Connect with us


Be careful: Conspiracy theories will only help Wasserman Schultz



Politics is a business of trust and credibility. The object of a political debate is not to convince your opponent of the error of his ways but to persuade the audience not to listen to your opponent; that he is wrong and you are right; that he cannot be trusted but you can be. That doesn’t mean subscribing to ad hominem character assassinations, but your argument should always increase your own public reliability while simultaneously sowing distrust in your opponent.

But be careful not to become overzealous in your attacks. Above all, never exaggerate unless it is clear that you are doing so. Overselling your opponent’s misdeeds will actually weaken your argument, as the mainstream media have failed to recognize in their coverage of all things Trump/Russia.

If Democrats had simply pointed to some odd circumstances and said, “Hmm, that looks suspicious,” they might have led a compelling campaign against President Trump. But by conflating Trump’s actions as treason, treachery, and a volatile threat to our republic, all without evidence, they’ve set the bar impossibly high for any satisfactory payoff. And as a result of the media’s endless obsession with the admittedly “mostly bulls**t” story, not only are most Americans sick of the narrative, but even a potentially devastating bombshell like the Trump Jr., Manafort, and Kushner meeting fell on desensitized ears because — though not good — it wasn’t nearly as bad as the scandal the media have been building up to.

The MSM’s implosion may give us all a hearty laugh at their expense, but beware: Republicans are dangerously close to committing the same grave error in the Wasserman Schultz case.

For a quick recap, Florida Representative and former Chair of the DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz is under fire for the mysterious situation surrounding Imran Awan, a Pakistani man who worked as one of Wasserman Schultz’s IT staffers for about 12 years. Awan was blocked from the House IT system several months ago and was thus unable to perform any work for the Florida Democrat, yet he remained on Wasserman Schultz’s payroll until Monday, when he was arrested for bank fraud after wiring almost $300,000 to himself in Pakistan and attempting to flee the country. He stole the laptops of several Democratic congressmen and had access to some of their passwords, including that of Wasserman Schultz, who allegedly threatened the Washington, D.C., Chief of Police to hand over her laptop even though it’s now evidence in an ongoing investigation.

Literally everything in this story reeks of suspicion and corruption. There are many theories circulating that Awan could be the true source of the DNC Wikileaks — which would devastate the Left’s narrative of Russian obstruction — or that this might have something to do with the Muslim Brotherhood. Many are demanding that obstruction of justice charges be brought against Wasserman Schultz for her clear attempts to hide whatever’s on her laptop, and others suggest that Awan must have been blackmailing his boss over some untold scandal.

Each of these angles is plausible, but none is sufficiently substantiated to move forward with right now, and we need to be careful not to overstep the information. If the Right pulls out the big guns and hammers a narrative of election hacking, terrorism, and blackmail, all without actual evidence, anything less will pale in comparison and let Wasserman Schultz off the hook. For right now the best offense is subtlety.

Press at the wound, but don’t diagnose it yet. Say things like, “I wonder why Awan received so much money despite not being very good at his job,” or “It’s strange he was still being paid months after his access was revoked,” and “Do you think he had access to all those leaked files?”

Follow Andrew McCarthy’s example with National Review by planting seeds of doubt: “Did the swindling staffers compromise members of Congress? Does blackmail explain why they were able to go unscathed for so long? And as for that sensitive information, did the Awans send American secrets, along with those hundreds of thousands of American dollars, to Pakistan?”

Then let that uncertainty sink in and don’t press any further: “We don’t know if these allegations are true, but they are disturbing.”

The ball is in the Democrats’ court to defend themselves, not in ours to speculate. The information we already have is more than enough to arouse distrust and whittle away the credibility of the Left.

Even without knowing what Wasserman Schultz is trying to hide, she’s clearly trying to hide something. That’s all we need to keep pushing. This might have nothing to do with tampering in the election, but with the media so afraid to cover the story, that’s enough to suggest that they think it could debunk their Russian narrative, and thus that they know the whole thing is garbage.

This should be an easy win if we play it smart. Let’s not spoil this one. This story is catching fire well enough without our smothering it by adding too much wood prematurely.

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

Leave a Reply

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


Tucker on new NJ gun ban: Venezuela banned gun ownership before country’s collapse




Tucker on new NJ gun ban Venezuela banned gun ownership before countrys collapse

Tucker Carlson makes the point that the Leftists opposing Liberty should target criminals instead of the innocent.

Letting Tucker Carlson speak for himself, But we’re emphasizing two important points:

  1. Gun Confiscation has nothing to do with ‘safety’ or ‘protecting the children’ but empowering the Socialist Left. Crime has skyrocket in the Socialist Utopia of Venezuela after the government disarmed the people. Just as the Left wants to do in the states.
  2. He also made the point that indicates the other party is arguing in bad faith.  If they really were concerned about gun violence, then they would go after that small segment of the population that is committing this violence. Instead they are going after innocent gun owners.
Tucker on New NJ Gun Law: Venezuela Banned Gun Ownership Before Country’s Collapse said that in Venezuela, the point was not to make people safer, but to “disarm the public.” Now, it is a felony in New Jersey for ordinary citizens to “defend themselves,” Carlson added.

Bernard Kerik, who was Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s NYPD police commissioner, said on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that the law is a “cunning way to attack the legal gun owners.”

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


New rule needed: Old Ideas have to work BEFORE they can be tried again




New rule needed Old Ideas have to work BEFORE they can be tried again

If the Unaffordable Care Act [Obamacare] didn’t work properly, why replace it with more of the same?

It’s a pattern replicated far too many times. There is a small expansion of government based on a ‘new’ idea that inevitably fails to work as promised. This is replaced with an even bigger expansion of government to solve the issues of the original program. When this also fails to work, an even bigger government expansion fails even more spectacularly. Each time the ‘new’ idea repeatedly fails making the situation far worse.

Instead determining what actually can work, the same mistakes are made over and over with the futile expectation of different results. If an idea is flawed, the results will always be the same no matter it’s size or overreach.

Old ideas have to be shown to work BEFORE they can be tried again

There is a perfectly easy way to avoid repeated failure. Look at what works and reject what doesn’t. If the basic idea of a law or government program is a known failure, why bother trying it again? Ever-expanding government programs of failure only lead to ever-expanding failure.

Consider just a couple of examples of this pattern:

  • Government controlled healthcare systems.
  • Government controls on Liberty [i.e. ‘Gun confiscation’]
  • Ever increasing taxation that has led to ever diminishing tax revenue.
  • And the Great, Great, Great, Granddaddy of them all: Socialism [Collectivism]

Government controlled healthcare

In the case of the Unaffordable Care Act [‘ACA’ or ‘Obamacare’] there would be no need for a new overarching system if it were functional. But it’s promises never materialised, so the Left is now clamouring for something even worse. With it now being ruled unconstitutional, the whole concept of government control of health care has been called into question. We should always take into consideration other ideas that actually work instead of heading down the same dead-end road.

The Left’s ideas on healthcare have been a series of ever-increasing failures of ever-increasing over reach by the government. They never admit to failure, they just keep on clamouring for more without any word on funding

For example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D., Minn.) agreed with the contention that the Democrats should now push for an even bigger expansion of government control over everyone’s life with “universal health care”. Medicare and Medicaid failed to solve the problem, so the Unaffordable Care Act was layered on top. That is also failing, so the ‘solution’ offered by the nation’s Left is even more control of Government control of healthcare. Never mind that we cannot afford the $42 trillion price tag for a new government monstrosity over the next decade, never mind that it violates the basic precepts of the Constitution. History and logic tells us that it cannot work, so is there is no point in trying it all over again.

New Ideas based in Liberty

There is no point in going in the same direction, repeating the same failure with the same ancient ideas. However, as JD Rucker pointed out, we need to support positive ideas instead just acting in opposition. In that context, these are some examples of alternatives to healthcare under the control of the government.

Direct care or Concierge Medicine

This is a system where patients pay a retainer fee to a physician for personalised care. The retainer fee lets the medical professional work with a smaller number of patients so they can have far easier access with lower co-pays. This type of practice would be combined with catastrophic care for emergencies.

For most people this sounds far better than impersonal service and high deductibles of a government-run system with far lower costs. The individual would be the priority rather than the collective. A much better system than one that combines the customer care of the DMV, the empathetic demeanour of the IRS and the cost efficiency of the Postal service.

Other plans to fix the mess of government-run health care

Then there are alternative ideas such as those in a recent Heritage foundation report that outlined some of their ideas to to replace Obamacare. The main point here is to return to plans that put choice in the hands of individuals.

The takeaway

Thus we have two contrasting visions of how things should work (or not in the case the ancient ideas of the Left). The nation’s Socialist Left wants to pile on a new overarching government plan due to the failure of the existing overarching government plan. We can’t afford the cost in Liberty and dollars of the old plan, nor can we even begin to afford the cost in Liberty and dollars of the ‘new’ plan. History tells us that the ‘new’ version of the same old ideas will fail to work as promised. This will cause the need for the Left to have another go at the problem that will also fail to work.

The Left can talk all they want about fighting for people, but the results of their ancient ideas speak for themselves. Only needs to cite the horrific conditions of Venezuelan healthcare to see how much they ‘care’ about people. We of the Pro-Liberty, Conservative Right have the advantage of ideas grounded in Liberty that have been proven to work. These can reverse the trend toward freedom crushing government systems that do not work no matter how expansive or expensive.

The choice is clear, keep on going in a direction will see everyone paying dearly in dollars and Liberty for a ‘new’ government program that won’t work. Or trying a new approach with fresh ideas that actually work and maintain our freedom.


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

Culture and Religion

Leftists keep crying wolf: How ‘racist’ has lost all meaning




Leftists keep crying wolf

The Left needs to start coming up with real arguments instead of relying on the crutch of name-calling.

Nick Kangadis , @TruthOfChicago of MRCTV makes the point that Leftist name calling has destroyed the emotional impact of certain words, leaving them without any practical debating points. Not to mention that a fair amount of time they are merely projecting their maladies on their opposition.

Does the action of being called a “racist” mean anything anymore? You’d think for being people that constantly talk about how tolerant and inclusive they are, the Left sure are hellbent on removing any weight actual racism carries, among other labels they like to arbitrarily place on people. The funny part of the whole thing is that the people who always cry racism seem to be the biggest racists.

Rules for the rational: Never substitute name-calling for a real argument

It’s one thing to frame the debate with a label or proper term, it’s quite another to simply use pejoratives without basis in fact.

We use the terms Leftist or Socialist-Left because those are the proper terms for those people. Conversely, we eschew the terms Liberal or Progressive because they are false descriptors of the Left. Some have tried to argue that the two ‘L’ words of the same length are interchangeable when that is not the case. Leftist are of collectivist bent, while Liberals are individualists.

Similarly, the vaguely defined term ‘Progressive’ runs counter to the post-modernism of the Left. The term national merely relates to or is characteristic of a nation. By the same token, the moniker ‘Liberty grabbers’ for Leftists describes their true nature in that they are no longer advocates of Liberty – despite their ongoing exploitation of the term‘Liberal’.

This is not the case with the Left, they have the unfortunate tendency to use pejoratives such as ‘Racist’, ‘Sexist’, ‘Fascist’, to excess instead of utilising real arguments. Presumably, one is supposed to be figuratively set back on their heels defending against these types of baseless allegations. The danger for the Left is these words have become a poor substitute for rational debating points, not that they ever had much of those in the first place. After all, their best argument in favour of collectivism is that it’s either never been tried before or it’s being tried everywhere.

The takeaway

A rational argument is far better than those worn out pejoratives that are usually based on information they don’t have. In most cases, one cannot know if they fit into those pejorative categories. But that never stopped the Left from using them anyway. The Left’s tactic of projecting the words ‘racist’, ’sexist’ ,’fascist’ has become both sad and amusing. Their desperation in using the follow-up tactic of circular logic in applying those words is also becoming obvious to everyone.

As those words lose their emotional impact from excessive overuse, it will become clearer to all that the Left has no real arguments in favour of it’s socialist national agenda. But most likely it’s racist, sexist or fascist to notice that.

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




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report