Connect with us

Media

Who is afraid now?

Published

on

Who is afraid now

It could be the grudge match of the century, Ben Shapiro championing Economic Liberty while Comrade Cortez vainly tries to defend Socialistic Slavery.

In this corner, weighing in at 171 Pounds in Blue shorts with 62 wins, 23 by knockout, Kid Shapiro representing Economic Liberty.

And in this corner weighing in at [don’t you dare ask that question].. in Red shorts and Red lipstick with one primary win, Comrade Cortez representing Socialistic Slavery.

Ben Shapiro recently offered to debate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but so far it looks like she doesn’t want to take up the challenge. The most eagerly anticipated question for her being: How in Hades’ are you going to pay for all of your vote buying schemes with the country having over 100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities  and 21 Trillion in debt?

In many ways, it’s too bad that Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is longer on intersectional ‘street cred’ than intellectual gravitas. A fair match-up would still see her losing given that she is trying to defend the indefensible. This is why we salivated over her overnight ascendancy in the ranks of the Socialist-Left. The abject inferiority of her ancient ideas would have seen a lopsided victory of epic proportions even if she were evenly matched with Mr. Shapiro. The proposed debate could be a virtual bloodbath, unseen since the Roman coliseum.

Two prime examples of why the Left cannot openly debate the issues.

Socialism doesn’t work in the real world, so one of the left’s favourite tactics is the illogical comparison between the theoretical promises of every supposedly positive aspect of socialism with the negative connotations of Economic Liberty [or the pejorative term used by the Left ‘Capitalism’]. This is because they cannot compare the practical results of Economic Liberty with the practical results of ‘Democratic’ Socialism. Most rational people would easily choose to live under Economic Liberty than Socialistic Slavery, hence the reason most socialist nations are akin to open air prisons.

The myth of Scandinavian Socialism.

Let’s start the Prime Minister of Denmark Lars Løkke Rasmussen during the last presidential cycle, stating flat-out stating: Danish PM in US: Denmark is not socialist

“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy,” Rasmussen said.

“The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security for its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish,” he added.

This myth has been eviscerated a number of times, Here, and Here. But the National Socialist-Left is heavily invested in this lie, since it is about the only defense they have for base ideology. In actuality, these are small, culturally homogenous nations that can spend money on an expansive welfare state because the US taxpayers foot the bill for their defense. That is hardly amenable to the US, especially the part about the Constitutional funding for defense. We can’t exactly take money from ourselves to give it back, although the odds are there are some that might believe that could be done.

The Socialist-Left can’t afford to debate the Pro-Liberty Right because they will lose.

These examples are why that much-anticipated debate might not take place. Much like guerrilla fighters hiding in the jungle, the Left cannot come out in the open and engage in direct confrontation with the Right. They can only survive ‘debating’ in their echo chamber where their theories are somehow still viable after all the empirical evidence to the contrary. But sooner or later eventually everyone will get a chance to compare their ancient failed ideas to what actually works in reality, and they will lose the argument.

Media

Smear campaigns against Rick Scott start just as he pulls ahead in the polls

Published

on

Smear campaigns against Rick Scott start just as he pulls ahead in the polls

Florida has a penchant for tight races. This year is no different with both the gubernatorial and Senate races polling within the margin of error to be considered a toss up. In the latter race, Governor Rick Scott just pulled ahead of Senator Bill Nelson.

On cue, mainstream media and the leftist blogosphere started rallying for Nelson. First, the New York Times posted a highly biased article claiming Scott’s blind trust was blind in name only. The accusatory headline is damaging but the story itself only reveals that he may have been able to see where his money was going if he jumped through a few hoops. It did not show he took advantage of these hoops and there are no indications that he did.

Then, The Young Turks pieced together a “gotcha’ moment when members of a financial firm donated to a pro-Scott superPAC. Then, the state’s pension system invested using the financial firm. Scott is a trustee. Here’s the thing, though. Scott has no influence on how money is invested.

“Neither the Trustees nor their appointed members to the Investment Advisory Council (IAC) are involved in the selection of investments,” SBA spokesman John Kuczwanki told The Young Turks. “Any suggestion that politics influenced the SBA’s investment decision on the Cerberus FSBA Levered Loan Opportunities Fund is baseless and without merit.”

Despite the honesty of the rebuttals, mainstream media and the leftist blogosphere are operating with the singular goal of stopping as many Republicans from winning on election day as possible. There is no merit to either allegation, but it’s easy for the left to distort and confuse just enough to make an uninformed voter question Scott’s integrity.

Florida is better following Scott’s stint as governor. Florida and America will be better off with Scott over Nelson in the Senate.

Democrats and their media proxies count on a majority of people not understanding how blind trusts and pension investments work. They insinuate corruption where none exists in hopes that most won’t see the truth.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Project Veritas stings Claire McCaskill, but also exposes a sad truth about American politics

Published

on

Project Veritas stings Claire McCaskill but also exposes a sad truth about American politics

Project Veritas, the undercover journalists who bring us a steady flow of videos revealing leftist hypocrisies and scandals, was able to get some good dirt on Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. She’s all in for just about every bit of gun control legislation that can make it to the floor, a stance that won’t sit well in right-leaning Missouri.

But there’s something else revealed in this and past videos by Project Veritas. There are things that certain politicians simply cannot say which promotes the atmosphere of lies and subterfuge that plague our nation’s capital. She’s a “moderate” Democrat when speaking to her constituents, a play that’s necessary in a red state. The same is true for blue state Republicans who can’t come out and say they want to ban abortions or other right-wing priorities because the general sentiment in these states oppose those views.

What we’ve seen is that the youthful, energetic, passionate people who make up the campaign staff and volunteers are often much further to the left than the candidates they support. The same is almost certainly true for Republican campaign staff and volunteers who are likely more conservative than their candidate. What does this really tell us?

Most politicians must cater to the middle while they’re driven by the ideological fringe. This creates a contradiction that cannot be reconciled in today’s two-party political atmosphere.

Is there a solution? Yes. We’ll discuss that after the election. In the meantime, we’ll support the push to keep majorities for Republicans in the House and Senate.

If there’s a red state Democrat that deserves to be moved out of office, it’s Claire McCaskill. The question is whether Missourians will see McCaskill as the centrist she wants them to see or the far-left activists she really is.

Continue Reading

Media

There’s one glaring difference between 60 Minutes’ interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

Published

on

Theres one glaring difference between 60 Minutes interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

Anyone who expected the 60 Minutes interview with President Trump to be anything like their interviews with his predecessor was likely very disappointed. Mainstream media might pretend like they treated the two Presidents the same, but the differences in interviews on 60 Minutes may be the most stark evidence their claim on being unbiased is an absolute lie.

Here’s a portion of the interview with President Trump, which aired tonight:

“Journalist” Lesley Stahl spoke over the President multiple times. If you watch the entire interview, you’ll see that this happened throughout. She would ask a question, most of which were attempts at “gotcha” responses, then would interrupt the President any time he didn’t give the answer she was wanting.

Now, compare that to the interview in the early days of the Obama administration.

Steve Kroft was the embodiment of politeness and civility. He sat aptly silent as President Obama gave his answers.

Mainstream media has given up on pretending they don’t hate President Trump. It no longer behooves him to do these interviews, giving higher ratings to leftist media outlets that simply don’t deserve it.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report