Fourth rate commentators like Bill Mitchell and Mark Simone have maintained the fiction that Trump is a genius who is luring Pelosi and Schumer into a false sense of security, and that this is all part of an amazing strategy we’re all just too stupid to understand.

Then, there is Mark Levin and a few others who feel like they have been betrayed. I, and others like me, have no sympathy for them. They have not been betrayed in any way. Trump made no secret of who and what he was. Yet, Levin, after reluctantly throwing his support behind Trump following the GOP convention, became hostile toward those who would not follow him in supporting Trump.

We knew who and what Trump was. It wasn’t difficult to know. You didn’t need to listen to hypocritical Left-wing media types going on and on about his womanizing while ignoring Hillary’s enabling of her husband’s sexual assaults. You didn’t need to listen to hilarious ramblings about how Trump wasn’t a real Republican from Jeb Bush and Lindsay Graham, two politicians who have only just barely held a conservative position their whole lives.

Really, you only needed to listen to Trump himself. “Everyone is going to be covered and the government is going to pay for it,” Trump said of healthcare. His protectionist trade policies sounded good on paper. So too did Bernie Sanders’ policies. They were exactly the same, after all.

Hannity, Ingraham, Dobbs, Coulter, Limbaugh – All of them, and more, were wrong from the start and, now, they are desperately trying to place blame elsewhere in the hopes that you won’t notice how wrong they’ve been.

So, here’s my recommendation: Don’t be fooled. When the next set of elections comes around, figure out who was right last time and listen to them. Plenty of great political opinions are out there who didn’t sell their souls for Trump. Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson, Glenn Beck, Kimberly Ross, and, dare I say, many of those who are now staff writers here at NOQReport, were right about Trump from the start. Decide for yourselves who might be worthy of listening to and stop listening to those who just want your money, but who lack the conservative principles to back them.

I understand why some might have been fooled by some of these voices in 2016. Those who, like Coulter, have been wrong for so long deserve no benefit of the doubt. Then again, given the display that many of the others have put on since 2016, they don’t deserve the benefit of the doubt either. Why would you want to listen to those who have been so horribly wrong, especially when it was so obvious? That’s for you to decide, readers.

I, for one, don’t watch or listen to any of them anymore. I see their tweets and that’s enough to know they’ve lost their minds and their principles, assuming they ever had any. Oddly, even people who have recognized that these pundits are wrong seem still to continually give them attention by watching and listening to their programs, even if it’s just to hate on them. Why do it? That’s what they want. Attention. Attention equals advertising, which equals money in their pockets regardless of what kind of attention it is. That’s all they really care about. That much, they’ve proven.

It’s unreasonable to ask people who have jobs (often more than one), families to raise, and houses requiring upkeep to fully know the details of every politician. We all need reliable political analysis to make informed decisions. Everyone now knows, or at least should know, that some of the biggest names in political commentary, and plenty of people you never heard of before Trump (looking at you Bill Mitchell) aren’t the ones to listen to the next time an election comes ‘round.

Benjamin Wilhelm

Benjamin Wilhelm served as a commissioned officer in the United States military for 10 years, serving one combat tour in Afghanistan. He is a recipient of the Bronze Star and Combat Action Badge among other military awards. Ben has worked in a variety of private sector businesses both large and small. He is a former military and civilian firearms instructor and an advocate for veterans issues. Ben is a strict Constitutionalist who sees the Federal government as an out of control leviathan, and the federal debt as a burden that will break the country. Ben is a divorced father of two boys.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Doug Olson

    September 18, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Excellent commentary, Mr. Wilhelm. I am proud to say that all those mentioned above, that I gave money to in the form of purchasing their books, going to their concerts, et. al., will not get another dime or another moment of attention from me.

    I don’t even call them sell outs, because in reality, though they never were about anything but the money.

    Hopefully, we can say “good riddance” to the lot of them.

    • Patriotrocker

      September 18, 2017 at 10:34 am

      I agree completely. I had many books by all these shallow money-grubbers. Conservatives? pffftt! They fell for Don the Con hook, line and sinker and I haven’t listened to or watched them since early last year. I gave my books to charity. My library needed a clean-up anyway! lol. Seeing trump for who he is was no-brainer. So we know what that means for all those who fell for him. Cultists.

  2. Jack Krevin

    September 19, 2017 at 9:36 am

    These sort of articles by Never-Trumpers always amuse me. They always, and I mean always, have to signal they are 100% right, virtuous and principled. It is never them whose wrong or who has to change.

    The simple truth of the matter is that until you come to grips with why the base preferred a “life-long Democrat” over the sixteen or so alternatives, why for many Republican voters they were the “crap sandwich” not Trump, you faction of the so called conservative movement is doomed. Whining about it isn’t going to help nor is failing to realize that things like Free Trade are at best peripheral to the Republican/Conservative base if not anathema.

    As for the small part of this article which wasn’t just whining about 2016,Trump is Trump. He’s, at best, an unprincipled deal-maker who never met a position he wasn’t prepared to trade away to his advantage. Saying that, I voted for Trump and have no regrets. He was the best choice to advance my goals, about the only one who wanted to bring Immigration front and center. And I would take a thousand Trumps over any backstabbing Never-Trumper who were so eager to abandon and betray the party/its voters. At least with Trump I might get the odd bone thrown my way.
    -Jack Krevin

Leave a Reply

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

Guns and Crime

Gun reform that will actually work

Published

on

In the wake of the horrific high school shooting in Parkland, Florida on Thursday, Leftists took to their usual diatribes — they called the NRA a terrorist group, Jimmy Kimmel cried on live television (again), and mainstream news organizations touted misleading if not outright false statistics. All of the above pleaded for yet-unspecified “comprehensive” or “common sense” gun reform.

Through it all, I repeatedly asked vocally adamant gun control supporters, “What is your plan? What law would have prevented this from happening?” Many conservative leaders did the same. Still, no one on the Left seemed capable of providing a coherent answer, short of a full-on gun confiscation and/or ignorance of laws that are already in place, such as a ban on machine guns (which weren’t even used in this shooting).

Pointing this out won’t stop Lefties, obviously, but my intent with this article is not to continue debating what hasn’t, can’t, or won’t work when it comes to gun control, nor to debunk recurring arguments and statistics. That’s an important task, but for right now, I’ll leave it to the likes of Steven CrowderBen Shapiro, and Matt Christiansen.

My goal here is to defy perhaps the most frequent accusation pointed at conservatives during any gun debate, which is that we aren’t willing to discuss how to stop this kind of thing from happening again. And I’m not talking about preaching the gospel or inspiring a deeper respect for life — I mean genuine legislation.

Here are four measures that will actually make an impact in preventing mass shootings:

1) Repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, over 98% of mass shootings in America from 1950 to 2016 occurred in gun-free zones. It should be common sense to understand that criminals target the weak, vulnerable, and unprotected — such as groups that are guaranteed to be unarmed.

This 1990 legislation was introduced by none other than former-Vice President Joe Biden and signed into law by Bush Sr., prohibiting the presence of firearms within 1000 feet of public, private, and parochial elementary and high schools.

Some locations might be gun free de facto rather than de jure, such as churches, where it is not prohibited by law but not necessarily common practice to carry a gun, but the unknown always goes in favor of the potential victims. In a room where a shooter has one firearm and the crowd has zero, you do the math.

The way to prevent shootings is to put more guns in the hands of good guys than in the hands of bad guys. In order to discourage mass shootings, killers need to fear the possibility of getting caught on the other end of a barrel.

This is not to say that teachers should necessarily be required to carry weapons, but those who are trained and feel inclined to take that precaution should be welcome to do so in order to protect their students and colleagues — a proposal which 81% of police officers favor, as provided by USA Today.

2) Place armed security at all public schools

Most federal buildings feature an armed guard of some kind, and many have additional security measures such as metal detectors. So why are our children left unprotected on public (meaning federally operated) school grounds? As Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh contends, there is no sensible argument for abandoning our children to such a clear threat.

Some have argued that the presence of police officers or guns might traumatize young children, but do you know what’s even more traumatizing? Watching your friends get slaughtered by a homicidal maniac with a psychotic vendetta.

The Parkland shooter was previously expelled from the school and prohibited from carrying a backpack on campus, yet somehow that ban didn’t work, as the shooter mosied onto an unsecured campus with a backpack toting a rifle and ammunition — after all, who was going to stop him?

3) Reform the mental health system

Not all people who suffer from mental illness are violent — not by a long shot. Nor are all murders committed by the mentally ill. But the fact is that mass shootings account for a miniscule percentage of total gun homicides in the U.S., and many if not most mass shootings are executed by mentally unstable individuals.

Our country needs to reform its mental health system and consider increasing the amount of people who are institutionalized in mental health facilities.

Ironically, the same groups calling for common sense gun reform immediately backstep when mental illness is brought into the conversation, obfuscating relevant data on two fronts: firstly by falsely claiming that this will lead to a witch hunt of anyone with depression or anxiety, which is simply not true — we’re talking about those who present a danger to themselves or others — and secondly by conflating all gun killings with just mass murder, which is defined by wholly different parameters.

The Atlantic ran the latter kind of piece in October 2017 following the Las Vegas shooting, which cited a statistic that fewer than 5% of gun homicides are committed by a person with a previously diagnosed mental illness. That could very well be true, but it’s beside the point, first marginally because this doesn’t account for undiagnosed illness, but primarily due to the fact that mass shootings only account for 2 or 3% of gun murders anyway, so we’re talking about a completely different set of facts. In the same article, The Atlantic tries to play off a statistic from 2001 and another from 2016 that peg the rate of mass shooters with mental illness closer to one in four, or 25%. By their own admission, if we reform involuntary commitment laws to allow for easier institutionalization of the severely ill, then we can immediately cut down on mass shootings by a quarter.

One might call that statistically significant.

On The Rubin Report, Ben Shapiro links the rise in mass shootings to the large-scale emptying of mental facilities in the 1960s and 70s, leading to an upsurgence in homelessness, violent crime, and, yes, mass shootings, because even if only 25% of mass shooters are previously known to have been mentally ill (this coming from the same folks who claim we’ve had eighteen school shootings this year when the answer is closer to four), every single one of the viral shootings in recent memory, if it wasn’t committed by a terrorist, was brought about by someone who is mentally ill, from Parkland, to Sutherland Springs, to Las Vegas, and so on.

And for those squawking about Trump weakening prohibitions on the mentally ill buying guns, this is a lie. He repealed an unconstitutional gun ban on senior citizens who needed help documenting their Social Security finances, which is a far cry from violent schizophrenia. The ACLU, not known for its conservatism, supported Trump on this action.

4) Audit the Fed(eral Bureau of Investigation)

This issue is far more pressing than anything related to the Federal Reserve.

As reported by CNN, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered a review into the FBI’s process for handling tips following its admitted failure to properly address notification given in early January of a potential threat from the Parkland shooter.

According to the FBI’s statement, the tipster informed them about “[the shooter’s] gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting,” yet “no further investigation was conducted at that time.”

This kind of negligence certainly ought to raise eyebrows, and Florida Governor Rick Scott has called for Christopher Wray, the FBI director, to step down.

Now, in fairness, how many credible tips does the FBI receive on a regular basis? Probably a lot. How many of those threats does it successfully neutralize? Probably a lot.

But as Stephen Gutowski of The Washington Free Beacon tweeted on Friday, this is the fourth mass shooting in recent years where “the FBI was informed of significant warning signs beforehand.” Gutowski doesn’t mention, by the way, the federal oversight on the Sutherland Springs shooter, whose dishonorable history of military service should have disqualified him from gun ownership during his background check.

In addition to the tip itself, the shooter also gave off red flags by way of social media comments that he wanted to become a professional school shooter and take vengeance against police, as well as 39 home responses from police in only seven years.

Tack on growing suspicion of the FBI’s integrity in the handling of recent investigations, and at the very least, we ought to support Sessions’s decision to figure out what’s going on in the Justice Department.

No legislative action will ever fully solve this problem, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t find reasonable improvements while still respecting natural and constitutional rights. But we’ll never move forward if all we can resort to is virtue signalling and name-calling on Twitter.

If you want gun reform and you don’t like my ideas, then tell me your plan — just know I’m giving up hope that anyone on the Left really wants to have that conversation.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The Top 5 Reasons Gun Control is Dead.

Published

on

By

Time to bury the non-functional authoritarian idea of people control that has been negated by circumstances and technology.

It’s the same pattern every time, within minutes of a mass murder attack, calls for Intergalactic Background Checks or Gun confiscation are heard throughout the media. To be clear, these repeated assaults against our common sense civil rights by those who are supposedly ‘Liberal’ are contrary to the very precepts of individual Liberty, but that has become all too commonplace these days.

One should be extremely suspicious of ‘solutions’ that have to be passed in the heat of the moment, on the basis of a ‘serious crisis’. Were these ‘solutions’ of good quality and worthy of rational support, they could be discussed in the context of an open debate without the inclusion of useless emotional appeals.

The fact is the world has passed by the gun grabbers without their notice. Americans today own an estimated 600 million guns, they also are wise to the incremental attacks on their fundamental liberties. Advancing technology and the fact that gun control has never worked have also contributed to the death of this old tyrannical idea. Finally, this common-sense civil right is an integral part of the truly Liberal philosophy of individual Liberty.

1). Millions of gun owners and millions of guns in circulation make the ultimate gun grabber goal of Confiscation impossible.

A few months ago The Washington Free Beacon ran an analysis using data from a recent poll and census data and determined that ‘Nearly 120 million Americans have a firearm in the home’

The Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey of 1,200 adults found 48 percent of Americans said they or somebody else in their household owned a gun.

The United States Census Bureau estimates there are 249,454,440 adults currently living in America. If the Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey is accurate, that equates to 119,738,131 Americans with a gun in their home.

In addition, the website ‘WeaponsMan’ ran an analysis of ATF and came up with an estimated 412-660 Million firearms.

2). Gun grabber mendacity over the issue of People Control.

Nothing epitomized the sheer lack of honesty on the part of the gun grabbers on the nation’s Socialist-Left than statistic supposedly showing 18 school shootings this year or that the New York Times reported 430 People Have Been Shot in 239 School Shootings.

If they truly had a righteous cause that made sense, they would have no need to lie about it.

The plain fact is that most, if not all people control proposals are predicated on trust. For example, there really is no justifiable reason for Intergalactic Background Checks other than to force citizens to get permission to exercise their Civil rights and as a precursor to gun confiscation. But the gun grabbers will solemnly attest that this further infringement will not lead to that obvious end result. We are supposed to trust them not to use purchase data to create a registration and confiscation database. Well, they are perfectly willing to Lie about school shootings as well as other issues, so what is to stop them from doing so in this case?

3). Gun Control has Never Worked as advertised.

Gun control has never worked – as is most, if not all of the Left’s Socialist national agenda. There are plenty of examples that range from Chicago to Caracas. Basic logic will inform those who thoughtfully consider the issue. People control laws only impact those who obey it anyway. These are people who don’t really pose a threat, so these impositions on personal liberty only serve to help criminals and the government.

Of course, a further analysis of these measures would show that they were never meant to work in the first place. They merely set up the next infringement without ever solving the problem, as intended.

In recent years the gun grabber set has openly and freely admitted their goal of Gun confiscation – whether they dress it up in euphemisms of ‘Gun buy backs’, Gun bans or merely getting rid of the 2nd amendment. They all mean the same thing.
It should be clear that any proposals to ‘Just do something about guns’ are but precursors to gun confiscation, whether it’s Intergalactic Background Checks or Registration. It’s ‘All or nothing’ with the anti-civil rights crowd, so they get nothing.

4). The Rapidly advancing technologies CNC machine tools and 3D printing will make gun control impossible.

The authoritarian ideas of gun control are almost as old as the guns themselves. As soon as the common man was able to get a means of self-defense, potential tyrants tried to keep this from taking place. Back then, not many had access to the technologies to manufacture their own weapons. In recent years, this has drastically changed to the point that almost anyone can manufacture a firearm completely free from governmental control. Reason recently profiled the pioneers in this field and how it has rendered a death knell to any hope of controlling guns.

For those who may be logically challenged, please try to follow along: It is becoming easier and easier to make weapons. Thus any restrictions on our common sense civil will only have an impact on the innocent. So any future attempts at people control will be negated by everyone and anyone manufacturing their own without government interference. But of course, we have outlined this issue on these pages as well.

5). The Common Sense Civil Right of Armed Self-defence is an integral part of the cause of Individual liberty.

There is a reason the Liberal founding fathers set out the Civil Right of Armed Self-defence at the top of the Bill of rights. They had just fought and won a war where the possession of the common ‘weapons of war’ was crucial to victory. In fact, the possession of these arms by the colonials was the spark that set off the American revolution. The founders knew that the possession of firearms was the only way the new nation would be able to maintain it’s security. These were the ‘weapons of war’ commonly held by the infantrymen: The ubiquitous AR-15 of today as was the musket of the colonial time period.

The Right to keep and bear arms was also an integral part of the philosophy of individual rights. The right to ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ is meaningless without a self-defense capability.

There also a reason that the Liberal founding fathers used the word ‘unalienable’ – meaning they cannot be taken or given away by the possessor of these rights. In other words, even if people were persuaded by slick marketing or Leftists, they could not give up the right to life and by extension, the common sense civil right of self-defense.

The Takeaway

Therefore, it should be quite clear that millions of gun owners, possessing millions of guns will not fall for Leftist lies or their fantasy world of safety by disarmament. Furthermore, it should be clear that advancing technologies and civil rights that cannot be given away signifies that gun control has metaphorically drawn its last tyrannical breaths.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Don’t Ever Let Anyone Mock You For Praying

Published

on

Yesterday’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in Parkland, Florida, was a tragedy beyond words. As a parent myself, I can’t even begin to imagine what it would be like to lose a child. It almost sounds trite and overused to express our sympathy and express that the victims and their families remain in our thoughts.

And yes. They remain in our prayers.

One may ask, what can prayers do? Many on the Left question the benefits of prayer and even stoop to mocking it. After all, prayer is just a bunch of words, and represent a fig leaf for us creating real solutions to overcome gun violence.

But condemning prayer and assuming it means nothing misses its value entirely. The concept of prayer, particularly in Jewish philosophy, is recognition of our impotence and lack of control of the world. And that control or power rests, as I and others believe, with God.

Only He can regulate evil.

The great Jewish sage and philosopher Maimonides (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon) states it this way:

“We are told to offer up prayers to G‑d, in order to establish firmly the true principle that G‑d takes notice of our ways, that He can make them successful if we serve Him, or disastrous if we disobey Him; that success and failure are not the result of chance or accident.”

In more banal terms, God does not need our prayers. Prayer is for our own benefit, to acknowledge that we depend on God for everything, from wealth to the food we eat every day.

How much more so for our lives as a whole.

However, it is also true that we do have free will. And the age-old question arrives, how can we exact free will if God controls the world and all its outcomes?

Countless commentaries tackle this question, but I believe that the answer is that we merely possess free will to control ourselves and our own actions. We cannot control the actions of others, because that would impede on their free will. It ultimately lies with each of us to be the most righteous or most evil people we can, or want to, be.

And sadly, but understandably, this is why we cannot control evil, and only God can.

But our power rests in connecting with our Father in Heaven, and beseeching Him for guidance in dealing with life situations and the pervasive evil that exists in our world. And that is through prayer.

Prayer is the closest thing we can do to regulate evil. And by reaching out to God, evil may be eradicated one day. We don’t know, precisely because we cannot control this. But at least, in our darkest hours like those our nation faced yesterday, we can depend on prayer to be the way we shape our outlook on the world. And that is indeed something worth praying for.


Follow Jeremy Frankel on Twitter @frankeljeremy.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.