Connect with us

Everything

A final plea for help to conservatives

Published

on

A final plea for help to conservatives

It’s crunch time. Our GoFundMe page has not yielded the dollars necessary to keep this site growing. Ads, which we hoped to avoid, are ineffective. I’m issuing this one final plea for help.

America needs conservative voices to be heard. We need a counter to the mainstream media’s leftist propaganda. NOQ Report has been fighting for over a year now, but we need assistance. We can’t do this alone.

Please consider contributing and keeping this flame alive. Our traffic is growing rapidly, but it’s not at the millions of visitors we need every month to sustain through ads alone. It takes more than the few dollars per week we’re currently receiving.

If you or anyone you know is able to help keep us going, we’re ready and willing to continue fighting the good fight for America, but we need it to happen now. Otherwise, we need to bow out. Thank you.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Media

Journalistic Integrity

Published

on

FRAMING THE DISCUSSION

How often have you read words to the effect that a highly placed source close to the investigation revealed xyz today under condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case… Blah… Blah… Blah…. ?

Is your first thought that just really must be something juicy that I can barely wait to read? Or do you stop and wonder how untrustworthy is the person who was supposed to protect information who instead divulged it?

Do you also think about how unscrupulous the person was who received the information and published it without concern for the consequences? The more fundamental question is do you believe that the whole world has a right to know everything a government agency is doing?

Is there ever a need to protect anything from public disclosure? The government sometimes has to classify information to protect sources whose lives would be in danger and to avoid revealing methods by which the data was collected.

Whatever the American public knows, our enemies around the world also know. That is simply a fact of life.

Do you feel sympathetic for Bradley Manning revealing sensitive U.S. military information? Do you admire Julian Assange for making it known? Do you think Edward Snowden is a traitor or a hero or somewhere in between?

Have you delved into all the nitty-gritty details of the incident in San Francisco? Is there a legitimate reason a law enforcement agency would want to stop a leak within their Department? That is a totally separate issue from how they go about trying to plug the leak.

Does a journalist have a right to publish anything he or she becomes privy to? Without understanding the entire case, how would the writer estimate the implications of such disclosure?

Does it even matter or is just getting a scoop and public acclaim an uncontested ultimate goal which overrules all other considerations? War correspondents often have to agree not to disclose locations and other sensitive info.

I still remember when Geraldo Rivera went on Fox News live shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and drew marks in the dirt showing where they were and how they got there. He was quite appropriately disinvited from accompanying the troops.

It all comes down to whether one considers his or her own career as tantamount to the national well-being.

SELECTIVE COVERAGE

The next point of contention comes into play when a journalist is convinced that their role is that of apologist for a particular ideology. The flipside of the disclosure of secret information is the suppression of matters which the public has every right to know.

All the major influential news media in Hawaii are controlled by the Democrat Party. Oh, I doubt there is any actual deed of ownership. Not even a signed agreement. Just a tacit understanding that perpetuating the status quo is the media’s proper role.

Therefore any conservative upstart candidate does not deserve to be heard and his or her message should be buried. The most effective way to do that is simply to ignore and refuse to cover the campaign.

It’s really hard to say whether a liberal society leads to a liberal media or whether a liberal media leads to a liberal society. One thing for sure is that they go hand-in-hand.

During the last 25 years or so in this internet age, print media has lost its dominance in influencing public opinion. 24×7 cable news coverage was a big deal 35 years ago. Now websites and social media provide real-time access to both breaking news and analysis.

PUTTING THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE

There is now a real opportunity for conservatives to get our message to the people. Most of our fellow travelers in this world are followers and lurkers. They are the lemmings who plunge over the cliff if somebody charismatic leads them there. So, we need to recruit qualified men and women to provide objective alternatives without trying to lead anybody anywhere.

Many misuse their rhetorical talents for self-aggrandizement and personal enrichment. But journalists must recognize their responsibility to the public trust. It is an awesome privilege to be one of those who document an epoch in human history.

We know what has gone before us in the world only through the eyes of those who wrote about it either contemporarily or in retrospect. If this world is still here a hundred years from now, and there is some doubt about that, what will people know about the year 2019? None of us is going to be around in 2119 to reminisce about it.

THE STAKES ARE HIGH

We could go back 160 years to the administration of President James Buchanan in 1859 and read about events that led up to the War Between the States. Now we mostly hear it called the Civil War, but it used to be more commonly understood as what it really was. It wasn’t civil. It was a conflict that tore this country apart.

Lest we go that route again, we all need to start thinking of ourselves collectively. Rather than fanning the flames of divisiveness, journalists would be commended to emphasize those common beliefs and objectives that draw us together as a nation.

It really is not complex. It is the simplest thing in the world. Have integrity. Do what is right. Write the truth.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Published

on

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Many on the right are skeptical about opening up Roe v Wade insisting that overturning Roe v Wade will not serve Pro-Life causes because it will force the issue back on the states. In such scenarios, Alabama will be the safe haven for the unborn while New York becomes the importer for people who want to kill their babies. Even if this is the case, it is still a giant win for the pro-life side to enable entire states to ban abortion. But this is merely a literal overturn of Roe v Wade, not a practical one.

Take Brown v BOE as an example of a Supreme Court case that overturned a predecessor: Plessy v Ferguson. The Ferguson ruling maintain the theoretical notion that separate accommodations could be equal; therefore, private businesses must comply with the state’s discrimination policies. It’s a pretty bad ruling, comparable to Roe v Wade, which conjured out of nowhere a Constitutional right to an abortion. But Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by demonstrating that the black schools were inherently inferior to the white schools. So Plessy v Ferguson, was overturned by the parameters of its own ruling.

The Alabama bill defines an abortion as a murder by the practitioner. This is a different animal than what the Supreme Court has ruled on before. In this case we have multiple issues. The chief issue at play is when does personhood begin? The Supreme Court, in order to strike down the Alabama law would have to rule that an unborn child is not a person, again. Evidence has changed since the Casey ruling in biologically proving that an unborn is a human being, not a clump of cells. The pro-abortion arguments against moral personhood have gotten more extreme than viability. Arguing that a fetus is not a person is a losing argument as conception/implantation are the most logically defensible points of the transfer of moral personhood.

The next issue is who has the power to define personhood? Should the Supreme Court strike down the Alabama or the Georgia law, the Supreme Court, out of their own superfluous arrogance would, once again, assert their own jurisdiction in the realm of life. If the Supreme Court rules that a state can define where life begins, they will be denying the self-evident. But what if the Supreme Court rules that inalienable rights, in our founding documents, plainly recognize life begins at creation. In such ruling the Supreme Court would be taking a hint from the Divine, and could issue a sweeping ruling denouncing abortion everywhere.

A third issue at play: does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? The state’s ability to write criminal law is on the line in this court case to come. Alabama has placed steep penalties on the mob doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, in upholding infanticide, would essentially be placing limits on the state’s ability to write criminal law as it relates to homicide. The anti-Constitutional implications of this is yet another power reserved to the states impressed upon, subject to overseeing by the federal government. This ruling would enable people who kill an unborn child and the mother to only be charged with one homicide, not two. Essentially, the law in New York will be the law of the land in a worst case scenario.

What if it fails

I would advocate that Alabama and Georgia ignore the Supreme Court, instead choosing to enforce the law which they pass. The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings, by design. So let them try. If they do not recognize when life begins or recognize when life begins and still decree that Alabama must sanction murder, then the Supreme Court is not worth obeying.

Final Thoughts

When does personhood begin? Who has the power to define personhood? Does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? These three questions need answers, and a sweeping ruling is almost certain.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending