Connect with us


Rules for the Rational: Stop trying to use every situation for political advantage



Rules for the Rational Stop trying to use every situation for political advantage

It should simply be outside the norms of decency to exploit someone else’s pain and suffering.

It’s inevitable that as soon as a tragedy takes place, certain people will try to exploit the situation to their advantage. It should simply be considered bad form to use these events to divide instead of unify based on the raw emotions present after a horrific event. These are people who go by the infamous words of Rahm Emanuel:

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

This is not to say people cannot express their opinions, but basic societal decency should be the standard instead of that kind of cynicism. The people who engage in this sort of activity know that they using the raw emotion to further their cause at the expense of others, those who are rational should shun these tactics.

The hierarchy of exploitation.

Many times there is a hierarchy of exploitation endemic to the use of tragedy, with several of a myriad of possibilities thrown into the mix such as:

Liberty Control
Climate Change
Wealth disparity
Political correctness

The problem for the exploiters is they can’t do all of them at once, so a priority has to be set-up depending on the issues involved. Then there the rankings in some multifaceted hierarchies such as in Liberty control realm. These range from control of free speech to the right of self-defense.

In many cases, certain issues will take precedent over others for the spotlight. Sometimes it’s just a matter of which issue will gain the most traction at the moment. In the case of Liberty Control, the denigration of the right of self-defense seems to be on the wane, so other forms will be pushed forward. For example, control of free speech by those who pretend to champion Liberty will pay dividends down the road for the self-defense opponents.

Examples of how tragedies are exploited in the case of Liberty Control.

Those who dwell in such tactics have even produced a booklet on the practice: A Gun Violence Messaging Guide.


They have set of ‘rules’ to follow in exploiting these situations

  • Don’t Hesitate To Speak Out
    “The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak.”
  • Don’t Assume The Facts – And Don’t Wait For Them
  • Never Apologize.
  • Don’t Let Policyspeak Drain The Emotion From The Moment.

An emotionally-driven conversation about what can be done to prevent incidents such as the one at hand is engaging. A dry conversation about legislative process and policy is far less engaging.

Choice of language, constantly connecting the policy to how it impacts people’s lives, and avoiding being dragged into the nuances of specific policy prescriptions are all critical here.

The exploitation begins soon after a tragedy.

In the case of the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, it was only a few hours before the Liberty grabbers to chimed in with the tired ‘Easy access to guns’ propaganda:

Then the Democrats chimed in calling for people to vote for them a day later.

Followed by Howard Dean called for to‏ ‘be tried for being an accomplice to murder’:

Finally, there is this quip from Piers Morgan that those one the Pro-liberty side compromise once again and give up some more of our Liberty:

The fact is, in this particular case those conserving Liberty have compromised over the decades time and time again, but it is never enough. Each time a little bit of Liberty is given up, only to see more demands later on with the onset of yet another ‘serious crisis’. ‘Giving up’ one type of firearm will just see the demand for the same for other types later on since there have been over 70 instances where the demand has been made for gun confiscation.

The Takeaway

Those who dwell in the rational world know that making changes in the heat of an emotional moment never ends well. Since it only encourages similar demands with another crisis later on.

If something is a bad idea, it shouldn’t be considered rational during a tragedy with emotions running high. These should be rejected along with those who would use the suffering of others to gain political power.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump, as expected



16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump as expected

It was one of the most replayed parts of President Trump’s announcement regarding his national emergency declaration last Friday – a sing-song moment as the President predicted the declaration would be made, Democrats would sue, they’d go through the 9th circuit, and their decision will hopefully be overturned by the Supreme Court. So far, he’s been absolutely correct as 16 states have filed against the declaration.

New York, California, 14 other states sue Trump in Ninth Circuit over emergency declaration attorneys general of California, New York, and 14 other states on Monday filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit against the White House’s recent national emergency declaration over border security, claiming President Trump has “veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”

President Trump sarcastically had predicted the lawsuit last week. He’s slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as “disgraceful” and politically biased.

My Take

This is their right, and while it may annoy those who support building the border wall, it would be a mistake to condemn these states for trying to stop it. This is part of the way our nation is intended to operate. If one or more states feel the need to challenge the authority of Washington DC, they should be able to make their case before the courts. If the courts make decisions based on the Constitution, then the end result will be the accurate and righteous one.

That’s how this was all intended.

I’m not suggesting the 9th Circuit is going to treat this fairly, nor am I confident the Supreme Court will make its decision solely on the Constitution, but until things are changed, this is what we’ve got. Attempts to subvert any component of this system from the President’s right to declare the emergency to the states’ rights to challenge it to the courts’ responsibility to make a ruling about it all would be to denounce the foundation upon which this nation was built.

There was a way this could have been avoided. Had the President and the GOP decided to have the debate over the wall while they had power over the House, Senate, and White House, they would have been in better position to get the wall going by now. Unfortunately, they an improper political calculation to hold off on the wall debate until after the midterm elections, and now it’s costing the American citizens. It costs us money to sit here through the shutdown and the legal battle over the national emergency declaration. It’s costing us time; the wall should be much further along by now. It may end up costing us the wall altogether if they aren’t able to make a strong case before the Supreme Court.

We are in the midst of a crisis at the border, one that has been going on for decades. Let’s not exacerbate the crisis by adding a Constitutional crisis on top. This needs to play all the way out.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading


Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism



Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

It’s been an up-and-down couple of weeks for proponents of the Green New Deal. Before details were released, it was already being heralded as the greatest thing since President Obama’s election. Then, the details came out and even many on the left were taken aback by the ambitious and incoherent provisions of the deal as detailed in a FAQ section on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s government web page.

But that was just a draft. They took it down. At least that was the story.

Unfortunately for proponents, they were caught a little flat-footed as questions started pouring in about, well, all of it. Even if we dismiss the less-draconian concepts such as eliminating air travel or the less-sane ideas like taking care of those who are unwilling to work, the left is still stuck with a proposal that the most frugal estimates put at costing around $7 trillion while other’s consider the decade-long cost to be in the HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.

This is, of course, ludicrous. There’s not enough money in the entire world to pay for the proposal if its cost is somewhere between the lowest and highest estimates, but that hasn’t stopped leftist media from regrouping. Now that the dust has settled a little bit, they’re doing everything they can to recommit to this concept. It’s not that they suddenly believe in this fairy tale. It’s that they don’t want this to be the issue Republicans attack in the 2020 elections.

One article in particular that I read from CNN (yes, sometimes I need to see what the other side is thinking) really struck me for its honesty about the situation. Though I stopped reading it in paragraph two when it referred to “non-partisan” PolitiFact, I went back to it just now to digest the awfulness fully (see the sacrifices I make for our readers!).

To be clear, much of what this article says is correct. It asserts the GOP will take the tenets of the Green New Deal and use it to scare voters into thinking it’s even worse than Obamacare. From 2010 through 2016, Republicans attacked Obamacare incessantly and it worked, giving them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, they stopped there and didn’t actually go after Obamacare with the same fervor they held in their campaign rhetoric and now the Democrats have turned the issue on its head.

But here’s the thing. Obamacare may have been bad, but the Green New Deal truly is worse. It’s not even close. Even if we take at face value the notion that the Green New Deal is simply an ambitious framework around which real legislation can be forged, we have to look at the core issues entailed in order to see the true damage it can do. This is a socialist document. It’s a call for the same levels of insanity that drive the Medicare-for-All movement. Within its frivolous attempts to change perceptions of air travel, cows, and job creation is a deep-rooted desire to convert Americans to needing more government.

NOQ Report needs your support.

The Green New Deal represents the far-left’s desire to make more American dependent on government. At the same time, it aims to increase the levels of dependency for those who are already in need of assistance. It wants Democrats to latch their wagons on the notion that if we become a militantly environmentalist nation, that will serve the dual purpose of giving us fulfillment while saving the planet.

I believe most leftist journalists understand this, but they see in the ridiculous framework a path through which Republicans can be defeated wholesale in 2020 as long as the left can control the narrative surrounding the Green New Deal. They fear another Obamacare counterinsurgency that would wipe out the anti-Trump gains they made in 2018, so they’ve adopted a stance that the Green New Deal isn’t as bad as Fox News says it is. Meanwhile, they’re doing everything they can to say, “look over here and not at the Green New Deal.”

The politics behind what the Green New Deal represents is more in play than the tenets of the proposal itself, at least in the eyes of leftist media. It’s not that they want to promote the concept. They simply don’t want the concept to derail their party in the next election.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage



Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report