Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Why Principles Matter – 2nd Amendment Edition.

Published

on

Ghost Guns prove that gun control can never work as promised

There are times when one feels compelled to write on certain subjects without knowing the reason. Consequently, this was begun a few days ago in anticipation of some occurrence. Then came the infamous utterance of President Trump to ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’. This was followed up by the stomach-churning video of that meeting with Senator Dianne Feinstein giddy at the prospect of Trump betraying his core base in banning almost all firearms.

Anyone with a logical mind should be able to see what is going to happen next. Whatever measures passed under the auspices of Trump will not solve the problem – because this was Never the intent. Soon enough, another massacre will take place, the rhetoric will be reset to zero with a repetition of the same process. Demands will be repeated to “Do something”!

Once again President Loose cannon will blithely advocate parceling away our God-given rights as a sacrifice to ‘Bipartisanship’. The precedent will have been set for another round of attacks against our common sense human rights. The same meetings will take place, with as yet another denigration of our rights. At some point, it will occur to Trump that the nation’s socialist Left doesn’t have his or Liberty’s interests at heart. But by that time the damage will already have been done.

Let’s make this perfectly Clear: The 2nd amendment is non-negotiable.

It is not to be trifled away like Christmas hams for the sake of a pleasant photo-op. The Bill of Rights has a two-fold purpose, it restrains the government while protecting the liberty of world’s smallest minority – the individual. Each one of it’s carefully crafted amendments limit the collective power of the mob against a minority of one. The truly Liberal founding fathers knew that freedom is diminished with the expansion of the government:

“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson

This crucial point is perfectly exemplified with the 2nd amendment, for each denigration of this common sense Human and Civil Right has a corresponding expansion of the power of the government. It is an understatement to declare that this Civil Right is the most important. People cannot exercise their other rights without having the means to defend themselves from oppression.

This has been proven many times down through history with the Hungarian revolution against the oppressive USSR in 1956 to the massive daily protests last year against the Socialist regime of Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. From the Prague Spring to Tiananmen Square, if the people do not have the right and means to defend themselves, they do not have rights of free-speech, free-press or every other right.

This is a debate over Liberty, not about inanimate objects.

The people who falsely fashion themselves as being ‘Liberal’ have been quite busy exploiting this current “Serious Crisis” to the hilt. They’ve dropped the toxic phrase ‘Gun control’ for the fascist friendly phrases ‘Gun reform’ or ‘Gun safety’.

Make no mistake, this isn’t about ‘safety’, ’Gun law reform’ or a number of other deceptive terms. This is about Liberty Control or Liberty reform. Yes, you read that correctly: Liberty instead of the word ‘gun’. Unlike the national Socialist-Left, we are going to use the words that precisely define the issue at stake. Guns are nothing but inanimate objects of metal, wood or plastic. These items have no inherent Civil or Human rights, they are only the means to secure Liberty. Rights can only be possessed by individuals – not a hunk of iron, thus the real meaning of this debate.

It’s been said that “He who defines the terms, wins the debate”. The gun grabber Left would love this to be about inanimate objects: guns, or even the undefined term “Assault Weapons”. Those who are supposedly ‘Liberal’ don’t want this debate properly framed as one over Liberty – because then they would lose the argument.

One last point: The Left has clearly shown themselves to be the enemy of Liberty.

The Left has made this perfectly clear with their moves to eviscerate the most important right, the first freedom if you will, along with other attacks against the 1st and other amendments. The right of self-defence is the lynchpin for all the other rights, take that away and the rest will be in jeopardy. Therefore, it should be patently obvious the Left does not care for the cause of liberty in the form of the 2nd amendment or any others. They are following in the blood-soaked footsteps of collectivist of the past who have used the vestiges of democracy to attain power and then ejected them when convenient.

It should also be clear that they do not deserve the self-lauding approbation of being ‘Liberal’. Liberty and Liberal both have the same root word origin in Latin as meaning freedom, it should be clear that they no longer fit this overly complimentary term. We will not win this argument playing the rules set down by the national Socialist Left. And we will not win if we don’t stick to our founding principles.

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