Connect with us


Lead if you’re going to lead, Mr. President



I try my hardest to avoid the President’s Tweets. I don’t follow him. I’ve purged my feed of people who embrace his bombastic style or his oft-liberal policies. Sometimes, his Tweets sneak in and when they do, I cringe at the implications.

The latest one is a stark demonstration of his unwillingness to lead.

It’s important to note that I say he has an “unwillingness” to lead. He’s capable. I was wrong early on in 2015 when I thought he lacked the ability to lead. His victory demonstrated that he knows how to say the right things, push the right buttons, and strategically position his message in a way that will get the masses to follow him. Unfortunately, the strength he demonstrated during his Presidential campaign has been replaced by his stronger tendency.

When the cards are stacked against him, he has a single trump card for every situation: the victim card.

This is an opportunity for the President of the United States to guide the beleaguered Republican Party to the place they’ve promised to be if given the chance. They have the chance but they’re squandering it. Instead of bringing them together, their default leader is pointing fingers and asking them why they’re not protecting him.

One question, Mr. President: Why are you asking for protection?

More questions: Shouldn’t you be asking for support? Shouldn’t you be laying down a path for them to repeal Obamacare, build the wall, reform the tax system, and reduce threats abroad such as Russian interference with elections and policies?

In short, shouldn’t you be leading instead of whining?

It’s been six months and despite erroneous claims to the contrary, the President’s administration has accomplished pitifully little. There have been good things; I’m not one to ignore reality. The EPA is heading in the right direction. The travel ban, while far from perfect, is a necessary action even if it was clumsily rolled out and amateurish in nature. Regulations, which are often the biggest impediment to growth for the private sector, are being reduced dramatically. There have been positives, just not nearly enough.

Now is the time to bring the nation together to face the problems that have been brewing with nearly three decades of failed leaders at the top. To do that, the President must start leading and that leadership must start within his own party. Stop pointing fingers. Stop being the immature whiner so many have tagged you as from the beginning. Start being accountable for failures and earn the respect of the people you serve.

Start leading.

It’s no secret that we’re building the Federalist Party to oppose the GOP, but we put the nation above the party. I’d rather see the GOP succeed with a small-government agenda that repeals Obamacare fully, reduces taxes, and kills off bureaucracy. If they fail (which seems more imminent every day), we want to be there to pick up the pieces.

In lieu of a long rant, I’ll close with this. The office of the President of the United States is one that has always gotten things done through dignity. Even when the wrong people sit in the Oval Office, the position held power by being above the fray. Watching the President roll around in the mud like a juvenile is not just counterproductive. It tarnishes the remnant of dignity the office itself still holds.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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


Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case



Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading


Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong



Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading


‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably



Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading



Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report