Connect with us

Opinions

The Year of the Donald, for conservatives? Really?

Published

on

The Year of the Donald for conservatives Really

This opinion column by a leading Northeastern conservative columnist, Paul Mulshine, argues that for conservatives, 2017 was “The Year of the Donald.”

It was the Year of The Donald for conservatives

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/it_was_the_year_of_the_donald_for_conservatives_mu.html#incart_river_homeReagan was in office for just six months in 1981 when the air-traffic controllers went on strike in violation of federal law. The Beltway crowd expected a settlement would come after a bit of tussling between the two sides.

Nope. Reagan fired all 11,345 of them. After that, everyone knew the new president didn’t play by the rules of Washington.

Donald Trump has shown the same attitude. The only difference is that he’s chalked up a  longer list of accomplishments.

President Trump has had his share of policy successes, which we’ve endeavored to recognize here at NOQReport. Yet elation at a few policy successes of President Trump hardly makes this nominally-Republican President a valid standard-bearer of conservatism. However, these successes are modest at best, and to cite them as evidence of the dawn of a new Reaganesque “Morning in America” is to diminish the achievements of prior Republican Administrations and drop the measuring stick for conservatism all the way to the ground.

If anything is noteworthy about Trump’s first year, beyond the White House’s dismissal of Omarosa Manigault, it is his refusal so far to cave in to prevailing coastal-elite pressure to be more “moderate” or “progressive.”

The Mad Left has pushed the Democratic Party farther to the Leftist/Marxist fringe of the political spectrum. The radicals’ boldness, defiance and hubris have sparked a reaction among much of the rest of the electorate, whether you call them “deplorables” or simply, the “Others.”  The depth of the degree to which the Mad Left detests Trump (and in fact, anyone with whom they disagree) both politically and personally has allowed him to enhance and deepen his support among his socioeconomic (if not necessarily Republican or conservative) base which rightfully feels under constant social and economic attack.

Unlike Republican voters of past generations, current Republicans don’t merely disagree with the Left. They resent the Left. They also fear the Left.

And when politics become (if they aren’t always are) personal, when politics become seen as a matter of economic survival, such resentment is a powerful fuel for voter turnout.

Yet, self-described conservatives’ support for Trump does not make Trump a conservative. It just means conservatives are engaging — finally! — in a strategic alliance. It’s an alliance borne of desperation, as conservatives (and many others) see themselves suddenly in the maelstrom of an all-but-declared cultural war which threatens a way of life and even the legitimacy of our economic and political systems.

Such a strategic alliance is similar to the alliance the United States formed with Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union in World War II, in the face of the Nazi-led Axis.

That alliance hardly made “the Greatest Generation” of Americans pro-Communist, did it?

Likewise, today’s alliance of desperation with Trump should not be taken to mean that conservatives condone, much less endorse, Trump’s many personal character defects and discipline deficits. The alliance does not require turning the proverbial blind eye towards these major flaws, either.

Trump’s future electoral prospects are strong and will remain as such, as long as his support among his core supporters remains rabid, if not necessarily wide. He would be a likely favorite to win re-election in 2020, particularly if his general election opponent has wide but tepid support, like Hillary Clinton.

However, should Trump’s opponent match him in the ferocity of his or her core support (especially if that opponent is an overt “progressive”), it may be a real struggle to get to 270 electoral votes.

Such a scenario could threaten America with the prospects of a federal government where each branch of government could be dominated by redistributionist, totalitarian, social justice acolytes. That outcome would reveal the Trump years to be nothing more than a historical accident, the Buster Douglas lucky-punch-knockout of Mike Tyson, the exception to the larger, leftward trend.

If Trump should prove to be nothing more than a brief, accidental interruption in the nation’s embrace of secularism, socialism and social justice, conservatives will regret their abandonment of that one bedrock characteristic of philosophical and cultural conservatism.

Character.

Now that would be — Sad!

Conservative corporate lawyer, commentator, blockchain technology patent holder and entrepreneur. Headquartered in a red light district in the middle of a deep blue People's Republic.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Don McCullen

    December 31, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    Well Eric they did not abandon character in Alabama. That is why Roy Moore lost.

  2. ed

    December 31, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    As the red-hats continue threatening and insulting the true conservatives (those that DO care about character but were persuaded to vote for Trump against Hillary because of the “binary choice” argument), they alienate the very voters they will need in 2018 and 2020 to prevent the very takeover of government that you are attempting to fear-monger with.

    I am an ex-Republican conservative that cares about character and leadership. As a result of 2016 GOP convention hostilities that originated with and were carried out by the team and of the death threats against Republican delegates, state reps & voters by red-hatters, and other Trump operatives, I have decided to that the Republican party under Trump is no different from the Democrats and deserves the same disdain as the Democrat party.

    As to Trump so-called “accomplishments”:
    Trump claims that he ended DACA. Not True. He punted the decision to Congress to write a bill permanently granting DACA amnesty. He EO was nothing but noise as it repealed nothing, established no new policies, established no new limits on illegal immigration or DACA/Dreamer status, nor made any other changes – other than the photo-op it provided for Trump.

    Trump claims to have moved the Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but he signed the waiver to NOT move the Embassy for another 6 months. His “announcement” was simply that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel – an announcement / policy set by the Senate and Congress in the 1990s – again lots of noise – no action.

    Trump claims credit for the “roaring economy” and points to the DOW average – an average that rose almost every year of Obama’s term and was quickly isolated to the Quantitative Easing and all the money being pumped into Wall Street by the Feds with nowhere to go because businesses were not hiring. Trump’s unemployment rate is about what Obama kept posting and Trump is using the same numbers as Obama – always to be revised downward (quietly) a couple months after the initial much-ballyhoo’d announcement.

    Trump STILL has not started building the wall, nor is Mexico paying for it. We now have articles being posted about how illegal immigration border crossings have been rising since April and are now HIGHER than Obama’s averages. Trump claims that he increased the size of the BP, but he only AUTHORIZED more hiring (funding permitting) – then never fought for (or re-allocated) additional funding to actually HIRE the new BP agents his photo-op EO “AUTHORIZED”.

    Trump’s “successes” with Carrier ahve turned to out to be false (jobs STILL went to Mexico except for those that were going to be kept BEFORE Trump/Pence “got involved”).

    The “tax relief” is growing in UNpopularity as people finally see what’s actually in the bill.

    Trump’s “Obamacare Mandate Repeal” was no such thing. The ACA was not modified to remove the mandate at all. The only action Congress did was to set the penalty to zero. The law still requires purchase of insurance, still provides – and now has been given new funding for the tax-payer-subsidized premiums, and the next Democrat Congress can (and likely will) re-impose the non-zero financial penalty – but at higher levels than before. This is a net loss because Trump has energized the Democrat base while discouraging the conservative & Republican bases that have historically voted for full repeal.

    Trump’s wild, incoherent, and reckless tweeting have all but started another war with NK/China and his attacks on NATO have only encouraged Russian aggression while discouraging and angering our allies in Europe and GB. Nations that no longer want to Trump in-country and that used to be good trading partners (customers) for US-made goods, but whose people will increasingly not want goods associated with Trump’s America – especially if Trump continues his insults of the people of those countries.

    Trump’s juvenile tweets and belligerency – far from appearing to the world as “strength” screams out “weakness, insecurity, immaturity” from those that serve in our government.

    I’m of the personal belief that Gen Mattis, Gen Kelley, and Sec Tillerson have banded together to limit Trump’s access to his staff, to outside information that might upset him, and to the levers of power and military control normally wielded by the POTUS because they recognizes the symptoms of Trump’s increasing dementia and his degrading mental faculties. I see fewer articles about Jared Kushner doing Sec State functions and almost nothing about Ivanka’s previously out-sized role in the WH – Perhaps because of the limits Gen Kelley has placed on Trump’s information intake – this is a good thing as it “controls” Trump’s worse nature, but a BAD thing because it means the President of the US has likely become a figurehead controlled by the “puppet-master” team of Kelley/Tillerson/Mattis. If we now have a team of people behind the scenes actually making the decisions and feeding them to Trump for regugitation that sounds too close to a “shadow government” or “politburo” for my comfort. (It DOES explain why the GOP establishment seems to have embraced Trump’s goals recently however – especially if they believe they have a role in “running” the President.

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

Don’t let the Democrats off the hook for their shutdown

Published

on

Dont let the Democrats off the hook for their shutdown

Now that the government shutdown is ending after three days, most of America wants to move on. We should, of course, but we shouldn’t allow the idiocy and hypocrisy of this shutdown to fade with the news cycle. Conservatives and Federalists should hold onto the debacle the Democrats forced and remind people in this election year of one important fact:

Democrats willfully hurt American citizens to gain favor with illegal immigrants and their proponents.

This shutdown was a feint. It had the sole intention of pretending that they’re the party that is fighting for Dreamers. That narrative was on the verge of shifting as most Republicans and the President have signaled they will protect Dreamers through proper legislation. The amnesty they will be passing in February or early March will give as many as 3.2 million Dreamers more protections than they had under President Obama’s executive order.

That’s a narrative the Democrats wanted to steal back from the GOP. That’s why they shutdown the government.

While I don’t support Republicans and their push to strengthen DACA, I definitely oppose Democrats and their desire to flood the country with as many left-leaning voters as possible. Until we can build an alternative to the lesser-of-two-evils system America currently has, we should pick our sides on issues based upon what is best for the nation.

The messaging of the Democrats’ actions should be reiterated regularly going forward and heavily when election season ramps up. The sad part is their actions haven’t helped Dreamers or increased the probability of a legislative DACA fix. All they did was put their stamp on it so they can take more credit with an uninformed electorate.

Remember the Democrats’ lies:

Schumer’s Democrats are using a pile of myths to support his shutdown

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/370089-schumers-democrats-are-using-a-pile-of-myths-to-support-his-shutdownShutdown fever has officially hit Washington. As Congress struggles to come to an agreement to get the government back to work, Capitol Hill is awash in indignant finger pointing, Twitter posturing and shutdown drink specials for furloughed employees.

Amidst all the breathless reporting and hyperbole, what’s real and what’s fake news is getting harder to distinguish. Here’s a look at what’s actually happening.

Continue Reading

Economy

Kevin Swanson talks about John Maynard Keynes, Father of Keynesian economics

Published

on

Kevin Swanson talks about John Maynard Keynes Father of Keynesian economics

I have learned about the term Keynesian economics, ever since Barack Obama held office. Make no mistake, Obama was and still is a believer in Keynesian economics. He increased the Debt/GDP ratio by 28 percent. He is the top Keynesian president of all time. More so than FDR, Nixon, Bush 41 (fourth place) and 43 (he is the runner-up Keynesian to Obama), and even if Reagan was a statesman in many areas, he did follow many ideas of Keynes (he takes third place).

We can only hope that Reagan took heed of the ideals of Milton Friedman as well in his lifetime and while he was in office. We just wished he would have listened to Friedman more. It seemed that Jimmy Carter, Gerard Ford, and Bill Clinton were actually trying to take on the debt and actually pay it off, according to Swanson’s research on Keynesian economics.

It should also be pointed out that John Maynard Keynes while raised in a Christian environment, would rebel against the Christian faith at a very young and could not be humbled at all. Either that or the church could not or was not equipped to give a biblical account to the young Keynes, and he was able to call their bluff. His economic system was built on the idea that debts were a good thing at the expense of future generations. Keynes would not have children of his own (his eventual wife Lydia Lopokova, did have a miscarriage) and before he took a wife his romantic interests were mostly in men.

The January 12, 2018, Generations podcast with Kevin Swanson takes on the economic philosophies as well as the cultural philosophies of Keynes and how they both bankrupted our world.

Reference

World Economy Teetering on Disaster

https://www.generations.org/programs/843It took 6,000 years for the world to rack up $80 trillion in debt (by AD 2002).  Sixteen years later, the world had added another $157 trillion (to reach $233 trillion).   Now, the world debt to GWP is 225%. We’ve never been this far into the Keynesian nightmare before.  So on the bring of the biggest economic disaster ever, we take a moment to explain the life, the fruit, and the ethical rebellion and radical, unrestrained homosexuality of John Maynard Keynes. Biblically, this debt is clearly described as a curse, and an indication of God’s judgment on the nations.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Planned Parenthood necessitates rape culture

Published

on

Planned Parenthood necessitates rape culture

Often times leftism is very self-fulfilling. Implementing Obamacare as a halfway measure for single payer. Support DACA amnesty so to secure votes for many elections to come. They can even look at countries like Sweden and still support bringing in massive amounts of migrants. Sweden has by all means become the rape capital of the Europe, yet feminists would have us be more like them. They support letting illegal immigrants come in and commit a disproportionate amount of crimes, including rape. Why? Two reasons. The first one being feminism and leftism are essentially the same thing though feminism is more cultural. Just recall last year’s or this years Women’s March. It had more to do with Trump than women’s issues. The second reason is that rape culture advances feminism. Feminism despite its long history has become a leftist front in the third wave. First feminists wanted women to vote. Then they wanted women to work. Both of these succeeded but too often movements don’t end when the battle is won. Now feminists want women to have tax payer funded abortions with no social stigma. And their golden calf is Planned Parenthood.

At a Glance: The Abortion Industry

Systematically detailing how everything Planned Parenthood does is centered around the core competency of it’s nefarious business model is the subject of articles and books that would distract from the message I am getting to. Planned Parenthood does provide other services, but all of their services are designed to develop rapport with at-risk women and give them an abortion when they have an unwanted pregnancy. The National Review analyzed their yearly report, and Alexander Desanctis made this observation:

The report indicates that Planned Parenthood saw 2.4 million clients in the last fiscal year. But, as has been shown by the group’s own figures, it doesn’t provide those clients with very many actual health-care services. According to the report, the only significant services offered, besides abortion, are STI and HIV tests, contraception, and pregnancy tests.

Planned Parenthood is like the crooked mechanic who messes up your car so you keep returning to him. They target at-risk, especially minority at-risk, women, give them contraception which they likely won’t use perfectly resulting in unwanted pregnancies. Note: the pills effectiveness is in the low nineties. Planned Parenthood is the abortion industry, and more people are realizing that the 3% stat they boast is simply a myth as also pointed out by Desanctis.

Small Percentages Matter Most

Public perception is moving in the opposite direction of the Planned Parenthood dystopian dream. A recent poll spells trouble for the pro-abortion crowd. Townhall reported that:

(2) Just 12 percent of Americans support the Democratic Party’s radical abortion platform, which effectively favors restriction-free abortion-on-demand (some left-wing state legislatures have gone even further in their extremism).  Fewer than one-in-four respondents say abortion should be widely legal either throughout pregnancy, or at least through the first two trimesters.

(3) A lopsided majority — 76 percent — believe that legal abortion should be limited to the first trimester, permitted only in very rare circumstances (rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life), or barred entirely.  Support for these pro-life reforms includes 61 percent of Democrats and 78 percent of independents.  And even if you excise the ‘first trimester’ option, fully 50 percent of Americans believe abortion should only be legally allowed in a handful of narrow circumstances, or not at all.

Perceptions of abortion largely due to the efforts of pro-lifers raising the pro-life generation. With a growing anti-abortion sentiments, the pro-abortion arguments are more readily focusing on a tiny fraction of all abortions: health of the mother, rape, and incest. Often times these are the most agreeable grounds for an abortion, though my guess is that incest is thrown in there whether people agree with it or not as the pro-life movement has made gains in outlawing abortion based on special needs. Abortion due to incest, unless rape, is still with the overwhelming majority where a person aborts as “birth control”. There’s also threat to the mother which is highly subjective. Pregnancy affects a woman’s body. This much is obvious. But if a woman got an abortion due to morning sickness, should that really count under “health”? There are also ectopic pregnancies (outside the uterus) which are increasingly treatable, though in theory wouldn’t be born naturally anyway so is that really an artificial miscarriage? Yet these instances are rare and treatable. Otherwise threat to the mother would have a much more specific context. Woman should seek multiple opinions if one doctor recommends an abortion in a life threatening instance, especially as we better know how to treat high risk pregnancies.

So we are mostly left with rape, a fraction of the one percent.

The Pro-Abortion Hill To Die On

The fraction of the one percent has become one of the main focuses of the abortion debate. Stephen Crowder does a segment on his show called “Real Conversations” where he talks to regular people. He presents his viewpoint and challenges people to change his mind. In his second addition of “I’m Pro-Life: Change My Mind” every serious contender digs in at the subject of rape. Note: the person supporting partial birth abortion was not a serious contender seeing as she compared abortion to a c-section. It is this small percentage that makes people consider themselves “pro-choice”. But as Stephen Crowder rightly pointed out, being pro-life is pro choice. There are four choices: abstinence, motherhood, adoption, and contraception. We in the pro-life camp just don’t want killing babies to be one of the options. Planned Parenthood on the other hand is not very pro-choice seeing as they perform 83 abortions for every adoption referral, according to their own report.

A Symbiotic Relationship

Bernie Sanders once said that if men could have abortions, the issue would have been settled a long time ago. Better yet, if people didn’t rape, the abortion would be settled by now. Can you imagine how unsympathetic pro-abortion arguments would be if we achieved a rape-free society?

In nature, there are many instances of symbiont-host relationships. In mutualism both parties benefit. This would be like bacteria in our own bodies that helps us digest food. Then there is commensalism where only the symbiont benefits. This would be like the pilot fish to a shark. In order for Planned Parenthood, and by extension the pro-abortion argument, to stay its ground or even regain ground, it need a rape culture in America. A rape culture would accomplish two things vital to the movement. The first is the obvious unwanted pregnancies. Not every woman gets raped. Now not everyone who gets raped, gets pregnant. And not everyone who gets pregnant from rape chooses an abortion. This is a very segmented market (I’m speaking in business terms because that’s what PP is). More rapes, more abortions due to rape which would be good for Planned Parenthood. They already want to hide the fraction of 1% of abortion that is due to rape. The second benefit to Planned Parenthood rape culture would render is disempowered women. Planned Parenthood pretends to be the voice for women’s rights. A rape culture would, in practice, harm gender equality. Planned Parenthood’s waning influence on women necessitates women who need them to speak for them.

Meanwhile feminists are trying to create the idea that we have a rape culture in America. In truth we don’t. If you want to see a rape culture go to a country that doesn’t give women equal testimony in court, so an Islamic country. That’s an actual rape culture. Instead feminists would rather tout international crime data which puts the US around the top without any consideration for countries that don’t consider women equal therefore the rape convicted is highly misleading. The US pales in comparison to an actual rape culture.

Enter MeToo

Perhaps it’s not the end game, but Hollywood is pressing for our society to change the definition of consent. The term “enthusiastic” is thrown in their definition. Now this isn’t Hollywood’s creation. I recall talking to a liberal colleague of mine who lightly refers to today as sort of a “Age of Consent” where consent matters more now than say a generation ago. But this is likely some crap out of an anthropology class. In other words, Hollywood and feminists via Twitter will argue that society needs consent training to go with it’s hookup culture. For instance, nothing Aziz Ansari did was legally rape or sexual assault, but because his accuser regretted it, this new definition of rape the left is trying to craft would consider this an offense. Ansari wasn’t acting deviant from a hookup cultural perspective. If society changes the definition of sexual assault far from what the legal definition is, more people would have been “assaulted or harassed.” The result of more women being convinced they have been sexually assaulted or harassed is a divide between the two genders.

The End is Nigh

If Planned Parenthood can’t have the rape culture they need, they will likely have to settle for the pseudo-rape culture feminists are trying to convince us we have. In the short term, it’s great for donations which the abortion cartel was not short on during year one of Trump. But in the end, it’s sort of like how Voldemort was drinking unicorn blood in the Sorcerer’s Stone. Pro-life is making gains and could ban abortion after twenty weeks on a national level with new legislation. And who knows, by the time such a law is challenged in the Supreme Court there may be a fourth conservative judge sitting among the nine. And what if the GOP actually defunds Planned Parenthood at a federal level like they have been on a growing state level. The future doesn’t look bright for Planned Parenthood. Their government money is under siege, and once the siege is broken it will be politically unlikely for them to recover. And while were fielding political unlikelihoods, the Democrats could change their tune on abortion because they need to win seats. Pro-life victories are sure to come especially when the (likely also) pro-life Gen Z will start voting to make things worse for the pro-abortion movement. Such are the times for the lingering abortion giant.

 

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.