Connect with us

Politics

Ron Paul on why politicians are often immoral people

Published

on

Ron Paul on why politicians are often immoral people

There’s a theory that once people make it into public office, they are often corrupted by the power and/or the atmosphere of power. The “DC Country Club” is often to blame for taking otherwise good people and turning them bad. That’s not how former Congressman Ron Paul sees it.

The Texan has railed against the system and the people in it for decades. Despite never winning the GOP nomination for president, he was able to build a powerful base that still follows his every word. Sometimes, those words are extremely profound, such as the end of his lead paragraph in his most recent column:

“It is only natural that an immoral system, like the welfare-warfare state, tends to attract individuals likely to practice personal immorality.”

Could it be that the power doesn’t necessarily corrupt them, but the promise of power is likely to draw in corrupt people? Agree or not, it’s definitely worth considering.

Source: Ron Paul Institute

Political Immorality and Personal Immorality

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/december/25/political-immorality-and-personal-immorality/Many Americans have been shocked by recent revelations of the extent of sexual harassment in Congress. However, no one should be too surprised that those who spend their lives defending and expanding the welfare-warfare state engage in immoral personal conduct. It is only natural that an immoral system, like the welfare-warfare state, tends to attract individuals likely to practice personal immorality.

Scarlett is a mom and a friend. She blogs for a living but really prefers to read more than write. She writes mostly about politics, but occasionally delves into book and movie reviews.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

Politics

What makes a Statesman?

Published

on

What makes a Statesman

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary a statesman is defined by two definitions.

1: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies

2: a wise, skillful, and respected political leader

Sadly, by Merriam-Webster’s definition many so-called statesmen are much known – and preferred to be known – by the first definition, but not so much by the second, unless of course, you are cultishly loyal to either major political party and/or its personalities.

We truly need to focus on the second definition of what makes a statesman. Someone that is truly wise, skillful, and respected. And while it does not mention it let me add a definition. Someone who fears God, does not take bribes, and truly looks out for and loves thy neighbor. How do you do that? You die to self, you cut taxes, and you truly support the people by getting the government out of the way and allow local communities and private charities to help people. You trust them and God to make a better world for themselves and the communities they live in.

Orrin Hatch may be smart and skillful. He fits more with the first definition according to Merriam-Webster, but respected political leader, Hatch is not. I give the Mormon Church credit in one aspect. They are truly great businessmen and politicians. They know the art of the deal. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operates a for-profit business arm called Deseret Management Corporation, which operates an LDS bookstore chain, insurance/investment/retirement services, newspaper publishing including the Deseret News, and a small chain of radio stations (and one TV station) under Bonneville International Corporation; all of these stations broadcast some kind of secular format (although certain stations in the company carry the in-house LDS program “Music and the Spoken Word”). They are not like Salem Media, Educational Media Foundation (K-Love, Air1), Crawford Broadcasting, Bible Broadcasting Network, Bott Radio Network, WayMedia (Way-FM) in which these respected companies (profit and non-profit) that are owned and operated by evangelical Christians and with few exceptions broadcast either Christian Talk or some kind of Christian Music (mostly Christian AC) formats.

Mitt Romney, should he succeed Hatch, has a skill set in both the public and private realms (Hatch was a songwriter on the side). Romney is no respected political leader or businessman either. He is good at what he does, I shall grant you that.

Reference

An Unfond Farewell to Un-statesman Orrin Hatch

https://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2018/01/03/an-unfond-farewell-to-unstatesman-orrin-hatch-n2429306The longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history announced this week that he will finally, finally, finally, finally, finally, finally, finally retire.

That’s seven “finallys” — one for each of the consecutive six-year terms Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, served. He begin his occupancy in 1976, when all phones were dumb, the 5.25-inch floppy disk was cutting-edge, the very first Apple computer went on sale for $666.66, the Concorde was flying high, O.J. Simpson was a hero, Blake Shelton was a newborn, the first MRI was still a blueprint, and I was a gap-toothed first-grader wearing corduroy bell-bottoms crushing on Davy Jones.

Mitt Romney is the last person we need in the Senate

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/mitt-romney-last-person-need-senate/Raise your hand if you’re excited for Senator Romney!

Democrats tend to elevate to high positions those who most effectively and aggressively champion their values. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to champion those who most effectively promote the values of the other side. Example number ten million? Mitt Romney’s likely run for Senate.

Mitt Romney: Not the senator we need, but the senator we deserve

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/mitt-romney-not-senator-need-senator-deserve/Since I’m the guy who supposedly cost Willard Mitt Romney the Iowa caucuses twice, I suppose I’m expected to have some hot take at the ready about his prospective bid for U.S. Senate — a real teeth-gnasher about the human Etch-a-Sketch returning to surprise us every day with where he (temporarily) stands on any given issue.

Except I don’t, because as the great prophet Phil Collins once sang, “I don’t care any more-wore.”

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

GOP plays pro-life card in an election year bluff for votes

Published

on

GOP plays pro-life card in an election year bluff for votes

With another year of failure behind them and a midterm election ahead, the GOP is busy doing as it always does under such circumstances, squeezing a boatload of bills through Congress designed to give the appearance that they’re keeping their word to the conservative base of the party.

An ace-in-the-hole often played by the Gang Of Phonies when they are desperate for our cash and our votes is the pro-life card, which explains their plan to hold a show vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act (BAASA) later this week.

If passed, BAASA would allegedly protect infants delivered alive after a failed abortion which begs the question, if a failed abortion delivers a live baby and a successful abortion delivers a dead baby, isn’t abortion the very definition of premeditated murder?

Premeditated Murder: The term that is used to describe a murder that was planned in advance and was carried out willfully. – Black’s Law Dictionary

In 2002–strangely enough, another midterm election year–George W. Bush signed a similar bill called the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). While the bill claimed to provide legal protection for an infant born alive after a failed abortion, BAIPA failed to provide penalties or enforcement mechanisms to punish violators.

Without those provisions, the law was meaningless and made it possible for a baby killer like Kermit Gosnell–who routinely murdered babies by severing their spinal cords with scissors through the back of the neck or drowning them in toilets after being born alive–to become a millionaire.

While it can be argued that BAASA might do some good, this is simply an election year ploy that falls woefully short of doing what’s necessary to end the abortion holocaust.

For example, there has been no advance of the “most pro-life platform in GOP history,” which included commitments to defund Planned Parenthood, ban dismemberment abortions, and pass a Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, Trump and the GOP actually supported the abortion industry by passing three spending bills in 2017 that fully funded Planned Parenthood.

As a supporter of the Federalist Party and the Convention of States project, I see this charade as more proof that conservatives need to leave the GOP and join these movements. Only by reigning in the federal government and returning power to the states will we bring an end to this holocaust.

What difference could it make? Well, Indiana State Rep. Curt Nisly just introduced a bill that would completely ban abortion in the state. In Roe v. Wade America, his chances of success are somewhere between slim and none. But in Constitutional America, where “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” NIsly’s bill would likely succeed.

BAASA may or may not become law, but it’s nothing more than a lame attempt by RINOs to save their jobs. The lives of the unborn deserve better than this.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be 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

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.