Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Liberty Control becomes a farce with the absurd idea of knife Control.

Published

on

The Liberty grabbers have just parodied themselves into non-existence with the absurd notion of restricting edged weapons.

Let’s begin with this brutal reality: Bladed weapons can be easily made of any material that can hold an edge. They have been around for millions of years, they literally defined the stone age.

Anything that can hold an edge can be made into an easily concealed weapon.

They only need a material that can hold an edge and a way to make it sharp. These materials range from the stone to hard candy. with almost every solid material in between. It’s well known that these weapons are easily produced within the confines of maximum security prisons.

Nevertheless, the Liberty grabbers have gone to the absurd length of trying to control these weapons with calls for their removal from kitchens or detection by ‘Knife wands’. Not only are these weapons easily produced under the strictest of conditions but they can also be made of non-metallic materials, undetectable by non-invasive search methods. In addition, edged weapons can also be easily concealed, making them easily hidden from even the most invasive search methods.

Therefore, it should be obvious that society cannot control these weapons. Any attempts at the level of control necessary to carry out this task will inevitably fail. This type of control of Liberty will be to the detriment of the innocent since they will be rendered helpless in the face of criminal or terroristic threats.

The Liberty grabbers never give up trying to control people.

However, that hasn’t given pause to the Left in trying to push the authoritarian envelop into untold reaches of insanity. Never mind that Liberty control doesn’t work as advertised or that each failure means they will try to punish the innocent even further. Each failure of the Left’s Socialist national agenda only means they double down even more. Even the perennial “Cut down on the carnage” excuse fails since on balance because more people will be adversely affected by these controls on their freedom. Meanwhile, the government becomes more empowered while innocent people are killed.

The UK is showing everyone the future if the Liberty grabbers get their way.

The UK has reached a point where the sheer insanity of Liberty control has imploded in on itself. The imposition of private property controls (Intergalactic Background Checks) will be followed by gun registration. All of this setting for their final solution of Gun Confiscation, where the very same situation will happen, with the same tragic results.

It’s time to end the insanity of Liberty Control.

Repeatedly doubling down on the insane notion of trying to control the guilty by punishing the innocent has to stop at some point. We need to learn from their mistakes to halt this absurd process before it goes any further. As Benjamin Franklin once mused: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The people wanting to defend themselves will have to declare enough is enough with these absurd measures knowing that both Liberty and safety are at stake.

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

2 Comments

  1. Gene Ralno

    April 11, 2018 at 10:45 am

    Guns yesterday. Knives today. Piano wire tomorrow. All wire next week. Then sticks and stones. Avert your eyes.

  2. Public Citizen

    April 11, 2018 at 1:17 pm

    There is only one rational response to these people and that is to declare the obvious, which is that they are functionally insane, and institutionalize them.
    Only the threat of the loss of ~their~ liberty will have a chilling effect on this sort of irrational utterance and action.
    If you study recent history, ~real~ history, not the propaganda that is the standard fare for most current curriculum, you will soon find that the drift into insanity coincides with the ACLU efforts to close most of the Mental Institutions. Prior to the 1950s nobody would have dared even utter these ideas outside of a sand-boxed classroom setting where the many manifestations of insanity are discussed. To do so would be asking for a commitment order to be issued for an extended stay at the local Laughing Academy.

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