Connect with us

Everything

Why the GOP is so ineffective with their majority

Published

on

Obamacarelite is still being pushed by the Democratlites in Congress. Thankfully, there are still a handful of promise-keeping Republicans in both chambers, particularly in the Senate with Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and a couple others who are trying their best to prevent the full leftward lurch by the GOP.

This is a problem that goes well beyond Obamacare, huge budgets, and perpetuation of liberal policies carried over from the past two decades. It’s setting the stage for a permanent degree of moderation within the GOP itself, one that threatens to leave small-government-minded Americans without a valid home. This, more than anything else, is why we’re so dedicated to helping the Federalist Party rise. It’s becoming blatantly obvious that DC is controlled by an ebb and flow between the Democrats and the Democratlites (formerly known as the Republican Party). To understand what’s happening to the GOP, we have to look at the three primary causes for their push to the mushy middle.

Democrats pushing the boundaries

Why do the Republicans of 2017 act like the Democrats of 1994? The biggest reason is because the Democrats of 2017 have pushed their agenda so far to the left they’ve become the modern day faux-pragmatic socialist party. By vacating any claims to the middle, they’ve allowed the GOP to fit nicely.

For the GOP’s part, it’s technically a smart move. They know that if they can be the moderate party, conservatives will reluctantly vote for the lesser-of-two-evils as they’ve been wont to do since the 90s, the Tea Party’s temporary rise from 2010-2015 notwithstanding. Unfortunately, this “smart move” is only smart for the party. It’s proving to be devastating for the country.

What they always wanted

Let’s not give the GOP too much credit for making the smart move. It also happens to be the ideological move they’ve wanted since before Barry Goldwater and his ilk tried a conservative coup of the party.

Since the 1960s, those of us old enough to remember and bored enough to pay attention have witnessed their continuous push towards the middle when it comes to policies. This is a standard wash, rinse, repeat scenario. During election season, every Republican candidate espouses small-government Federalism, defending rights, and protecting life. After the elections are over, they act in one of two ways. If there’s a roadblock such as not holding majorities in one of the chambers of Congress or having a Democratic President, they are very bold in most circumstances. Case in point: passing a full Obamacare repeal in 2015 knowing full well that President Obama would veto it.

The other scenario is like the one we’re seeing today. They have control of both chambers and the White House, so we get to see their “when in power” playbook. This playbook isn’t about what they can do but rather how they can justify doing pretty much the same things the Democrats would do if they were in power.

With no excuses for inaction, they have to use creative civics in order to cast blame on everyone else for their ineffectiveness. Why did they put out a gigantic spending plan that included pretty much everything the Democrats wanted? They blame the Democrats and hope only a handful of people are left scratching their heads. Why can’t they pass Obamacare repeal? They blame conservatives for obstructing. Why can’t they get funding for the wall but they can fund Planned Parenthood? This is a particularly embarrassing set of logic-gymnastics they’ve been performing for months.

The real answer is this: the Establishment GOP, which is to say the entire GOP leadership minus a handful of ideological Federalists, aren’t looking to shrink government or empower the people the way they claim during campaign season. They want the status quo and as long as the Democrats keep pushing to the left, they feel justified in their stance.

Election strategy over improving America

Both major parties have spent more time and energy since the end of the 19th century figuring out how to win elections and stay in power than they’ve spent fixing the nation’s problems. This is arguably the biggest reason we have the gargantuan federal government we have today. They’ve spent over a hundred years “giving” things to people in order to secure votes. Unfortunately, the things they’re giving aren’t actually theirs to give. They’ve systematically overburdened the American taxpayer for one reason: funding more government to help them win elections.

Every move both parties make takes into account how it will affect the next election cycle. In fact, election repercussions are usually the primary factor they consider when making decisions. This is unavoidable in a two-party system. It’s further evidence that the Federalist Party must continue to rise.

In 1780, John Adams warned us about what we’re experiencing today:

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

Every day we’re seeing actions by an empowered Republican Party that do not align with their campaign promises nor do they align with the small-government premise of their platform. It’s time for Americans to realize both major parties have devolved into campaign machines rather than representatives of the people. If we can go into election time with our eyes open, we have a chance of finally changing the paradigm. To do this, as stated twice before, the Federalist Party must rise.

Advertisement
3 Comments

3 Comments

  1. Ruth A.

    July 10, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    I have published a petition on the White House page for a Full Repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Would you please consider signing it, then post it wherever you can, and send it to your family and friends? Thank you!
    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/full-repeal-affordable-care-act

  2. mikefromlongisland631

    July 10, 2017 at 11:40 pm

    THEY have NO BALLS.

Leave a Reply

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

Entertainment and Sports

Game of Thrones Final Season Episode 2 Review

Published

on

Game of Thrones Final Season Episode 2 Review

As with episode’s one’s review there is no promise of keeping free of spoilers. In fact there is nothing to spoil. Last week’s episode was gritty in a political thriller sort of way as the divided North became the main focus. Episode 2 takes place in the limbo period between the preparation episode and the battle itself. It served as a second preparation episode that was unnecessary filler between two important events. In practice, I like to keep these reviews free of shiny objects and focus on the more analytical aspects of the show, but those were few and far between.

Verdict: Episode 2 was a hollow turd.

Ser Jaime

Ser Jaime Lannister is the MVP of this episode, having the only interesting opportunities continuing throughout the script, but still failed to depict, accurately, Jaime’s character once more. Jaime opens up on “trial” before his former enemies. In truth, Jaime, blurring the lines between sarcastic and serious, regards slaying Mad King Areys II as his “finest deed.” He regrets little, but that which he regrets are the deeds of concealing his (past) love for Cersei, like throwing a child out of a tower, and [spoiler alert] lying to Tyrion about his first wife Tysha being a whore. The latter is an increasingly frustrating deviation that not only undermines Jaime’s character development but has paved the way for HBO to emasculate Tyrion Lannister, metaphorically speaking as opposed to the literal emasculating of Theon Greyjoy. In confronting Daenerys, Jaime was not as defiant enough to make an interesting confrontation better. Instead this was undermined by the power struggle between Daenerys and Sansa, denying a far richer scene where Jaime declares that he saved half a million people. During the drinking scene that resembled previous buildups before battles, Jaime’s character could have amended the Tysha deviation. This hope was unrealized; however, the episode’s best scene was the knighting of Brienne of Tarth, a misfit too ugly to be a lady but unable to be a knight. “Any knight can make a knight” is a well-known Westerosi saying.

Lack of Military Realism

The show goes out of its way to paint incompetent characters like Sansa and Daenerys as quality leaders. Last week, was the first time characters acknowledged how selfish Daenerys is. Sansa is the last person on the show you want as a “wartime president.” Very few remaining characters in Game of Thrones can play the game and command an army. Jon Snow is one. Tyrion is a second, but the show has made him irredeemably stupid. Jaime refused the game but technically has a winning record as a commanding officer. Bronze Yohn Royce was technically featured in the episode and can do both. Daenerys is probably better at military command than playing politics, but when you have dragons, it takes far less skill, Aegon the Conquerer proved as much. Last weeks episode delved into the logistics of war. That was virtually undone in this episode.

For instance Brienne of Tarth is given command of the left flank. Looking closely at the war maps, the left flank featured the knights of the Vale. Instead of having Lord Yohn Royce, a season military commander who fought in Robert’s Rebellion, the Greyjoy Rebellion, led the winning cavalry charge in the Battle of the Bastards, has the loyalty of his men as the most powerful lord in the Vale, the show has Brienne of Tarth command the Vale’s force. Brienne of Tarth has fought one battle, at most! She has never led an army and has no ties to the Vale. The only thing dumber than giving her command of the Vale would be giving her command of the Dothraki, who I believe are on the right flank, the place of honor in ancient Greek culture (perhaps relevant). It’s not that Brienne of Tarth is unworthy of any command, they simply chose the second least believable place for her to lead.

Prepubescent Sex Scene

This is not the poorest written sex scene in Game of Thrones, that still belongs to Sansa being married off to Ramsay Bolton, one of the worst plot deviations from the books. Arya having sex with Gendry was up there though. Arya is eleven when the show starts. A year has passed, no doubt, maybe two, but not anything beyond three which would barely put her at fourteen, at most. It’s not the combo, it’s the age. Arya is a child, not a sensual woman. The show has unrealistically aged these characters. Heck, why didn’t they recast Gilly’s [Mance’s] son? They’ve had over three Mountains, two Dario Naharises (both poorly casted), two Myrscella Baratheons, and I’m sure there are others.

Only Meaning

The only meaning in the episode that was of any worth was Bran revealing the motive of the White Walkers to erase the memory of mankind. There was no buildup and little foreshadow towards this reveal. Game of Thrones is all about placing mysteries on the backburner (who really killed Jon Arryn) but this was a little rushed.

Final Thoughts

This episode was less worthwhile than watching the first three episodes of Star Wars. You could have missed episode 2 and have gone straight to episode 3 and you would have missed nothing that wasn’t known already. I’m not saying this was the worst Game of Thrones episode ever but its down there.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

News

We’ve reached ‘Peak Roger Stone’ on the timeline as he prepares to speak at strip club

Published

on

Weve reached Peak Roger Stone on the timeline as he prepares to speak at strip club

President Trump’s long-time confidant and rabble-rouser Roger Stone is short on cash and looking for options as mounting legal fees reduce his wealth. In a move that can be categorized as “Peak Roger Stone,” the controversial figure is set to accept a large fee to speak at a strip club.

Stone will appear at the Paper Moon in Richmond, Virginia, along side ‘Manhattan Madam’ Kristin Davis of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer fame.

Stone faces legal troubles for allegedly working with WikiLeaks to spread the DNC email hacks that helped President Trump win his election in 2016.

He has always been a controversial figure in and out of politics. Known for his willingness to speak his mind regardless of the consequences, Stone has been notably subdued since being shut down by a judge after he shared an Instagram post about her in February.

I’m not sure how having Roger Stone speaking will benefit the strip club’s business. He’s the exact opposite of what I picture most people expect to see when going to a strip club, but to each his own.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Since leftist media won’t say it: Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

Published

on

Since leftist media wont say it Radical Islamic terrorists murdered hundreds of Christians

The dramatic shift in how mainstream media characterizes terrorist attacks over the years reached what I hope is the pinnacle of their obfuscation today. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka against Christian churches and areas where Christians were likely to gather were committed on Easter Sunday by Muslims in a city known for radicalization. This was a clear and unambiguous attack by radical Islamic terrorists specifically targeting Christians.

But you’ll have a hard time coming to that conclusion if all you’re reading or watching is leftist mainstream media.

The reporting today has been in stark contrast to the immediate labeling and narrative-building surrounding the terrorist attacks in New Zealand mosques last month. There was zero doubt based on media reporting that the attacks were targeting Muslims. But today, it’s hard to even find the word “Christian” in any of the posts or news reports. On top of that, there’s a stark difference when reading the Tweets of condolences from leftists who refuse to acknowledge this as an attack against Christianity despite the immediate and crystal clear labeling of the New Zealand mosque incidents as attacks targeting Muslims.

Some of this was noted by Brittany Pettibone:

OAN’s Jack Posobiec added that a new phrase has been coined by the media regarding the Notre-Dame fire:

Was this the same response they were giving following the Christchurch attacks? No. As Imam Mohamad Tawhidi noted, the differences were very clear.

Why do the media and leftist politicians do this? Why are they quick to label attacks against any other religious group exactly as they appear, but they’re so unwilling to call out any attacks against Christians as attacks against Christians?

This is the time we’re in, folks. The left has a narrative they want jammed into our heads and that narrative has no room for acknowledging violence and persecution is committed against Christians. The only stories that fit their narratives are stories that can blame Christians for wrongdoing. In those cases, the perpetrators’ status as Christians is broadcast loud and clear. But if Christians are victims, the left will go to extreme lengths to negate that fact from the record.

Of all the major news outlets, I was only able to find one that didn’t shy away from the truth. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board stands alone in declaring the intended victims of this attack as who they are and why they were targeted.

WSJ Editorial Board

The intentional suppression of what happened, who committed it, and who was targeted is beyond insulting. The terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka are being framed by the media as some people did something.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report