Connect with us

Democrats

Millennials will be the progressives’ useful idiots

Published

on

Millennials will be the progressives useful idiots

This story from the Washington Examiner should chill any level headed conservative.

According to this article, millennials will vote Democrat two to one will.  Remember, they were in tune with Bernie Sanders and his song of socialism.  If it’s one thing about Democrats they are always engaged and constantly fight for what they believe in.

They feel that race relations under President Trump are under attack by our government.

The millennials don’t care if we make deals with our sworn enemies, for they feel that the greatest threats are coming from within.

More than half of millennials tend to support gun control measures.

This is where the progressive cause is winning, and not even a dissenter like Ben Shapiro (a millennial) can truly stem the tide.  The Republican party is a do nothing party while the Democrat base lives, eats, and breathes the protest.  Conservatives have too long let the progressives roll them.

If Conservatives and Federalists want to correct the thinking the millennials embraced, they better start protesting right now.  There are several ways they can do this.

  1. Pull the children you have out of public school.  They are the biggest reason for socialism gaining more power, for they indoctrinate children with a socialist worldview.
  2. Rally outside your halls of government when a big decision like taxes or attempts to take control of some element of the economy come into play.
  3. At least protest an hour (maybe 30 minutes) somewhere in the streets that are busy.
  4. Make your vote a protest if you’re forced to “vote for the lesser of two evils.”  There is no moral obligation that you must vote Republican.

China became a communist country in part because of educators that supported a vision similar to Karl Marx.  They grew up started the revolution and enter Chairman Mao.  If the Millennials actual lived under communism and lived in Castro’s hell, they just might not like what it truly is.

Sadly, most public school teachers have marketed communism and Marxism in a pretty little package that looks nice and shiny.  They have taught them to love Karl Marx, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Joseph Stalin (who has more blood on his hands than Hitler), and Fidel Castro and how they helped their respected people that they ruled under.  They would never tell them about how they had people executed or allowed to be starved to death literally.

The pretty package of communism is fools gold, but that fools gold can help the Democrats and other progressive radicals steal America as we know it.  The Millennials will be the useful idiots in their cause.

Further Reading

Harvard: Millennials now biggest voting group in U.S., 2-1 Democratic

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/harvard-millennials-now-biggest-voting-group-in-us-2-1-democratic/article/2642567A new Harvard University poll Tuesday is blaring a loud danger signal to the Republican Party after finding that millennials are now the largest generation of voters and they are overwhelmingly Democratic, by a two-to-one margin.

The latest youth poll from Harvard’s influential Institute of Politics found that America’s 18-29-year-olds prefer Democrats 65 percent to 33 percent, in part because they don’t like President Trump and are “fearful” about the future.

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

Are the People Really Ready for Liberty?

Published

on

Yesterday saw several interesting campaigns of common citizens trying to make a difference meet their end (this time) as voters flocked like sheep to vote for establishment candidates. Hunter Hill, who I’ve interviewed a couple of times, failed to make the cut for a runoff election to be Georgia’s next governor. Despite the long-term politician status of both Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Georgia’s secretary of state, Brian Kemp, and voters increasing dissatisfaction with career politicians, those two will runoff for the GOP nomination for Governor. Hunter Hill garnered a respectable 18.3% of the vote, but name ID and, I’m guessing, reluctance of voters to shy away from the safe haven of familiar faces won the day for Kemp and Cagle. Georgia voters clearly weren’t ready for a liberty-driven agenda this go round, and instead clung to the status quo.

Elsewhere in Georgia, in the 7th Congressional District, Rob Woodall, the incumbent and establishment darling, who’s voting record is hard to distinguish from your average Democrat, will, in all likelihood, keep his seat after winning re-nomination. However, conservative challenger Shane Hazel garnered 28.1% of the primary vote, impressive when you realize he had a purely grassroots campaign and met resistance to his challenge at every turn from the ruling class in the GOP. There is clear dissatisfaction with Woodall’s liberal voting record, and my personal opinion is that, should Hazel decide to challenge Woodall again in two years, he could conceivably unseat the Democrat, who happens to have an (R) next to his name.

Asked about the loss, Hazel said, “Ladies and Gentlemen, faith is an incredible ally. As I felt called in my faith to make this stand against the establishment, now humbly I rely on it to look for the next path. This experience has been nothing less than extraordinary, and it is the people that made it so. I’d ask you all to love one another through these elections as we are neighbors and family and the answer and key to our problems, not the government. We must, through consent not force, care for each other and make peace. America has so much to offer mankind, but first we must rid ourselves of which we were first born as and that is a tyrannical government. And, finally, we’re going to have to work and pray. So, break’s over, say a prayer, I’m going back to the drawing board because tyrants don’t rest, so neither can We the People. God bless and thank you for all the love and support…. P.S. Maybe keep your signs.”

Real leadership. Hopefully the fine people of Georgia will take him up on the opportunity next time.

Elsewhere in Georgia, House Districts 4, 6, 8, and 9, the Republican incumbents ran uncontested, signaling a laissez-faire attitude toward Congressional representation in those districts.

This begs the question: Are people really ready for liberty? They say they are. Those polled are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the job Congress is doing. Yet, when it comes time to actually vote, they vote in the same people for whom they have so much criticism. I, for one, certainly hope people start waking up to the self-evident point I’ve been making for months: that there is no Democrat vs Republican, there is government vs We the People.

Hazel’s 28% is more than someone like him, a political neophyte, as the Founders intended our representatives be, would likely have gotten just 2 years ago. This may be a indicate things are moving in the right direction, but will it be fast enough to roll back the oppressive policies of the bureaucracy and career politicians, otherwise known as the “Deep State” that so many abhor.

There are still a few opportunities to make a difference in these midterms, should the voters of those states be ready for a more liberty-oriented agenda. Perhaps none is better than the Missouri Senate race. In an attempt to unseat Claire McCaskill in a state that easily went for President Trump in 2016. It could very well be that the people of Missouri are fed up with the status quo.

New polling shows that the front runner, state Attorney General Hawley, has a tenuous lead over the Democratic incumbent in a general election. Conversely, Austin Petersen holds a comfortable lead over McCaskill in the general election 56/40. McCaskill has just a 40% approval rating among Missouri voters, yet at least 43% would still vote for her should the GOP nominee be Hawley.

Why would those who are dissatisfied with McCaskill still vote for her? Could it be they really don’t see a difference between the Democrat and the establishment’s hand-picked candidate? That certainly seems like the most obvious explanation.

Ronald Reagan spoke of how Republicans need to show their difference with “bold colors, not pale pastels.” Hawley, like so many hand-picked by the likes of Mitch McConnell and the talking heads like Bill Kristol, is most certainly a pale pastel compared to McCaskill. Petersen, like others who haven’t spent their entire lives in government, continues his message of bold colors, demonstrating differences with a limited-government, liberty-driven agenda.

Georgia had their turn, and this time, at least, they declined to lead the country in defining a new way forward. Missouri still has a chance, and they certainly seem poised to do just that. Hopefully, they will choose not to be spoon-fed an empty suit, and this time decide to embrace a bold new way forward.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Let’s Just say it: The Left Hates the Culture of Liberty. Part II

Published

on

By

While it hides behind the false label of Liberal, the nation’s Socialist Left continues to expand its assault on Liberty culture.

In Part I we began this discussion on how the Left is coming out of the authoritarian closet displaying their abject revulsion to the Culture of Liberty. In Part II we will detail the major aspects of their assaults on freedom. While it may sound shocking to many, deep down everyone should realise that the Left is becoming increasingly adverse to Liberty. Aside from wanting the freedom to wage the violence of abortion, they have little use for the concept in any other form.

Down through history Leftists have used and then disposed of democratic institutions to obtain power. The Bolsheviks and Nationalsozialistische deutsche Arbeiter-Partei being good examples from the storied past. At present, their favourite tactic involves the use of negatively termed alternative phrases to attack basic Liberties. They use these phrases to suppress these freedoms while maintaining the fiction of being ‘Liberal’.

“Hate Speech” used to attack Free-speech.

Here we see the first of many negatively charged phrases the Left uses to attack freedom of speech. As in most cases the term is undefined, allowing them to expand it to encompass whatever they wish to suppress. As in the other cases, this let’s them pretend to advocate free-speech while working against the concept.

Their recent expansion of assaults against the basic human Liberty of self-preservation has seen them us this convenient expedient to arbitrarily censor speech with regard to this fundamental natural right. Of course, they like to use the excuse that they are private entities unencumbered by 1st amendment issues. But this is a discussion on the Culture of Liberty and as Matt Christiansen pointed out, quite often the cultural value that is changed first, followed by restrictions from the government.

“Fake News” used to attack Freedom of the Press.

This is a new term in the pantheon of Leftist phrases, but once again it’s an undefined term used to go after those they deem to be unworthy of the vaunted title of ‘Journalist’. The national Socialist Media has always been disdainful of those who are not part of their elite cadres. At one point they labelled those outside the industrial media complex as being pajama clad, now they just brand them as being “Fake News”. Certain ‘social media’ sites have begun using this excuse to censor what can be stated on them. To be clear, the issue isn’t the veracity of the content, but it’s political point of view.

“Military Style” used to attack the Commonsense human Right of Self-Defence.

This was one of the first instances where the national Socialist Left developed the idea of assaulting a basic human Liberty an alternative phrase while still pretending to support it. This began with the undefined phrase “Assault Weapon” transitioning into even more nebulous terms such as “Military Style”. As with the other terms these have a twofold purpose – convey a negative feeling over a fundamental right while feigning it’s support.

Having once set the precedent that certain means of self-defence are verboten, it then becomes a simple matter of expanding the reach of these terms to include all firearms. This while Leftists parrot the fiction that they “believe in the 2nd amendment”.

“Background Checks” [ Intergalactic, Enhanced, Universal ] used to also attack Private Property Rights.

First of all, background checks have been in existence for almost 25 years, but one would not know it by the oft repeated talking points of the Left. Their well seasoned unfamiliarity with the facts will see them demand that which already exists. As is the case in other realms, they use their inability to base arguments on facts to their advantage. So when they repeat this demand, people get the impression that background checks are desperately needed.

Or they will use the ever popular tactic of moving the goal posts, demanding that these be even more intrusive in our private lives seizing control of our private property.

The basic premise for these “Intergalactic Background Checks” is that the government somehow has the ‘right’ to control certain items of one’s private property because they are dangerous. Well, there are three glaring issues with this false premise.

  • One is that private property is a foundational element of Liberty, one does not ‘own’ something if they cannot control it, such as in the purchasing or selling of said property. Leftists would love to negate this fundamental freedom with some sort of societal ownership regime as part of their collectivist ideology. “Intergalactic Background Checks” would impose a government edict over everyone’s property that would be greater than one’s ownership of those possessions.
  • Two, since restraint over the government is the fundamental purpose of the 2nd amendment and the Constitution in general, IBC’s would place control of these restraints in the hands of the government. In essence removing any limitations on the government. History is replete with examples of why this is a very bad idea.
  • Third, “Intergalactic Background Checks” would be the first and very critical step towards registration and the inevitable confiscation of guns. For once the government has purview over one’s private possessions, it can easily transition to tracking them in this control regime. History is also replete with the tale of the registration leading to confiscation. Meanwhile the national Socialist Left has made it quite clear this is their ultimate goal.

The Takeaway.

In many ways the Parkland Kids have done everyone a great service in exposing once and for all the Left’s disdain for freedom. Instead the slow creep of the collectivist mindset overtaking the country until it’s too late for anything that can be done, we have been forewarned of the danger. The Parkland Kids and the rest of the Authoritarian Socialist Left will have to be honest for once about their true intentions.

Were they to do so, they would drop the mask and stop hiding behind the Liberal label. They could then try to sell everyone their true socialist national agenda of égalité minus the Liberté or even fraternité.

At least then the people would know what they are getting instead of the farcical Utopian fantasies that have been part and parcel of the Leftist propaganda for centuries now. Were they to win on the basis of said honesty, they would have a mandate to rule over Liberty as they have promised, freedom be damned.

But the past has shown that people never willingly vote for this type of draconian rule. Instead they have to be enticed into enslaving themselves with the false promises of “Free Healthcare”, “Free college” as well as marginal safety from harm for the low-low price of sacrificing their Liberty.

Which is why the Left’s deceit and deception will continue, no matter how it’s been exposed in the past. They will still try to keep up the false pretence of being ‘Liberal’ or in favour of ‘Progress’ and if everyone is informed enough, they will end up on the ash heap of history as is rightfully the fate of all tyrants.

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The Context of Life

Published

on

Man #1 shoots Man #2. As a result, Man #2 dies. Is Man #1 a murderer?

Obviously, it depends. Context matters. Did Man #1 fire in self-defense? Did he shoot Man #2 by accident? Was Man #1 part of a legally appointed firing squad or under a hypnotic trance? Was the weapon a prop gun that mistakenly contained live ammunition? There are many points to consider before we can definitively say that an instance of killing constitutes murder.

Let’s try another thought exercise: protesters are gunned down by a neighboring country’s military forces. Is this murder? Is it a breach of international law? Is it a gross violation of human rights?

Again, it depends. Context matters. Are these protesters peaceful, or are they, say, planting landmines, tossing grenades, hurling molotov cocktails, and threatening to invade the country that is firing back at them? Have these protesters sworn to murder and pillage their neighbors until they are eradicated from the earth, all in the name of radical religious zeal? Are upwards of 50 out of the 62 protesters killed members of a terrorist organization?

Here’s another one: are illegal immigrants animals?

That depends; are the immigrants in question members of a ruthless gang that rips the beating hearts out of its victims? Do these immigrants peddle drugs, commit brutal assaults, and routinely rape women? Given the context and Oxford’s alternative definition of “animal” — “a person whose behavior is regarded as devoid of human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive. Synonyms: brute, beast, monster, devil, demon, fiend” — I think we can deem that perhaps too kind a descriptor.

Some people, however, seem to reject the value of context when it goes against their narrative. For instance, on the issue of calling MS-13 members “animals,” singer John Legend tweeted on Thursday, “Even human beings who commit heinous acts are the same species as us, not ‘animals’. I’m in the hospital with our new son. Any of these babies here could end up committing terrible crimes in the future. It’s easy, once they’ve done so, to distance ourselves from their humanity. … Dehumanizing large groups of people is the demagogue’s precursor to visiting violence and pain upon them.”

While MS-13 undoubtedly deserves any visitation of violence and pain upon them, the most glaring hole in Legend’s argument is that mere hours ago, he wouldn’t have considered “any of these babies” to be the same species as him (except when it’s his own baby). And as an outspoken donor and supporter of Planned Parenthood, he wouldn’t hesitate to defend the visitation of violence and pain upon them. But because of arbitrary abortion arguments, Legend and countless other Leftists ascribe more humanity to murderous villains than preborn babies.

Ironically, the one issue where Leftists insist on considering context is the one topic for which nuance is largely counterproductive — the sanctity of life.

As mentioned earlier, not all killing is murder, nor is it always unjustified. The right to life is unalienable, meaning it is intrinsic and therefore cannot be given nor taken away by man. It can, however, be surrendered through certain violations of another person’s unalienable rights. This is why many conservatives support capital punishment for perpetrators of homicide and rape. But it’s critical to recognize that this position is taken in order to emphasize the dignity of life and the severity of seriously harming and/or violating it. Similar reasoning is what justifies depriving someone of their unalienable right to liberty after they’ve committed a crime — they’ve automatically surrendered that right based on their actions.

That single caveat aside, any attempt to contextualize the debate for life pushes the dialogue further down a nonsensical rabbit hole designed to cheapen the worth of the weakest among us, or, to borrow Legend’s term, “dehumanize” them. At every turn, the argument gets slipperier and slipperier.

The Left will say that all human life is precious, even murderers, but they don’t extend this philosophy to unborn babies.

“Context!” they scream. “Fetuses aren’t fully human, and they aren’t really alive.”

Even if we gave the Left that argument, we have to ask whether fetal life, though not fully developed, is still worth protecting.

But the Left can’t give a straight answer here either, because while they celebrate a woman’s choice to terminate her unborn child, they cry for the conservation of fetuses that aren’t even human, proclaiming their inherent dignity well before birth. Eagle and sea turtle eggs come to mind, among other examples.

Next, the Left tries to establish what differentiates a human before birth and a human after birth, or rather what about birth makes someone human, but their attempts at context again fall short:

On one hand, they say it’s about viability outside of the womb, but standards of what constitutes viability are fully arbitrary. A baby born at 37 weeks is no more viable than one at 41 weeks that refuses to pop out — but because it’s still in the womb, it’s still not a living human, apparently. A baby born at 25 weeks in a big city is more viable than a baby born at 35 weeks in the boonies. My one-year-old daughter couldn’t survive without constant care from someone else, and neither could many elderly folks.

Other pro-aborts claim that if there’s no heartbeat, there’s no life, yet I don’t see many of them rushing to pull the plug on grandpa because he’s hooked up to a pacemaker.

I’ve heard some say that a baby’s first breath is what makes it human — so what about those who require artificial sources of oxygen? And if air confers humanity, then why aren’t all air-breathing animals human? If it determines life, then what happens when I hold my breath? I have the potential to breathe again, just as a fetus, left alone, has the potential to be born through natural processes.

The same goes for the sentience test. People in comas still enjoy an unalienable right to life.

Under the law, a woman can abort her baby, but if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with double homicide. No context can sensibly explain this double standard.

Some on the Right are guilty of it too. When asked whether abortion is murder, many engage in a similar exercise to the example I presented earlier about whether a shooting death necessarily constitutes murder: “it depends, what are the circumstances?”

There is no nuance to this question. Either the intentional taking of innocent life is murder or it is not. What difference does it make whether the baby was the result of rape or incest? I’ve stated in this very article that rape sometimes requires taking a life — but the baby is not the guilty party. Either life is sacred or it is not, regardless of how it got there.

Others cite the safety of the mother as context, but this argument is likewise flawed. Pursuing a vital cure for a woman’s ailment that indirectly harms the baby isn’t the intentional taking of innocent life but an unfortunate externality, so it’s not murder. And the case for actively terminating a pregnancy to save a mother is virtually identical to a self-defense argument, but again, there’s a problem: a baby is not an aggressor. It does not violate a woman’s rights, and a woman cannot violate the rights of her baby.

And a baby either has rights or it doesn’t. “Unalienable” means a baby doesn’t magically receive rights the moment it exits the birth canal, nor are a human’s rights any less inherent because he or she is dependent on someone or something else to sustain them. From the moment of existence, all human life has worth.

Life is the only consistent position, and it is so straightforward that it requires no nuance. Life either has intrinsic value or it does not. Context matters in almost every discussion of politics. But on the question of life, what people think is context is just an excuse to kill.


Richie Angel is the Editor at Large of thenewguards.net. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.