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.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Guns and Crime

Tom Fitton on Lou Dobbs discusses the ‘Clinton cover-up operation’

Published

on

Tom Fitton on Lou Dobbs discusses the Clinton cover-up operation

Government watchdog Judicial Watch uncovered FBI notes from the first “sham” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email debacle from 2016. Included in the FBI notes were references made by Clinton’s IT team itself referring to their activities as the “Clinton cover-up operation.”

Let that sink in.

Now that Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 presidential campaign has been wrapped up and the Mueller report has been released to the public, Judicial Watch is working overtime to uncover what they can about the real scandal from that election. What candidate Clinton and her team did was almost certainly illegal and we’re learning more about it every day. Is it possible a new investigation could commence? Tom Fitton believes it will and told Lou Dobbs as much today.

Watch this interview. If there’s any doubt that Hillary Clinton belongs in jail, you should check with Tom Fitton and Lou Dobbs before finalizing your opinion. Justice has not been served following the 2016 election and it’s not the President who should be worried.

Petition Capitol Hill for Term Limits

Sign the petition. We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

To see how Democrats will frame voting rights for felons, watch Saikat Chakrabarti

Published

on

To see how Democrats will frame voting rights for felons watch Saikat Chakrabarti

Many thoughtful, law-abiding Americans scratch their heads about the sales pitch many Democratic candidates for president are using to promote the idea that convicted felons should be allowed to vote in elections. On the surface, it doesn’t seem to make sense for people who have broken the laws to have a say in elections that determine the people who make and enforce the laws. It’s a clear conflict of interests.

But that won’t dissuade the Democrats from pushing forward. They need it. Most felons are Democrats. As the party that paints itself as lighter on crime and more compassionate towards wrongdoers, it behooves them to appeal to felons and families of felons, not just because they’re usually Democrats but also because the push for freedom of themselves or loved ones is a compelling pitch come election day.

Who wouldn’t vote to accelerate their own freedom?

On the surface, it may seem like a hard pitch to make even to many Democrats, but how it’s framed is just as important as who gets the benefit. To see proper framing, we turn to former Justice Democrat and current Chief of Staff for Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Saikat Chakrabarti, who is the brains behind the operation and the driving force for many of the talking points we’re seeing among Democratic candidates today. Chakrabarti revealed what the sales pitch from Democrats needs to be on this issue.

“Unjust laws.” There it is. There’s the frame that delivers the benefit of the doubt. Keep in mind, they don’t need to convince people that felons deserve to vote. They simply need to plant a seed of a reason to allow it. If you ask an average American if they believe some of the laws in America are unjust, it would be hard to find someone who would say no. By framing the voting rights of convicted felons against the backdrop of unfair laws, they plant the suspension of disbelief necessary to make many Americans bypass the policy proposal altogether. They may not agree with it, but if they can understand there’s a singular perspective that justifies it in the eyes of some, they’ll be more willing to overlook it as a minor issue.

The new Democrats will try to normalize some of their radical views like socialism or Medicare-for-All. But some of their views will be framed in a way that allows them to be disregarded. This is one of those and it just might work.

Petition Capitol Hill for Term Limits

Sign the petition. We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democratic candidates give their best sleazy sales pitches pushing pay-for-votes schemes

Published

on

Democratic candidates give their best sleazy sales pitches pushing pay-for-votes schemes

Common sense tells us politicians will say and do whatever they can to get more voters. The goal of running a political campaign is to win, after all, so on the surface it makes sense for them to want to promote policies that help them achieve that goal. But there’s a huge problem with this concept. In some cases, the policies that are designed specifically to generate more votes (or voters) is not in the best interests of the nation. In fact, one could argue this is the case most of the time.

Let’s look at some of the proposals being thrown out there by Democrats, why they’re designed specifically to sway (or create) voters, and why they’re not in the best interests of the people or the nation.

“Free” college

What student who agreed to borrow money to pay for college wouldn’t want their debt erased? I’ll give most of them enough credit to believe they understand it isn’t fair for them to accept a loan in exchange for something of value, but to then have that debt forcibly paid by someone else – taxpayers – while keeping the valuable education they received. But, I’ll also assume most would say, “Hey, it’s not right but if you’re offering, I’ll take it.”

This is the second most obvious pay-for-votes scheme the Democrats are rolling out. It doesn’t take a college graduate to realize the extreme hypocrisy in making hard-working, tax-paying Americans take over the bill for those who whine about a debt they willfully assumed. Nobody was forced to go to college. Nobody who went to college was forced to pick one they couldn’t afford. Nobody who decided to go to a college they couldn’t afford was forced to take on a huge amount of debt. They did this of their own accord with the understanding that they’d be able to use the education they acquired to make enough money to pay back their debt in the future.

What does this policy proposal say to those who thought college was too expensive or who chose to go to a more affordable college? They were fiscally responsible, but now Democrats want to make them pay for those who chose to be fiscally irresponsible. And in the end, the kid who got the “free” college degree from a prestigious school is going to move up faster in the world than the people who took the responsible road but ended up paying for everyone else’s education.

Felon voting rights

It’s been a common joke regarding the political makeup of this country that the vast majority of convicted felons are Democrats. Now, that joke is turning into a threat by many Democratic candidates as they push to give felons access to the ballot box.

This is ludicrous. People who break the law should not help decide who makes the laws. That’s a right they gave up when they decided on a life of crime. But it’s more than just ludicrous. It weaponizes the criminal justice system for political gain. Imagine a future election in which a Democratic candidate proposes blanket reductions of non-violent criminal jail time. This may sound like a far-fetched notion today if you haven’t been paying attention, but the strain on our nation’s jails has gotten to the point that there aren’t always enough beds for lawbreakers.

What convicted felon wouldn’t vote solely for the sake of their own freedom? What family member of a convicted felon wouldn’t do the same? Democrats are looking at jails as an untapped voter base and they’re ready to pop the cork on it.

Medicare-for-All

This is the most complex pay-for-votes scheme employed by the Democrats to address because it’s the one that requires the greatest degree of education given to a populace that is generally non-receptive to matters of finance or governance. It’s one that gets the blanket treatment of “the rich will pay for it” all the way up to the point that reality strikes after it’s passed.

Medicare-for-All is a truly existential threat to America. Single-payer healthcare has two dramatic effects on the people forced under its provisions. First, it increases the tax-based healthcare costs to a large portion of Americans, not just the rich. Essentially anyone who makes enough money to pay federal taxes today will pay more through single-payer. Yes, the wealthy will see a greater increase, but even working-class Americans will see dramatic rises in their tax bills. The math isn’t difficult; $32 trillion over a decade to implement it will crush every taxpayer.

Second, it reduces the quality and availability of healthcare. As evil as the insurance, pharmaceutical, and healthcare providing companies are painted in America, their sins will be minuscule compared to the evils found in a government-run system. Obamacare demonstrated the sheer inefficiency of the government by spending $2 billion on a website. To believe the government is capable of handling a system as complex and expensive as single-payer healthcare without turning it into a debacle is lunacy.

It’s not like we haven’t seen it before. If you ask politicians in nations with single-payer, they’ll gleefully say everything is great and there’s nothing bad to see here. If you ask the people, invariably they’ll acknowledge excessive wait times, rejection of procedures they need but that the government doesn’t deem worthy, and a quality of healthcare that diminishes instead of improves.

One of the great ironies is that there’s rapidly emerging market in many countries that have single-payer. Private health insurance is not only making a comeback but is becoming the avenue of choice for those who can afford it even after paying for the awful single-payer taxes. Unfortunately, the drain of single-payer means many who need better healthcare cannot afford to receive it.

But that’s not the Democrats’ pitch. They say everyone should get healthcare and it should be free. They will never mention what they know with a certainty: That the quality of healthcare for all will be diminished and there’s not such thing as free.

Reparations

If “free” college is the second most obvious pay-for-votes scheme, this is the most obvious. The party that claims to embrace diversity and fairness wants to pay people money because of the color of their skin over sins committed against their ancestors. It’s insane.

The Civil War, Civil Rights Movement, and everything in between were designed to create equality. Democratic candidates want to remove that equality by paying people for their heritage. It’s an absolute lie. This is literally, “vote for me and I’ll pay you.” Period.

Hose the rich

I’m not rich. Not even close. But I am very cognizant of the realities of capitalism and the things that have made the United States of America the most powerful and prosperous nation in the world. While Democrats like to paint rich people as sitting in their mansions with servants acting as their footstools while they burn hundred dollar bills to cook their Kobe burgers on the grill, the truth of the matter is that producers of wealth are the people and corporations who employ the rest of us. They give us our paychecks, pay the lion’s share of taxes already, and carry certain burdens that the middle class does not.

I’m not saying they’re innocent. I’m not saying they’re better than us. I’m not even saying they’re doing the nation a service for the sake of the nation. But whether you think rich people are good, evil, or (as I like to see them) just people, they’re a necessary cog in the machinery of America.

I’ve always thought if rich people didn’t have to pay so much in taxes, they’d be more giving to charities. That’s obviously not true for everyone, but it would certainly be true for many who are currently hosed by the tax system already. “Philanthropy” comes in two forms in the minds of the rich – giving to those who need and having it taken by the government to give to those who need things. While neither system is perfectly efficient, the former has proven to be much more likely to achieve its desired goals.

The bottom line is this: America pushed the boundaries of exceptionalism in this world because its citizens were allowed to push the boundaries of success in their lives. I don’t like Jeff Bezos, his politics, his lifestyle, or any of his companies. But Amazon gives out a bunch of paychecks while offering products and services at reasonable costs. I may not like Bezos or even Amazon, but I wouldn’t want them financially harmed simply because they’ve built something amazing.

But again, this is a surface-level sales pitch the Democrats use knowing their voter base won’t take a second to think about the consequences to themselves and the rest of the nation if we start attacking the very things that have driven our nation for over a century: capitalism, exceptionalism, and success of the individuals.

Final Thoughts

The trend is very clear. Most of what Democrats are promising seem good on the surface to at least a portion of the population. Invariably, they would not only be bad for the rest of America but bad for their intended targets. It’s a con job.

Petition Capitol Hill for Term Limits

Sign the petition. We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report