Connect with us

Opinions

Give credit to Mitch McConnell

Published

on

Give credit to Mitch McConnell

To many on the right, Mitch McConnell is the worst Republican Senator. Many Conservatives, including myself, relish the day when McConnell is removed from the Senate Majority Leader position in favor of a real Conservative or a system which omits the position entirely. But while he remains high in status on Capital Hill, there appears to be too much hyperbole in the underachievement that is his reign as Senate Majority Leader. Even Conservative Review has him ranked as the #2 RINO in all of Congress, with Lindsey Graham at number one. This ranking is despite the fact that many Republicans in Congress shamefully ave a lower Liberty Score than McConnell’s 36. I’m not here to say that Mitch McConnell is a good Republican or even an average one. I’m here to say he doesn’t deserve to be referred to as the worst or even bottom ten.

Race To The Bottom

I first want to prove there are at least ten worse Republicans in Congress. To begin, Paul Ryan is Speaker of the House. He was Mitt Romney’s VP candidate. He had a reputation for wanting to balance the budget. As speaker he has done nothing of the sort. With Trump in the Whitehouse, he is still doing nothing of the sort. He is worse than Mitch.

Susan Collins has a Liberty Score of 10, the lowest of any Republican. She is also one of the most pro-abortion Republicans in Congress. Lisa Murkowski is one of the most pro-union Senators among Republicans. Her support for Obamacare is with little waver. Lamar Alexander has a Liberty Score of 17, the second lowest among Republicans. Lindsey Graham is worse, and the reason will be obvious in the next section. There are actually 10 alive Senators with worse voting records than Mitch McConnell. He may be in charge, but listing him as the worst almost absolves the other RINOs in the herd. It’s a classic uninformed voter mentality that your incumbents aren’t the problem. It’s always another state voting these idiots.

Blind Squirrel’s Nut?

In recent days, Mitch McConnell has become a championing force for the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process.

It’s clear that McConnell will do what’s in his power to ensure the confirmation. Does that mean Kavanaugh has the votes? No, But McConnell won’t be the vote of betrayal. So is McConnell all of the sudden decent? This line of thought is also misleading. Let’s roll back the clock to 2009. Obama with his first Supreme Court vacant seat, nominated Sonia Sotomayor. Numerous Republicans voted on the bill. Only 3 are still around. Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Susan Collins all voted for Sotomayor. McConnell opposed Sotomayor’s nomination.

A year later, Elena Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Lamar Alexander joined the Republicans. Susan Collins and Lindsey Graham were in favor among current Republican Senators. McConnell was opposed.

In the summer of 2016, Obama was poised to nominate a third judge, replacing Antonin Scalia, a solid constitutionalist. This was a crisis. If Obama had his way would be dwindled down to two Conservative judges. But McConnell did not budge. He instead gambled on the election. Obama went on to nominate Merrick Garland. Garland was an anti-gun judge on the DC v Heller case at the appellate level. This was Obama’s attack on the 2nd Amendment.

54 Republicans sat on the Senate. McConnell gave them no chance to lend the Democrats the opportunity to flip a Supreme Court seat left. Would Garland have received 60 votes? No. But when so many Republicans are willing to bend over, McConnell gave them no chance, and this is noteworthy. Moving forward, McConnell’s gamble paid off. Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch. McConnell was a championing force behind the confirmation, for a RINO. McConnell went nuclear so that the Democrat’s filibusterer was broken and only a simple majority passed. Gorsuch received 54 votes, shy of 60. Without McConnell’s commitment, we wouldn’t have Gorsuch and likely wouldn’t have a third Conservative on the Supreme Court.

Now McConnell’s efforts will be needed to ram through Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation despite the stalling tactics of the Democrats and a new low of weaponized sexual assault allegations. McConnell may be unwilling to pass Kate’s Law or meaningful spending cuts, but he is instrumental in confirming quality judges to America’s highest court. This needs to be accounted for in Conservatives’ rankings of Congressman. Mitch McConnell may be all-establishment RINO, but considering how bad the GOP is, especially in the Senate, he’s not the worst. He’s mediocre.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base

Published

on

2020 hopefuls lurching leftward to appeal to radical progressive base

The great primary evolution is already starting. We saw it in 2016 as every Republican candidate tried to “evolve” their views to cater to the conservative base. No evolution was more striking than candidate Trump’s, who went from supporting gun bans and partial birth abortion as a younger man to being one of the most conservative candidates during the primaries.

We’re seeing it now with the Democratic candidates and potential candidates as they try to plant their ideological flags as far to the left as possible. Former Trump pollster John Mclaughlin gave his opinion on the leftward lurch of the field, focusing on Elizabeth Warren, Cory “Spartacus” Booker, and Kamala Harris. Each has attempted to paint themselves as the radical progressive the primary-voting base desires. All of them were much more moderate in the past. Warren was even a Republican in the 1990s.

The thing that makes this trend most disturbing is that the “far left” of the past is nothing compared to the radical progressivism of today’s Democratic base. By the time the primaries really heat up, most if not all will be full-blown socialists.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr. to attack Israel

Published

on

NY Times invokes Martin Luther King Jr to attack Israel

When a nation the size of New Jersey is surrounded by enemies and is the subject of incessant condemnation from the United Nations, it’s natural to assume thoughtful people will take a complete look at its circumstances before deciding which side of a contentious debate to support. This is why many Americans still choose to support the nation of Israel despite mainstream media’s efforts to frame it as evil.

Unfortunately, the debate is so complex, most Americans form their perspectives based on very limited data. Passions are so strong on both sides that it often comes down to which side’s message is loudest in the ears of those deciding who to support. The Israel-Palestine debate has been ongoing since the tiny nation was first formed and ramped up greatly following the attacks on Israel in 1967 that resulted in necessary expansion.

Today, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights are all considered “occupied” territories by a majority around the world, at least among those who are paying attention. Despite clear evidence that the very existence of Israel would be threatened if these lands were “returned” to the Palestinians, most of the world calls for the two-state solution as the path to peace.

On top of the disputed lands, the way that Israel maintains peace within its own lands is labeled as oppression against Palestinians living there. The core of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement’s message is that the Palestinian people are being persecuted. To support this premise, an activist at the NY Times is invoking Martin Luther King Jr and his opposition to the Vietnam War as the roadmap by which BDS activists should muster their own courage and build more support to fight the nation of Israel.

Time to Break the Silence on Palestine

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opinion/sunday/martin-luther-king-palestine-israel.htmlReading King’s speech at Riverside more than 50 years later, I am left with little doubt that his teachings and message require us to speak out passionately against the human rights crisis in Israel-Palestine, despite the risks and despite the complexity of the issues. King argued, when speaking of Vietnam, that even “when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict,” we must not be mesmerized by uncertainty. “We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

To be clear, King was opposed to a war that resulted in the deaths of 1,350,000 people, which is nearly the same amount of Arabs living in Israel currently. King was opposed to a war in which no Americans were attacked prior to us getting involved. Israel is attacked regularly from multiple groups in and out of the nation who support the Palestinian movement. King was opposed to a war that took focus and resources away from his cause.

As he said, “We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia and East Harlem.”

To be fair, the author of the NY Times article, Michelle Alexander, was using his anti-war speech to demonstrate the courage King displayed as inspiration for the courage she feels BDS supporters need today. Had she left it there, then there wouldn’t be much of a need to respond. However, she continued in the article to speculate King may not have been happy with Israel back then. Worse, she implied that he could have been a supporter of the BDS movement today.

This opinion is beyond questionable. King’s motivations for not wanting to outwardly support Israel’s actions following the Six Day War were for the sake of his movement, not based on personal feelings on the matter. It made sense to not take a side in a debate in which many of his supporters of African or Middle Eastern descent may have objected.

It is becoming increasing common in the BDS movement to point solely towards the actions of the Israeli government while ignoring the reasons for these actions. They often talk about homes being bulldozed, but they ignore the fact that punitive demolitions are a result of terrorist attacks. I am not in favor of these demolitions, but I would never hide the facts to support my claims. The BDS movement realizes calling out Israel for bulldozing Palestinian homes is most effective if the reasons are never mentioned.

As pro-BDS articles go, this one was strikingly coherent. This is a bigger problem than the unhinged hate articles we often see from BDS supporters. It’s easy to see how this one-sided portrayal in a publication as strong as the NY Times that invokes an icon like Martin Luther King Jr can garner support for the movement from those who would otherwise never consider it. The article is very careful to cut off cries of antisemitism and is written for rational thinkers rather than emotional feelers.

But therein lies the problem. It invokes King and his famous speech knowing full well few will actually read it. If they take the time to read or hear it, they’ll wonder what any of that has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The NY Times is betting on the easy odds that nobody’s going to take the time.

None of the seven reasons King gives for opposing the Vietnam War could be applied to Israel. Invoking the speech and insinuating he would have been a BDS supporter is a disingenuous attempt to equate his righteous activism to the BDS movement itself.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Media

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trump’s physical barrier claims as “Mostly False”

Published

on

PolitiFact demonstrates pure partisanship declaring Trumps physical barrier claims Mostly False

Pulitzer Prize winning fact checking agency PolitiFact has been accused of leaning dozens if not hundreds of their fact checks to favor the Democratic perspective on most issues. In one of the most egregious examples of partisan hacking, they declared a statement made by President Trump during his televised address to the nation as “Mostly False.”

Here’s the statement: Senator Charles Schumer “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past along with many other Democrats. They changed their mind only after I was elected president.”

This is undeniably 100% true. It’s demonstrable that Schumer and many Democrats have supported physical barriers along the border in the recent past. Their support for changed sharply once then-candidate Trump started talking about needing a border wall, so technically speaking that portion of President Trump’s statement wasn’t entirely true. He said their support changed after he was elected, but it started changing a few months after he first entered the race.

Here’s a graph from Cato Institute that shows support from Democrats at over 40% in October, 2015, when it still seemed far fetched that he would win the nomination, let alone the general election. From that point, it took a nose dive.

Democratic Support for Border Wall

The portion of the PolitiFact article in which the author tries to justify the “Mostly False” rating attempts to distinguish between the differences in security barriers proposed by the President and accepted by Democrats in the past.

Did Democrats reverse border wall position after Donald Trump was elected?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/jan/09/donald-trump/trump-democrats-reverse-border-wall-position/Schumer, along with tens of other Democrats including former President Barack Obama, voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorized building a fence along about 700 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. That’s the majority of the barrier in place today along the southern border.

However, the fence was mocked as a “nothing wall” by Trump in the past and was far less ambitious, both politically and physically, than the wall Trump wants to build now.

This logical gymnastics is farcical when we read the statement that is allegedly “Mostly False.” The President did not suggest nor has he ever believed the Democrats supported the type of wall he’s requesting. That’s why he was very specific in stating Schumer and the Democrats “repeatedly supported a physical barrier in the past” instead of saying they supported his wall. This is important because for a fact-checker, the details are important.

They have repeatedly judged against conservatives for the tiniest nuance in their statements to attack. But when the statement is properly worded, as the President’s was, this fact checker decided to dig into intent rather than fact checking the statement itself. He penalized the statement as being false because he reconstructed what the President said as meaning something different. This is convenient selective inference on their part. But they’re completely unbiased. Just ask them.

When even the “trusted” fact checkers are willing to abandon ethics and call an obviously true statement false for the sake of political expediency, it’s no wonder so many Americans are frustrated with the entire mainstream media mechanism.

This is why we humbly request you support us with a donation so we can try to counterbalance the horrid leftism present in mainstream media.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report