Connect with us

Opinions

F*** Civility!

Published

on

This week Michelangelo Signorile wrote a piece for the Huffington Post titled “F*** Civility.” (I decline to print the full title since I try to live in a civilized world.) In it, he called for Democrats to “shut down the streets.” The Left should “continually confront” Trump officials wherever they can be found, including running them out of restaurants the way Sarah Sanders was run out of a Mexican Restaurant while trying to have a peaceful family dinner.

What did he think of prior Democrat actions? “Democrats and Obama… personified civility.” So it must have been a civil act when a Sandernista shot up a baseball practice and nearly killed Steve Scalise. It must have been a civil act when Democrats burned a limousine during protests at President Trump’s inauguration.

The Supreme Court properly examined the law and the Constitution, upholding Trump’s travel ban. This action was reviewed favorably even by left-wing legal scholars. Yet in Signorile’s alleged mind, this was a “stinging, bigoted blow to justice and equality.” Notice I said “alleged mind,” because his comment is nothing more than a primal scream. There is no thought process involved.

Another Supreme Court decision, upholding the right of Crisis Pregnancy Centers to NOT advertise abortion facilities is an “anti-abortion” ruling. In fact, it was a free speech ruling where abortion was not an issue.

I could go on, but it’s clear that Signorile exemplifies much of the Left. They are simply incapable of rational thought. All they can do is scream. Indeed, one such group gathered to “scream through their vaginas” at Trump. You can’t make this stuff up. And, as the key question asks, “How’s that working out for you?”

One more quote clearly lays out where the Left is at the moment. “Many Democrats and many in the media are still living in an alternate universe where decorum will somehow save the day.”

Curious.

Our American Revolution came about when a critical mass of people took up arms against an oppressive foreign power. But there’s no oppression of the Left. They are simply losing political battles. No one is running around “stripping anyone of their rights.” Medicaid is not a right, and neither is food stamps. If Planned Parenthood loses its Federal money, the government will not force them to close. And Trump is not “putting children in prison camps.”

Where will this go? The primary in New York’s 14th Congressional District offers us some guidance. This hard-left district threw out a ten-term member of Congressional leadership. Part of it was due to him simply ignoring a photogenic newcomer since it was “his seat.” But part was also due to the Democrat party moving into that alternate universe Signorile mentioned.

Alternate universes are a science fiction construct where much is the same in two universes, but they don’t have contact with each other. Since Signorile, who exemplifies the hard Left, thinks that civility is in an “alternate universe,” he’s saying that he’s in an alternate universe from civil society… Think about it…

What does this mean for the midterm elections? It’s obvious that the loonie Left is cranked up to full scream mode. There’s only so much any person can hear. For example, when CNN’s Brian Stelter tried to blame the Maryland newspaper shooting on Donald Trump, we tune him out. His statement is obviously nuts. When Signorile says that Trump is “putting children in prison camps,” we tune him out.

The Left and their echo chamber in the media have cried wolf so many times that we aren’t able to hear them anymore. Surveys have noted that the public is disregarding the legacy media. But this just makes them scream louder. They can’t seem to realize that we have already left the room and closed the door. We’re tired of their yelling and want to go somewhere peaceful. We have more important things to do.

There has been a lot of noise in the press about a “Blue Wave” in the midterm elections. But the generic ballot surveys have recently swung to a dead heat. Since Republicans historically outperform the generic numbers by about three points, that is a “Red Tsunami” waiting to happen. Public approval of Donald Trump is higher than it was for Barack Obama at the same point in his presidency. Economic sentiment is positive, employment is up, and wages are rising. Since people tend to vote their wallets, things look good for Republicans.

What are Democrats going to do? They are “obstinately convinced of the superiority of their opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different ones.” In short, they are bigots. Starting from that position is a guaranteed loser.

Retail politics is very much like retail sales. You do best in a warm market. In politics, that’s your base. But you can’t stop there. Your base just isn’t enough to get you over 50%. So you have to find a way to get some of the middle over to your side. But the middle is reasonably happy with the way things are going, and that number is increasing. You have to find a way to change their opinion.

Yelling is the worst way to change someone’s opinion. When you say that we are bigots, fascists, or Nazis, you just stopped all conversation. We know we aren’t any of those things, and your yelling won’t change that. It doesn’t matter what you say after that, because we’ve stopped listening. And you made that happen.

Democrats who carefully engage in the realm of ideas have a chance to actually persuade voters. But Democrats like Maxine Waters show the rest of us how insane you are. Why would we want you anywhere near the levers of power? Are we crazy?

The loud lunatic fringe of the Democrat party is making the rest of the Democrats look worse than they already are. The election in New York 14 looks like the Democrats are swinging further in that direction. And the further the Democrats swing, the harder it will be for them to get out of their alternate universe into the real world to make contact with voters. That’s good for Republicans.

It is not helpful for Democrat thought leaders to suggest that we “are lying through [our] teeth” when we disagree with them. We aren’t “stripping millions of their rights.” We’re tired of you telling us what to believe and then belittling us when we disagree. We’ll vote for people who actually live in our world, and you aren’t one of them. Don’t be surprised if there’s a Red Tsunami.

 

Conspiracy Theory

The Liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns. Part I

Published

on

By

The Liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns Part I

The Left can’t argue that you don’t need a gun because the government won’t turn tyrannical while threatening that the government will turn tyrannical.

In what has to be the ultimate and game-changing tweet, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) threatened nuclear annihilation to anyone who refuses to give up their right of self-defense. The ensuing ‘fallout’ seeing him resort to damage control tactic of saying that thermonuclear gun confiscation was just a ‘joke’. After all, Who hasn’t chuckled at the prospect of the government going tyrannical with an H-bomb? One can easily see the bumper stickers now: Vote Swalwell 2020- or I will nuke your…

One of the Left’s favorite little tactics is to accuse those of the Pro-Liberty right of being ‘terrorists’ as their usual method of demonizing their opponents. Take note of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word Terrorist:

Adjective [attributive] Unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Origin
Late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror (see terror). The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

The long train of demands for gun confiscation

Perhaps Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell doesn’t realize his tweet was the ultimate in the listing of demands for gun confiscation by the Liberty grabber Left. A long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, as Thomas Jefferson termed it in the Declaration of Independence. That his erstwhile ‘joke’ he, Piers Morgan and others have made is the nuclear straw that broke the camels back. They, along with all the other Leftists who have demanded gun confiscation have initiated a sea of change in the debate over the common sense human right of self-defense.

The old approach by the Left that denied that confiscation was their ultimate goal

It used to be that the Left would hide behind a mask of support of the 2nd amendment. Never mind that each move they made was towards their final solution to the gun problem. Their tired refrain to most arguments about guns was that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’ or some variation thereof. This was a way to short-circuit the debate to one of incremental or ‘progressive’ steps negating any of their ill effects.

Pointing out that some new law would punish 120 million gun owners for the deeds of a few criminals would see the abject denial of ‘no one is being punished’ or ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

Mention that a new restriction on freedom infringing on the 2nd amendment and those who pretend to be Liberal on the Left would answer back ‘No one is talking about repealing the 2nd amendment’.

Talk about Intergalactic Background Checks [or Universal, enhanced or ‘Common sense’] would place government control over your personal property while acting as a stepping stone to confiscation would be met with the assertion that you must believe in conspiracy theories and that ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’.

The disturbing trend in Leftists demands for gun confiscation.

We have previously established that the Left wants to ban and confiscate all guns with over 70 documented instances of those demands. Leaving out the multiplying effect of the excerpting and reprinting of those demands.

This arduous task was under taken to prove a point, that the Left has dropped the mask on this subject. But it has also revealed a disturbing trend over the years. What began a few years ago as few and far between calls for gun confiscation has morphed into far more strident and frequent demands. Demands that were only made in obscure far-Left online publications have found their way into the mainstream and supposedly Liberal media sources. The rate on the number of demands made per ‘serious crisis’ have accelerated to the ultimate demand made by Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell. This has manifestly changed the debate in favour of the Pro-Liberty Conservative side.

Consider a sampling of these demands:

What began as mere calls to amend the Constitution – removing a fundamental human right in the process – or banning certain ‘types’ of guns. Have become threats to turn over all of our guns or to ‘comprise’ and lose some of them with incremental steps.

Then the Left became impatient, unable to restrain it’s ‘collective’ hatred of Liberty.

For at least the past several years, to say that those two talking points [or a variation thereof] were a complete and total lie would be an understatement of epic proportions. But even now that hasn’t stopped Leftists from denying the obvious.

But now the Nuke comment has changed all of that, everyone is now seeing that the Left has been making their demands for gun confiscation in every corner of their echo chamber. This is part of the reason many have undertaken the task of documenting these demands such as Here, Here and of course here.

Their open demands for gun confiscation and for the suppression of other types of Liberty have changed the dynamic. It is now a question of Liberty versus tyranny – with the Left being on the side of governmental oppression to the tune of nuclear annihilation if one does not comply.

In part II we will examine the debate in terms of the new paradigm of Liberty versus Tyranny.

Continue Reading

Immigration

3 migrant caravan claims Jim Acosta made to President Trump that have been debunked… by the migrant caravans

Published

on

3 migrant caravan claims Jim Acosta made to President Trump that have been debunked by the migrant c

CNN’s Jim Acosta has been at the center of the news cycle for 12 days. It’s not his reporting that landed him there. He’s the center of attention after the Secret Service suspended his hard pass to the White House. His pass is back and most seem to be moving on from the story. But something has been lost in the mix. The statements he made while badgering the President on November 7 were spoken with authority and certainty.

Less than two weeks later, all three of his claims have been proven wrong by the migrant caravans themselves.

“They’re hundred of miles away, though. They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away.”

Around 3,000 migrants arrived in the last few days, doubling the total number of migrants waiting to be processed at the San Ysidro border crossing to 6000. Thousands more are expected in the coming days.

They certainly walked “hundreds and hundreds of miles” very quickly.

Tijuana border crossing shut as Mexicans protest against arrival of migrant caravan

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/19/tijuana-border-crossing-shut-mexicans-protest-against-arrival/An estimated 3,000 migrants have arrived in recent days in Tijuana, which sprawls into San Diego in southern California.

On Sunday several hundred Tijuana residents took to the streets to protest against the caravan, which set out from Honduras on October 13.

“Your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls and so on, but they’re not going to be doing that.”

A picture can say a thousand words, but in this case it only has to say two words to Acosta: “Wrong again.”

Migrants Climb Border Fence

“As you know, Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S.”

How many criminals need to be among the migrants for it to be considered an invasion? 50? 100? 200?

How about 500?

Migrant caravan at US border is harboring more than 500 criminals, Homeland Security claims

https://www.foxnews.com/us/migrant-caravan-may-be-in-tijuana-for-the-long-haul-while-u-s-shuts-down-san-diego-area-crossingMore than 500 criminals are traveling with the migrant caravan that’s massed on the other side of a San Diego border crossing, homeland security officials said Monday afternoon.

The revelation was made during a conference call with reporters, with officials asserting that “most of the caravan members are not women and children”. They claimed the group is mostly made up of single adult or teen males and that the women and children have been pushed to the front of the line in a bid to garner sympathetic media coverage.

By now, any thinking person regardless of political ideology should realize Jim Acosta is an idiot. In the short time he held the mic at the press conference, he made three debunked statements. Journalists are supposed to expose the truth, not spread lies.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Beto 2020 is real and Republicans shouldn’t ignore it

Published

on

Beto 2020 is real and Republicans shouldnt ignore it

Any time a candidate for one office says they will not run in for a different office later, don’t believe them. It’s a pre-election narrative to dispel rumors from their opponents that the first office is just a stepping stone. It also gives a sense of urgency to the candidate’s potential voters. Put me in office now because you won’t get a chance later, or so the story goes.

If anything, someone saying they won’t run for a higher office later is a sure indicator they will consider running for a higher office later. That’s why when Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) said he wouldn’t run for President in 2020 whether he won his Senate race or not, I took it as a sure sign he would definitely run if he did well in Texas. I figured if he got blown away, he was done. If he won the Senate race, he’d probably wait until 2024 if President Trump won in 2020 or 2028 if a Democrat won in 2020.

The only way he’d run in 2020, by my estimation, was if he lost but came close. He lost to Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) by just over 200,000 votes. Cruz won in 2012 by over 1.2 million votes.

What I considered the trigger scenario for a Beto 2020 presidential run happened. Now, we’re seeing stories like these:

‘He’s Barack Obama, but white’: Beto O’Rourke blows up the 2020 Democratic primary

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/19/beto-orourke-2020-democratic-primary-995353Sparked by his narrow defeat in a Texas Senate race, Beto O’Rourke is scrambling the 2020 presidential primary field, freezing Democratic donors and potential campaign staffers in place as they await word of his plans.

Even prior to O’Rourke’s meteoric rise, many Democratic fundraisers had approached the large number of 2020 contenders with apprehension, fearful of committing early to one candidate. But the prospect of a presidential bid by O’Rourke, whose charismatic Senate candidacy captured the party’s imagination, has suddenly rewired the race.

Before anyone comes to the conclusion I think I “called it,” I’m acutely aware that I missed Beto by a mile. Yes, I believed that the scenarios were aligned so that a close defeat would propel him to a 2020 presidential bid, but I also had assumed until about a week before the election that he was going to lose by a wide margin. Even on election day I predicted 7.5%. He lost by 2.6%, which in Texas means I missed it by nearly half a million votes. No, I didn’t see the risk he represented properly.

I see it now.

He has three major things going for him that, to me, make him the person to watch over the next year at least.

  1. He’s the best fundraiser in the nation. Period. For a Senate race, he was able to raise $38 million in the third quarter alone and nearly $70 million total. This is small fries for a presidential run, but the only other Senate candidate to come close was Rick Scott in Florida. The #3 and #4 fundraisers – Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Bob Hugin in New Jersey – were able to raise $63 million combined. If he raised that much for a Senate race, he would be able to easily eclipse Hillary Clinton’s 2016 totals. The only person who is arguably better than O’Rourke at fundraising is Barack Obama, and he’ll surely be helping O’Rourke if he gets the nomination.
  2. His national appeal is similar to Barack Obama’s. To be more accurate, his national appeal far exceeds Barack Obama’s appeal when he ran for the Senate in Illinois. These are different days so we can’t assume his head start on appeal will translate into more popularity than the former President if he were to win the nomination, but it bodes well for O’Rourke that he’s still getting a ton of attention two weeks after losing an election. At this point in 2016, even Democrats were begging Hillary Clinton to go away. But they haven’t had their fill on Beto yet.
  3. He has nothing better to do. When the incoming representatives are sworn in next year, he’ll be a free man. Free to hang out in Iowa and New Hampshire. Free to attack Republicans over policies and Democrats over failures. Free to talk to bundlers, strategists, journalists, and voters. While his competition will be sitting in Senate committee meetings or running their business, O’Rourke will be in 2020 mode without having to hide it. Losing may have been a blessing in disguise.

The midterm elections demonstrated opposition to Trump is as rabid as his support. It’s hard to imagine someone as far to the left as O’Rourke winning. Then again, it was hard to imagine him getting over 48% of the vote in Texas.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report