Connect with us

Culture and Religion

PragerU: Left or Liberal?

Published

on

Dennis Prager presents the reasons why there is a vast difference between Leftists and Liberals.

One of the most fascinating results of directly interacting with Leftists is the development of certain questions they cannot answer. This is not just an arbitrary supposition, but something gleaned from years of interactions with them. The reaction – or lack thereof – is very indicative of the worldview of the Socialist-Left.

Questions Leftists can’t answer.

Do you have the commonsense human right of self-preservation? [Yes or No]

Leftist can’t answer ‘yes’ to this one because it would negate their arguments for Liberty Control. They can’t answer ‘no’ because it would mean individuals have no value except as part of a collective. In essence, that is their underlying belief, but they can’t be honest about it in the least.

What is the legal justification for government control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks?

They have no answer to this because there is none. This belies their belief in the collective ownership of property. Once again, an answer here would show too much of their collectivist belief system.

Are you a Leftist or a Liberal?

This differentiation between the two means that they aren’t interchangeable, despite that being the incorrect common usage. Leftists cannot answer as being Liberal because they realise that it has been shown that their use of that term implying support of Liberty is a ruse. Recent events have shown that they only use certain terms to obtain power such as their adding ‘democratic’ to socialism. These imply something that is not the case.

In light of this, the latest video by Dennis Prager of PragerU lays out the case for the major differences between the two terms:

What’s the difference between a liberal and a leftist?

This question stumps most people because they think liberal and left are essentially the same.

But they’re not. In fact, liberalism and leftism have almost nothing in common. But the left has appropriated the word “liberal” so effectively almost everyone—liberals, leftists and conservatives—thinks they are synonymous. But they’re not.

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

Intellectual ammunition: Mythology vs Facts of ‘gun control’

Published

on

By

Intellectual ammunition Mythology vs Facts of gun control

This multipart series eviscerates some of the Left’s biggest lies and fallacies of Liberty Control

In the first of a new multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.

He begins demolishing the myth that increased Liberty control results in lower violent crime rates.

Places with strict controls on freedom with high crime rates – that the Left doesn’t like to talk about – that are prima facie indicators of this absurd fallacy.

Worse yet, laws that are supposed to keep people safe have the opposite effect, since they only serve to disarm the innocent to the advantage of criminals and the government. The edged weapon attacks in China show that it’s not an issue of issue of guns nor one confined to the states. Or the attack in Crimea or the recent tragedy in a state with the strictest Liberty control around.

He cites the specific case of the mythology that gun confiscation ‘solved’ the problem of gun violence in Australia or the UK:

As I noted for MRCTV in February of 2018, contrary to the claims of pop media swamis, violent crime actually increased in Australia for three years following its vaunted 1996 gun “ban” and mandatory “buy-back”. This spike included an increase in gun-related violent crime, and the violent crime did not return to 1996 levels until more than ten years later, when many civilians had resorted to the black market to rearm themselves.

And, as I observed in the same article, violent crime, including homicides and gun-related violent crime, increased in the UK following its government “banning” most firearms in 1997.

Further on in the video and the accompanying article he also destroys the fallacy that Prohibition Works.

This is simple. As the experience of the United States during the “Prohibition Era” has shown, statutes don’t stop people from obtaining the things they demand. I teach economics, and this is an economic axiom. Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that if the zones of “prohibition” are widened beyond the crime-ridden-yet-gun-banning cities like Chicago and DC, and applied to all of the US this will stop criminally minded people from obtaining firearms. Prohibition doesn’t work.

But this does not stop gun-grabbers from pushing their proposals, or even misreading the US Constitution to justify their threats to curtail your inherent right to self-defense.

Knowing the propaganda methods of the Left, if there were a real location where their ideas actually worked instead of endangering people, they would tout this ‘gun-free’ domain 24/7. We shall call this mythical realm: ‘Unitopia’ from the combination of the words ‘Unicorn’ and ‘Utopia’, which literally means ‘no place’.

If it truly existed, ‘Unitopia’ would feature broadcast studio’s for every major media source so they could talk about it 24/7. One can easily envision a video feed with the announcer intoning ‘We now go to our anchor in Unitopia – the one place that gun control has kept people safe – to discuss the news on…’. It would be the go-to locale for the discussion of Liberty and self-defense.

Part 2 Will discuss the Constitution and Founders. Their words on the common sense human right of self-defense, as well as detailing the point that only individuals can have rights.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Pro-Israel group has amazing response for upcoming antisemitic conference at UCLA

Published

on

Pro-Israel group has amazing response for upcoming antisemitic conference

We’ve grown accustomed to opposing sides attempting to quash each other. Leftists often do everything they can to prevent conservatives from speaking at universities. Conversely, right-wing extremist groups often show up to intimidate leftist protesters. It’s a sad and dangerous ebb and flow that often seems impossible to resolve.

One might expect a similar reaction from pro-Israel groups when antisemitic groups come to town. Students for Justice in Palestine, a BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel) group that operates on campuses around the nation, is having their 8th annual conference at UCLA from November 16-18.

The response from Stand With Us, a pro-Israel organization, is not what most are accustomed to hearing. Charline Delkhah, Southwest Campus Coordinator for Stand With Us, didn’t call for protests or for the school to shut down the conference as many have done to her organization.

“But because we live in a country where freedom of speech is one of our basic amendments, they’re given the same rights as we would be given those rights to have a conference on any campus.”

As most campus groups work to stifle their opposition, it’s refreshing to see one embracing the 1st Amendment by defending the right to free speech even from those with opposite views.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Midterm results: Elitism lost

Published

on

Midterm Results: Elitism Lost

Beto O’Rourke had $61 million, $19 million more than Ted Cruz and still lost. But not only was Ted Cruz at a financial disadvantage, he was being targeted by many celebrities and large companies. Yet Ted Cruz won.

If we look in Tennessee, we saw Marsha Blackburn win a competitive race against Phil Bredesen. Pop singer Taylor Swift intervened on Bredesen’s behalf calling Blackburn, a woman, anti-women.

In Georgia, Oprah and Will Ferrell knocked on doors for Stacey Abrams. Yet Brian Kemp won. In all three of these races elites of Hollywood and Silicon Valley threw their weight behind a Democratic candidate against either a Republican incumbent or a traditionally red seat.

It’s very clear in these three races that leftist celebrities thought they could use their influence to sway public opinion towards their viewpoints. After seeing the results of Tuesday’s midterm, these efforts were in vain.

France | Weapons and Warfare | Page 2

In medieval history, there was the Battle of the Golden Spurs in 1302. Flemish rebels laid siege to Courtrai. The French forces led by Artois arrived to lift the siege and wreak havoc on the rebels. The infantry units were sent to attack the Flemmish forces. The rebels were being forced back until Artois pulled his infantry back at the beckoning of his noble allies. Instead of allowing the infantry to finish what they started, Artois deployed the knight and noble class so that they can have the glory. They attacked the Flemmish line that was well obstructed against cavalry. The elite knights perished in what is considered one of the biggest blunders in military history. The cause: elitism.

The drain that elitism posed to the overall effort can be observed in this midterm. As our editor here noted: attention that went to Beto O’Rourke was attention that could have gone elsewhere, to a more competitive race. Beyonce, LeBron, Taylor Swift, Oprah, Will Ferrell, Jack Dorsey, and countless others charged believing that their worldviews were superior to the populations of Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee and came up unsuccessful. The influence of these numerous celebrities was wholeheartedly rejected. It could even be argued that the onslaught of celebrity endorsements had a negative effect on the Democrats efforts. This could certainly be concluded from the victory speech of Ted Cruz. Certainly we can observe, in these races, diminishing returns is alive and well. So many endorsements piled up for Beto O’Rourke, that each additional endorsement turned off more voters than it rallied.

Perhaps this will create a lasting precedent reinforcing the idea articulated by Ben Sharpiro about we the people not caring what celebrities think. But by no means can we can expect Democrats to contemplate the negative effects of elitism in 2020 as we can foresee celebrity endorsements of whoever they nominate.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report