Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The death warrant

Published

on

On a hot August day in 1985, Dick Brewster and Rod Compagna were installing a security system in the historic Ladd-Gilman House in Exeter, N.H. The Gilman family home dated back to colonial days; the Gilman family included a delegate to the original Constitutional Convention, and at least two U.S. Senators.

While tearing out the attic floor, they ran across an original broadside of the Declaration of Independence, printed on July 4, 1776 by Philadelphia printer John Dunlap. Only 200 of these were made for distribution to the colonies. The New Hampshire copy reached the state on July 16. Time was of the essence, since the Continental Congress had committed an act of treason against the Crown, and in so doing had signed their own death warrants.

The original Declaration of Independence would have been of little value had it not been distributed far and wide. The act of signing the document was brave by those who drafted and approved it; but the truly revolutionary (and punishable by death) act was dispatching the copies. Making a statement without following it up with action was then, as it is now, useless.

To win freedom, America had to fight a long, bloody war against the British, who were not wont to losing colonies to upstart revolutionaries. We fought the British again in 1812. Then we let liberty die.

Abolitionist Republican Abraham Lincoln’s victory over populist Stephen A. Douglas (who ramrodded the Missouri Compromise through Congress) sealed the south’s economic fate. But liberty’s fate was sealed long before that.  A long, fruitless series of statements, compromises, heinous judicial miscarriages, and political deadlock killed freedom and liberty, such that by December 20, 1860, the State of South Carolina decided to leave the Union rather than suffer further political injury.

Nearly three years, and a half million deaths after southern secession, Lincoln asserted that the action of those men who fought upon the hallowed ground of Gettysburg would be able to resurrect the suffocated liberty of America.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Those 620,000 war dead in the Civil War died for the same death warrant that the Continental Congress signed.

The death warrant is still in effect 241 years later. Whenever liberty dies in the United States, men may be called upon to fight and die for its rebirth. Today we are seeing freedom take its last gasping breath in America. The 14th Amendment, written to guarantee liberty to slaves, has become a bush of thorns, from which a right to kill babies has emerged. It has also been used to justify overturning the sovereign will of free states to govern their own affairs as guaranteed by the Constitution with travesties such as Obergefell v. Hodges.

The basic right to be born and live as free moral agents, subservient to God and Natural Law alone has been abridged by a government withheld from absolute tyranny by only the smallest counterweight. And now that counterweight has broken.

Last year, we had a choice between two candidates, neither of whom was ideal (to be charitable). We now have a man leading America whose qualifications are no better than Enoch Poor‘s to lead troops at Breed’s Hill or Hugh Judson Kilpatrick‘s to command at Gettysburg.

Yet we must all pledge our sacred honor and our duty to defend our country, and its leaders.

If called upon to fight, we will because we have a duty to those who lived before us. When those signers of the Declaration of Independence signed their death warrants–and acted to send 200 copies to the furthest colonies to publicize the deed–240 years ago today, they also signed our death warrants.

Either Americans will answer when liberty calls from the grave, or America itself will die.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

Published

on

Harvard students figured out why women are paid less than men

It genuinely disgusts me that, despite how much we’ve progressed as a society, especially in regards to our treatment of minorities and women, men still earn more than women do. It makes me ashamed of my country. How can we still refer to the United States as the “Land of Opportunity” when women are only paid $0.80 for every $1.00 that men are paid despite working just as hard in the same positions? Hell, even that depressing number doesn’t accurately express how large the gender pay gap is, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

In the report, titled Still a Man’s Labor Market: The Slowly Narrowing Gender Wage Gap, published in November 2018, the organization revealed that women earn a mere 49% of what men do. What’s worse is that it won’t be until 2059 that men and women have 100% equal pay, assuming the gap continues to narrow as slowly as it currently is. This is absolutely unacceptable, and it’s well past time Congress made it illegal for employers to pay women less than men for the same work.

At least, that’s what I would say if I was a leftist moron who still pays attention to the easily debunked “women earn less than men because of sexism” argument that’s been regurgitated countless times over the years.

The reality is that Congress made it illegal for employers to pay people differently based on their sex decades ago. It was called the “Equal Pay Act” and it was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy all the way back in June 1963. Ever since then, employers have been able to pay employees differently based on their merit, their seniority, their work output, or really whatever factors the employer desires… except sex.

A man and a woman in identical positions with identical output are legally required to be paid the same amount, and employers that fail to do so run the risk of some hefty legal ramifications. But if that’s the case, then why do the numbers presented by the IWPR show that there’s such a massive gender pay gap? Is the Equal Pay Act ineffective? Did the IWPR mess up its numbers? Is there some patriarchal plot to keep women from making money?

No, no, and no. The real answer is incredibly simple, and it’s one I’m sure most of us were able to figure out on our own the first time we heard the “women earn ($0.75, $0.79, $0.80) for every $1.00 that men earn” statistic that’s been getting thrown around for years. Basically, men are paid more than women on average because they seek out more lucrative jobs on average and work longer hours on average. If you take the combined earnings of all the women in the United States in a given year, divide that number by how many women worked at any point in that year, and then do the same for men, you’ll see that the earnings-per-working-woman are quite a bit lower than the earnings-per-working-man, so clearly there is a gender pay gap. However, despite what leftists like the people at the IWPR want you to believe, this gap has nothing to do with sexism.

This was demonstrated in a report, also published in November 2018, by two PhD Candidates in Economics at Harvard University. In the report, titled Why Do Women Earn Less Than Men? Evidence from Bus and Train Operators, the two students examined the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority in order to figure out why such a heavily unionized agency in such a notoriously progressive city (Boston) still paid its female employees $0.89 for every $1.00 it paid its male employees. The answer was, once again, incredibly simple. Women were less likely than men to work overtime hours while also being more likely to take unpaid time off. That’s it. That’s all there is to it.

Men tended to prefer making more money to having more free time, while women tended to prefer having more free time to making more money. While an argument could be made that more employers should account for the different preferences of men and women, something the report actually advises on how to do, there’s no basis for the argument that the gender pay gap is a result of sexism.

It should be noted that the Harvard report examined just one industry in one metropolitan area, which means the findings aren’t applicable everywhere, but the gist of them is. Yes, there is a gender pay gap. That’s an objective fact. However, it has nothing to do with sexism. The causes of the gap vary from industry to industry and place to place, but they almost always have to do with the inherent differences between men and women. I think there’s a conversation to be had about whether or not this is an issue, and if it is, whether it’s up to employers, society, or women themselves to solve it, but to even have that conversation requires us to abandon the idea that sexism is the cause. There are certainly some instances where it is the cause, but the vast majority of the time, it’s not.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

A guide to classical liberalism

Published

on

A guide to classical liberalism

The modern interpretation of the ideology known as “liberalism” is usually associated with the progressive left. Despite the roots of true liberalism – individualism, Natural Rights, and liberty itself – the modern understanding of liberalism has been skewed to make people think more of illiberal politicians like Bernie Sanders instead of Constitutional originalists like Antonin Scalia as liberals.

This 27-minute video does a fine job of breaking down the historical ideas that brought about classical liberalism and the men who brought them to light. It also accurately points out that equality of opportunity for individuals is necessary for a modern society, thus it was this mentality that brought about the end of slavery and the promotion of women’s rights.

From John Locke to James Madison, from the thinkers of Great Britain to the founding fathers of the United States, this video from The Academic Agent brings us through the history of classical liberalism.

For a brief introduction we posted a shorter video earlier:

What classical liberalism is, briefly

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/12/classical-liberalism-briefly/The progressive left and the Democratic Party have undergone many transformations over the last century. They’ve masterfully spun American understanding of language and labels to the point that history has been in a constant state of being rewritten to conform to their machinations. One of the most perverse examples of this is how they now claim the mantle of “liberalism.”

Sadly, those who embrace Natural Rights, limited government, and individualism have been forced to amend our label as liberals to become “classical liberals” for the sake of escaping confusion. Most Americans today would assume if we call ourselves “liberals” that we must be big fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Published

on

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Homicide investigator J. Warner Wallace is familiar with looking for tampering. His job makes him look for things that don’t fit. At his core, he is forced to ask questions about the various situations he investigates in order to see where the evidence points.

When he’s not catching bad guys, he’s a Christian apologist. In this role, he utilizes the same skills he’s honed over the decades as an investigator to demonstrate why it makes much more sense to believe in creation than a randomly generated universe.

The author of Cold-Case Christianity started off as a skeptical atheist, but as he investigated deeper, he soon realized it was impossible for the secular worldview to be correct as it pertained to the origins of the universe and life on the planet.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report