Connect with us

Democrats

The liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns, part II

Published

on

The liberty grabber Left has nuked its own argument over guns part II

The Left has gone full confiscator in the debate over Liberty, this is how we should respond to their demands from now on.

In the past the enemies of Liberty on the Left have tried the incremental approach to the deprivation of fundamental human and civil rights. In their zeal to produce a groundswell, they have made it clear that they reject the freedom of self-defense as well as other vestiges of the founding documents. This has been documented here and a number of other places to the point they can no longer deny this fact.

The Left has changed the argument to a contention between Liberty and tyranny.

While they tried to pretend that gun confiscation wasn’t their real goal, the evidence for that is quite clear from their writings. Their frustration at the lack of ‘progress’ in the diminution of Liberty caused them to become more vitriolic in the process. Curiously enough, what was alleged to be the ‘right’ side of history has been shown to be wrong with other nations reversing the course away from tyranny and towards Liberty.

Their writings and commentary over the years has made it quite clear that they have but one goal: Gun confiscation. With all of their energy and activism prioritising the attainment of that goal. The body of evidence shows that any compromises or ‘common sense’ steps are mere stepping-stones to their endgame. The recent comment by Eric ‘Nukem’ Swalwell epitomises the mindset of the Left, that we are to give up our freedom or suffer the consequences.

Compromises met with still more demands.

In the past, we of the Pro-Liberty Right have compromised in trying to resolve the issue, only to be met with still more demands in their incremental assault on Liberty. Any attempts at ‘bipartisanship’ are subsequently ignored to the point that the Left will Lie about the very existence of these compromises, as in the example of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or ‘NICS’ system. This is being done for the sole purpose of imposing even more draconian controls on freedom.

The openly stated goal of the Left of total gun confiscation means a major change in the debate over the subject. It will no longer be one on the efficacy of incremental compromise steps, but in the context of the demand for gun confiscation made by the Left in and of themselves over the past few years.

The debate over Liberty in the context of the Left’s demand for Gun confiscation.

Terminology – ‘Control’ changed to ‘Reform’.

The Left loves to play games with words, blithely using them to deceive and outright lie. Their exploitation of the word ‘Liberal’ is a prime example of their outright deceit in this realm. The debate over the fundamental human right of self-defense is no exception. In the past the Liberty grabber Left used the term ‘Gun Control’ until it was noticed that it was more of an issue of control than of inanimate objects.

Then the Left hit on the idea of labeling most, if not all of their control schemes as ‘reform’. Neglecting that the word has it’s origins in sense of restoration or

‘bring back to the original condition’ from the word in Latin ‘reformare, from re- ‘back’ + formare ‘to form, shape’

But ‘reform’ sounds so much nicer than control, until one considers the tyrannical stick that accompanies this ‘reform’ ranges from a SWAT team with small ‘flash bang’ grenades to megaton sized ‘flash bang’ nuclear weapons as threatened by the likes of Representative Swalwell.

Leftists demands for ‘gun reform’ or ‘common sense’ control of our Liberty should be met with the reminders of their ultimate demands. And that there won’t be any more moves towards gun confiscation no matter what they call it.

Demands to ‘Do something, anything!’ after every serious crisis.

The context here will be in terms of the Left’s stated goal of Gun confiscation. The Left used to abjectly deny that the innocent were being punished, but with confiscation being the goal that is clearly the case.

Punishing 120 Million innocent people for the actions of a few criminals will be rejected in the context that they have done nothing wrong. That it will be manifestly unfair to take out the Left’s emotional angst on the innocent.

The massive injustice of collectively punishing millions of innocent people should be rejected outright, no matter the emotional impetus.

Defensive Gun Uses [DGU’s] and deterrence.

Within the context of gun confiscation, the Left’s agenda on the subject means that innocent people will be left vulnerable to criminals and the government tyranny. While Leftist gun grab would supposedly save Approximately 36,000 per year people from the spectre of death from ‘gun violence’ the numbers show that far more people [500,000 and 3 million per year] are protected by guns.Far more women would be raped or killed for not having the equalising factor of a means of self-defence.

Worse still, the deterrence effect would be gone after confiscation since criminals would know the innocent cannot be armed. Converting the entire country into a disastrous ‘gun-free’ zone where only the criminals and government would be armed.

It should be obvious that disarming the innocent doesn’t protect the innocent. Now that the Left’s plans have been laid bare, they should now be the ones culpable for endangering everyone with their Utopian fantasies of ‘gun-free’ zones.

Intergalactic Background Checks and Registration.

Again, this will now be in the context of the Left’s stated goal of Gun confiscation. Both of those steps are useless for any other purpose. Intergalactic Background Checks would see unlawful government over private property. While registration would set the precedent that one needs permission from the government to have the means to hold the government in check.

Intergalactic [or universal, enhanced or ‘common sense’] Background Checks and Registration are worthless expenditures of effort aside from being precursor’s confiscation. At this point in time it would be ludicrous to trust them with any more compromises or the yielding of Liberty to them.

Out with the old, in with the Nukes.

In many ways, Mr. Swalwell and the rest of the gun confiscation gang have done us all a great favour. While they have openly revealed their intention for their own cynical purposes, these revelations have changed the debate.

From now on the context will be in terms of gun confiscation.

  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect women.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect the innocent.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want ‘common sense’ solutions or ‘reform’.
  • The Left can no longer claim they want to protect Liberty and the Constitution.

The Takeaway

The Left went full confiscator, never realising that one should never go full confiscator. They have openly admitted what has been obvious. They changed the debate with the mistaken belief that it would create a groundswell of people wanting to give up their freedom, in exchange for not being vaporised.

Instead of a ground swell, they have destroyed their own argument. But in actuality it was going to be a dead end for them anyway. At some point they would have been forced to admit the obvious, that the end goal has to be confiscation. Eric ‘NuKem’ Swalwell just put a mushroom cloud exclamation point on the admission of that point.

 

Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Gene Ralno

    November 23, 2018 at 12:03 pm

    Eric “Nukem” Swalwell apparently is not sufficiently educated to have heard of the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152). It forbids the use of military forces to enforce domestic policies within the United States. If he had ever served his country, he’d understand that nobody in the military would ever fire on peaceable Americans, even if ordered to do so. That aside, this wussy boy doesn’t have the guts to personally confiscate anyone’s firearm. Here’s my message for this big shot who never served his country and obviously doesn’t respect it. He believes he personally has powers specifically forbidden by the Constitution to the whole federal government. As America’s supreme law, the Constitution limits federal government authority over citizens.

    The 2nd Amendment specifically forbids what this creepy Californian proposes. It contains only 27 small words so even he should understand it: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The term “militia” refers to peaceable, lawfully armed people. They aren’t reservists, national or state guardsmen, inactive military or any other organized group. They’re civilians. The founders would have had no reason to affirm this natural civil right to military people because they already worked for the government that owned their arms and directed their use. To think otherwise is absurd.

    In this context, the term “infringed” clearly means even the slightest meddling by the federal government is strictly forbidden. Additionally, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The term “incorporated” means even the states are forbidden from meddling in any way with a civilian’s right to keep and bear arms.

    Therefore, the only option to implement what this big mouthed small fry would do is to declare war on America’s firearms owners, all 120 million of them. So, as they say in New York and Connecticut, molon labe. We’ve caught onto this ninny’s little flimflam. He wants no interference with his party’s goal of using taxpayer money to fund entitlements. The democrat party needs entitlements to exchange for votes. They fear any discussion of resistance to their will.

    Citizens just becoming aware should open their minds to the fact that the U.S. is very lucky to have a hundred million legally armed citizens with 400 million firearms in private hands. They should recognize that these are the most peaceable, lawful people in our nation. Leftists need to look at our open borders, colossal drug trade, scarce law enforcement, timid prosecution, limited incarcerations, gang strength, mental defectives living at home and terrorists roaming the streets. Can anyone even imagine the unbridled carnage if this twerp’s goal of total confiscation were to be achieved?

    Every time you vote, think about this. Those who carry out mass murders fear armed citizens and it’s precisely why governments always disarm the governed before they purge the disobedient. Taken together, all the mass shooting deaths from nuts, felons, terrorists and illegal aliens, throughout history for the entire planet, is infinitesimal compared to the total number of civilian citizens murdered by governments. It’s the reason for our 2nd Amendment and throughout human history, it has been a very bad idea to allow any government to disarm its people.

Leave a Reply

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

Conspiracy Theory

Did the ‘party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever, the ‘Green New Deal’?

Published

on

By

Did the ‘party of science’ prank themselves with the greatest practical joke ever the ‘Green New Deal’

There is one big problem with trying to ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gases, it can never happen.

Sometimes it is hard to shake the thought that a higher power played a practical joke on the Authoritarian Socialist-Left with history’s greatest prank. Those familiar with the subject know that the highest manifestation of this ‘art form’ is when the target plays it on themselves and from a source that no one expects. The coincidences leave one gobsmacked as to how it all could be mere happenstance.

The Left’s inherent arrogance has led them to believe they can never be wrong. Even if the result is that they ‘rule the population’ in the end. The problem for them is that they can’t exactly cast themselves as the ‘the party of science’ when they forget about the most abundant greenhouse gas.

Full disclosure, we had been very reluctant to critique the purveyor of this plan knowing that her ‘proclivities’ would be her downfall, knowing it would pay a handsome dividend. We knew that everyone’s favourite socialist would eventually go off the deep end, bringing the rest of the Socialist-Left along with her. Little did we know that it would happen so quickly.

Losing the plot on promises.

While the abject fraud of socialism will have it’s disciples make all manner of promises that will never come to fruition. At least some have a little bit of grounding in reality, neglecting the fact that they will quickly run out of other people’s money. However, in the ‘Green New Deal’ we substantially have an historic first, a completely impossible goal. Consider this passage in their napkin pencil sketch of the outline of a plan to rebuild our entire economy from the ground up:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

[Our Emphasis]

Trying to get to ‘net-zero’ is a fool’s errand because it’s impossible to get to that point with the most important greenhouse gas: Water Vapour.

Never mind that other parts of the scheme are beyond feasibility. Or that the rest of the world will just take up the slack after we self-immolate [After buying the appropriate carbon credits of course]. No, they ignored the most important greenhouse gas and thus rendered their entire plan scientifically absurd.

The problem for them and the indication that this was the greatest prank of all time is that water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Now perhaps they overlooked this scientific fact because the powers that be in the Global Cooling, Global warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling cabal also tend to ignore this ‘inconvenient truth’ to coin a phrase.

Just in case there are any Leftists reading this, we will spell it out for those of the ‘Party of science’: We can never net-zero water vapour since that would entail getting rid of all the water on the planet. Perhaps they don’t realise that Approximately 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by this ubiquitous substance, sometimes referred to as dihydrogen monoxide.

But its impossible elimination would certainly help in providing high-speed rail service to Hawaii.

We can add to this by pointing out that the climate boffins prefer to use terms such as ‘scientific uncertainty’ when referring to poorly understood effects of the ‘positive feedback loop’ of Water vapour. From the National Climatic Data Center on Greenhouse Gases:

As the temperature of the atmosphere rises, more water is evaporated from ground storage (rivers, oceans, reservoirs, soil). Because the air is warmer, the absolute humidity can be higher (in essence, the air is able to ‘hold’ more water when it’s warmer), leading to more water vapor in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the higher concentration of water vapor is then able to absorb more thermal IR energy radiated from the Earth, thus further warming the atmosphere. The warmer atmosphere can then hold more water vapor and so on and so on. This is referred to as a ‘positive feedback loop’. However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop.

As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth’s surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops.

[Our Emphasis]

In other words, they don’t want to admit how water vapour can act as a means for the planet to keep Global Cooling, Global warming, Climate Change, Global Cooling in check. They don’t know for certain about this crucial aspect of the issue. But those of the climate cult do know that if we don’t hand over control of our entire lives to them, entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by the year 2000, as in this report from the Associated Press:

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked June 30, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. We all might have been too busy dealing with Y2K and the millennium, but entire nations being swept off the face of the earth most assuredly wouldn’t of escaped notice of everyone.

Of course the alarmism never stops with criticism of predictions of world-wide disasters being ‘too rosy’ as in this report from the New York times Nov. 18, 2007: Alarming UN report on climate change too rosy, many say:

VALENCIA, Spain — The blunt and alarming final report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released here by UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, may well underplay the problem of climate change, many experts and even the report’s authors admit.

The IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an engineer and economist from India, acknowledged the new trajectory. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late,” Pachauri said. “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”

Okay, they were over blown about having to do something that ‘in the next two to three years’, but it’s a certainty that in 2009 Barack Obama had only had four years to save the world from The Guardian:

President ‘has four years to save Earth’
Sun 18 Jan 2009 00.01 GMT

Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration.

Lest anyone think that since the world ended a few years ago that it would have stopped the predictions of doom, other lists have been since published here and here.

The problem for the Global Cooling cult is that they keep on predicting disaster in a few years and they keep on coming up short. But, we’re not supposed to notice the decades of alarmism, we’re not supposed to rhetorical sleight of hand of the change from Global Cooling in the 1970’s to Global warming when that didn’t happen to Climate Change when that also didn’t happen as well. We’re not supposed to notice the extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary evidence. Most certainly we’re not supposed to notice that these claims that demand immediate action requires that we all give up our Liberty to the very people making the demands.

The takeaway.

Perhaps this epic practical joke on the Socialist-Left will serve as a prime indicator to the rational majority to reject the Green New Deal and the rest of their ancient collectivist ideas. That finally enough people will recognise their socialist snake oil for what it truly is, a fraud of the highest order. It certainly has wrought enough destruction, leaving behind a body count in the millions to make that case.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Dear proponents of limited government: It’s time to start speaking up now

Published

on

Dear proponents of limited government Its time to start speaking up now

For nearly a year, I’ve given the Republican Party a pass for the most part. I left the party in 2016 and after pursuing a third party for over a year, life pulled me back from the fray. When things calmed down (thank you, Lord!), I made a conscious decision to be lighter in my condemnation of the GOP as a whole for two very important reason.

First, there were signs of life in the party. They were faint, but it seemed at times to be possible for the party to do some good things like eliminating bureaucracy, cutting taxes, promoting a business-friendly atmosphere, and making proper foreign policy moves. They were far from good, let alone ideal, but I thought if we could keep pressing them towards smart moves on the border, gun owners’ rights, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, and other areas in which they’ve failed so far, perhaps their decent work on taxes and regulations could be translated into other areas.

Second, the Democrats started to terrify me. Seriously, I’ve been contemplating moving the family to a remote area of Montana and going off the grid before the Democrats got their hands on enough power to do the damage they’ve been promising to do for the last year or so. I wasn’t one who thought Bill Clinton was a radical or Barack Obama was the antichrist. I always thought Clinton was a run-of-the-mill Democrat who could do some damage but not much, while Obama was an ambitious progressive who was nevertheless too smart to think he could make socialism a thing. Since the 2016 election, we’ve seen the Democratic Party go from progressives with bad ideas to far-left radicals who think the only way to go is to destroy America in a glorious explosion of their new Communist Manifesto, also known as the Green New Deal.

This site is 100% crowdfunded by readers like YOU. Please consider donating and keeping the right side of news going strong.

Now that the GOP has demonstrated a toxic mixture of incompetence and false adherence to limiting government with their latest omnibus debacle, it’s time to return to my old stance of refusing to accept the binary choice. When choosing between bad and worse, it’s only a valid choice if the less-terrible option won’t kill you as well. The binary choice between hanging and drowning isn’t really a binary choice, and neither is the choice between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

There are three things that must be done going forward.

  1. Conservatives, Federalists, and Classical Liberals must find a way to united against the two party system. Whether that’s the formation of a new party (which I failed to do once already), a grassroots effort similar to the Tea Party (which worked for a short time before finding irrelevance), or some other method of unification against the putrid system that has engulfed nearly all of Washington DC, we have to find an outlet.
  2. NOQ Report will become a hub for bringing these thoughts together. This is something that I’ve found success with when I ran The New Americana. Now, it’s time to collect the voices of reason once again.
  3. Prayer. Lots of prayer.

I’ve reached out to some of my conservative and federalist friends. Over the next few weeks, we’ll see what can be done to make DC listen. In the meantime, be discerning and prepare to abandon the tribal mindset that has plagued this nation for too long.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Veronique de Rugy: Green New Deal would be hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal commitment

Published

on

Veronique de Rugy Green New Deal would be hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars in federal commitment

If there’s a word that’s not necessarily negative one could use to describe the Green New Deal, it would be “ambitious.” The deal has so much wrapped into it that it’s hard to tell which components are designed to save the environment and which ones are intended to destroy the economy.

Estimates put costs for the “green side” of the resolution at somewhere between $12-$20 trillion. Then, there’s the Medicare-for-All component that is estimated at $32 trillion over a decade.

And that’s just the start.

This isn’t just a “green” deal. It’s a hodgepodge of policy proposals that include massively growing the welfare state, inserting government even more into the job markets, and a universal basic income that they refuse to actually call a universal basic income. The much-maligned FAQ that was posted and quickly removed from the website of sponsor Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) mentioned paying people who were unable or even “unwilling” to work.

“Even in the best case scenario where you substitute a UBI for all the other forms of welfare, it’s insane,” said Veronique de Rugy, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, on ReasonTV.

But here’s the problem. The Green New Deal doesn’t substitute a universal basic income for other welfare programs. In the Green New Deal, the programs recommended are supposed to be additions, not substitutions.

“It’s a really hard system to support even in its ideal form,” de Rugy continued. “Then there’s this Green New Deal version which doesn’t even seem to entertain this notion of actually substituting for all the rest, so it’s on top of what we have now.”

This site is 100% crowdfunded by readers like YOU. Please consider donating and keeping the right side of news going strong.

The real question we need to ask is whether or not the Democratic Party is actually going to support this. In its current form, the Green New Deal is a fantasy, and perhaps that’s what the more-sane Democrats are shooting for by supporting it. By giving it their attention now, they can work their way down to more reasonable proposals for everything from environmental protection to job creation programs to different versions of socialism.

In other words, they may be using the hyper-leftism of the Green New Deal as a gateway to get to the palatable leftism of what’s quickly becoming mainstream socialism.

The Green New Deal shouldn’t scare conservatives because it can’t happen. What should concern us is the end result negotiated down from this starting point. Given the GOP’s negotiating track record lately, we don’t know what we’re going to get when the Green New Deal is trimmed down to reality.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report