Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Supreme Court Schadenfreude: Mainstreaming the Left’s Demands for Gun confiscation.

Published

on

While many Liberty Grabbers hailed the mainstreaming of the subject of Gun Confiscation, many others realised it was a supreme mistake to do so.

While we on the Pro-liberty, Conservative-Right fully realise that the Left’s jihad against freedom is deadly serious.  However, there are moments when it’s duplicity makes for what can only be described as pure schadenfreude. The Left’s increasingly shrill attacks against Liberty, with particular emphasis on the basic human right of self-defence poses a dilemma for them. On the one hand, they have to rally the troops, keeping them focused on the prize of Gun Confiscation. Meanwhile, they have to vehemently deny their obvious goal of Gun Confiscation to everyone else.

So, given the Left’s two-faced war against liberty, it was quite amusing to see the reaction to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ New York Times piece demanding a repeal of the Second Amendment.

While many a Leftist hailed another coming out of the authoritarian closet, others were not very delighted with the prospect that their Gun grabbing goal having just become mainstream. Twitter sprung to life with the subject with three camps. Most of the Liberty defending Right condemned this gross example of Leftist overreach. While the enemies of Liberty on the Left either praised or tried to downplay this outing of their final solution.

The Liberty Grabbers were all a Twitter.

Joy Reid’s twitter feed had some choice conversations unmasking the national Socialist Left’s “negotiating strategy” – accept the ‘crumbs’ of your common sense human rights or lose it all:

Joy Reid@JoyAnnReid
27 Mar 2018
Retired Justice Stevens goes there.
ShilohFoxRoslin @ShilohFoxRoslin
27 Mar 2018
No, no, this is good Joy! Tell someone they stand a chance of losing all their guns and suddenly sensible gun control seems like the best idea they’ve ever heard. That’s how I see this going 🙂 Cause, suddenly, repealing seems actually possible. wild
Joy Reid@JoyAnnReid
Replying to @ShilohFoxRoslin

27 Mar 2018
As a negotiating strategy you are absolutely right.

SophieCT@SophieInCT
Replying to @brandon_r_horan @JoyAnnReid
27 Mar 2018
Nah. We tried to compromise but they wouldn’t. Now they lose everything.

The National Socialist Media realises this was a Supreme mistake.

But it was the articles reacting to this totalitarian coming out party of the former ‘Justice’ that turned the schadenfreeude up to eleven. First up was the Washington post with the piece entitled: John Paul Stevens’s supremely unhelpful call to repeal the Second Amendment

It bluntly made the point in it’s first sentence:

One of the biggest threats to the recovery of the Democratic Party these days is overreach.

A party that was once afraid of being saddled with supporting “government-run” health care is increasingly okay with the word “liberal” and even voted in droves for a self-described socialist in 2016. And its 2020 hopefuls are leading the leftward charge.

It is also infuriating enough that a party going after Liberty by depriving people of their most basic of human rights would dare label itself with the term ‘Liberal’. But that’s a discussion for another day.

The real ‘red meat’ came later:

But rarely do we see such an unhelpful, untimely and fanciful idea as the one put forward by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens.

In a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, Stevens calls for a repeal of the Second Amendment. The move might as well be considered an in-kind contribution to the National Rifle Association, to Republicans’ efforts to keep the House and Senate in 2018, and to President Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. In one fell swoop, Stevens has lent credence to the talking point that the left really just wants to get rid of gun ownership and reasserted the need for gun-rights supporters to prevent his ilk from ever being appointed again (with the most obvious answer being: Vote Republican).

One can almost hear the Leftists whispering “icksnay on the gun ban ray” in reaction to a demand for the destruction of ‘reasonable’ human right of self-preservation.

Then there is this other example in the same tone from NBC news whose title says it all: How calls for a Second Amendment repeal could easily backfire for gun control advocates.
The author buries this deep in the piece after copious amounts of Liberty Control propaganda:

Thus, by framing the debate in terms of absolute repeal, Justice Stevens’s Times piece may therefore have the complete opposite of its intended effect — implying that common-sense reform proposals wouldn’t be constitutional today and satisfying the narrative that many gun rights supporters have been using to oppose those proposals on policy grounds.

The phrase ‘No kidding’ comes to mind. The fact is we oppose their ‘common-sense reform(s)’ because they are stepping-stones to gun confiscation. The Liberty grabbers obsess over Intergalactic Background Checks because they are the precursors to registration followed by CONFISCATION. That fact should be plain to everyone.

The Takeaway

It is easy to see why the national Socialist-Left has to balance on the razor’s edge of duplicity on this subject. They at once have to deny that they are demanding gun confiscation while demanding gun confiscation.

While this is a deadly serious game they are playing, one can only laugh when they quibble amongst themselves on how to best lie about the subject. Perhaps that is why those of us on the Conservative-Right find so much enjoyment at the Left’s discomfiture. It is always supremely satisfying to see Liars caught in their web of deceit, foretelling what exactly will happen to those who cannot further their agenda without such practices.

The Biblical phase: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Has never had so much relevance.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Guns and Crime

Pregnant Jewish woman and six others gunned down in Hanukkah terror attack

Published

on

By

Video of the attack showed a white car driving up to the post and slowing down as it passed a group of Jews standing at the stop. The travelers are seen scrambling away as they were sprayed with bullets, with the car immediately driving away.

 A young pregnant woman and six other travelers were injured in a Palestinian shooting attack at a bus stop outside the Jewish town of Ofra on Sunday night.

The woman, who was brought to Jerusalem’s Shaarei Zedek Medical Center in critical condition, has had her condition upgraded to stable, but her son, delivered by emergency Caesarian section, has been downgraded to critical.

The wounded woman, Shira Yael Ish-Ran and her husband, Amichai Yishai Ish-Ran.

The wounded woman, Shira Yael Ish-Ran and her husband, Amichai Yishai Ish-Ran.

The attack took place on the eighth night of Hanukkah at a popular hitchhiking post and bus stop.

Video of the attack showed a white car driving up to the post and slowing down as it passed a group of Jews standing at the stop. The travelers are seen scrambling away as they were sprayed with bullets, with the car immediately driving away.

One pregnant 21-year-old woman, Shira Yael Ish-Ran, was shot in the lower abdomen and was said to be “fighting for her life,” though doctors managed to save the life of her first child, delivered at just 30 weeks gestation. The boy was immediately transferred to the neo-natal intensive care unit, but his condition worsened overnight, and he is now attached to a ventilator.

“A pregnant woman who loses so much blood cannot provide the oxygen necessary for the baby in her belly,” Dr. Alon Schwartz, a surgeon at the hospital told Army Radio on Monday. “This was apparently the harm to the baby that we discovered.”

According to Schwartz, the young woman lost a lot of blood and arrived at the hospital in a state of shock. The hospital reported that she has regained consciousness and showed signs of movement, but that she remains in life-threatening danger. Her family requested continued prayers for Shira Yael bat Leora Sarah and for her son, Tinok ben Shira Yael.

Shira is the daughter of Chaim Silberstein, founder and president of Keep Jerusalem, an organization that advocates the unification of Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty, and the president of the Jerusalem Capital Development Fund, an organization dedicated to reclaiming and strengthening the Jewish presence in Jerusalem and parts of Judea and Samaria.

The woman’s husband was also injured in the attack and underwent surgery at Jerusalem’s Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital. His condition was said to have improved from moderate to mild-to-moderate.

Two 16-year-old girls suffered light injuries and were taken to Hadassah Ein Kerem.

“Praying for the recovery of those injured in the despicable terrorist attack, including the young mother who brought life to the world from this hellish scene,” wrote Israeli President Reuven Rivlin on Twitter. “I  send my unreserved support to the security forces who are relentlessly pursuing the terrorists.”

IDF, border police and security services forces cooperated in a widespread manhunt for the terrorists in Palestinian enclaves near to the attack. Officials stated that the vehicle in which the attempted murder was committed is believed to have contained at least two occupants.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Alexander Acosta is the swamp

Published

on

Alexander Acosta is the swamp

Billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein served 13 months in prison. His deal brought no justice to his victims who were not even informed until after the deal was made. He was protected from federal prosecution and given every amenity possible during his stay in a private wing of his prison. All of this was made possible by Alexander Acosta, the current Labor Secretary in the Trump administration.

Epstein may have escaped justice, but Acosta should not be allowed to escape repercussions for his part in the Epstein deal. If the President ever really had intentions of draining the swamp, he should start by firing Acosta immediately.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The Russian investigation was never about Russia. It was cover to find dirt on the President.

Published

on

The Russian investigation was never about Russia It was cover to find dirt on the President

President Trump is almost certainly never going to be caught committing the types of crimes that initially prompted the Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller. That was never the goal of the investigation. It was a cover story concocted to give Mueller unimpeded access to the President and his staff.

As I’ve said on multiple occasions, the Russian collusion angle was simply an excuse to justify digging into the affairs of the President, his campaign staff, and everyone associated with them. They knew the chances of finding true collusion were slim, but they needed a reason to try to uncover potentially impeachable offenses. Now, Democrats and mainstream media think they’ve found them in the form of hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal.

The sentencing recommendation documents for Michael Cohen, the President’s former attorney, revealed the investigation is now focused on proving that “Individual-1” ordered the hush money be paid to cover up affairs the President had with the two women. Many experts, including Trump supporters like Chris Christy and Andrew McCarthy, believe there’s a case that can be made against President Trump for campaign finance violations.

There are two questions that must be answered. Did candidate Trump order Michael Cohen to pay hush money? If he did, was it a violation of campaign finance laws?

The answer to the first one is almost certainly yes. It’s hard to imagine Cohen acting on his own. In fact, it’s ludicrous to think that Trump, who is known for micromanaging his affairs, would not be made aware of any threats or perceived threats of these women at the height of the campaign.

The second question has a murkier answer. Arguments can be made in both directions. Was it an effort to stifle potentially damaging revelations that could hurt the campaign? Yes. Was it a personal matter, in which case paying off people for their silence is not against the law? Yes.

The timing of the payoffs may be the best argument the prosecution will be able to make to demonstrate these were campaign finance violations. Because these would be considered damaging to the campaign, one can easily make the connection that they were intended to influence the outcome of the election. On the other hand, the argument can also be made that the threats came out because of the election, but the decision to pay hush money was a personal one. This could be easily corroborated if past payments were revealed.

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/09/president-sure-fire-way-disprove-campaign-finance-violations-wont-like/By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

If President Trump never paid hush money to women before announcing his candidacy, then he’s truly in a pickle. It’s hard to argue this was a personal issue devoid of political motivations because his past is checkered with scandals that mirror or even supersede such claims. Most damaging is the fact that he’s bragged about affairs in books he’s published.

The President’s opponents were willing to take him down regardless of the cost. That’s why they concocted the Russia collusion investigation in the first place. This whole mess stinks and will be a stain on our political system for years to come.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report