Connect with us

Everything

Why it’s important to support the NOQ report

Published

on

Why its important to support the NOQ report

It’s vitally important that we have a voice from the rational Right, now more than ever.

A report was recently published that showed that 80% of the country finds political correctness to be a problem, while only 8% loved the concept. The question becomes, how did only 8% of the country [The ‘objective’ national media included] drive this issue? Who represents the 80% who are sick of the propaganda from the Left?

Curiously enough, political correctness originated in the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This of course was a bastion of the Socialist-Left with its main propaganda organ entitled ‘Pravda’ [Truth] that was out to ‘Liberate’ the world from freedom.

Balancing out the modern-day Pravda.

Leftist media sources have become an echo chamber continuously reverberating with the concerns of the 8%. This is instead of the everyday reality of the 80% who are sick of being told what to think and what their emotions are supposed to be on any given subject.

For the nation’s Left and it’s media arm, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Climate change is the biggest threat to mankind since the last time they decreed it was the biggest threat to mankind. Or there is the devastation wrought by people actually keeping their earnings. Not to mention Leftists concerns over the scourge of net neutrality or the people being able to defend themselves.

That is the Leftist alt-reality echo chamber of the media that never seems to match up with the lives of ordinary Americans of the 80%. The NOQ report is vitally important in that it counterbalances along with other news and opinion sources from the Rational Right.

High Tech Censorship has become the norm.

It’s almost become accepted that the new social(ist) media giants – Twitter, Facebook, You tube – to blatantly censor voices from the Pro-Liberty Right.

People with the conjones to label themselves ‘Liberals’ are regularly denigrating the cause of Liberty, without notice or protest. There was a time when the aforementioned would defend free speech with aphorisms such as ‘I disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to death your right to say it’. These days the Left would rather silence their opposition than engage in a civil debate. But then again, they have no real arguments in favour of their ancient ideas other than screaming epithets from the bottom of their chyrons.

It’s become axiomatic that when one runs out of ideas, the only option is to silence those who do. Thus, we need as many on the Rational Right to ‘resist’ [to coin a phrase] their high-tech onslaught.

Why we support the NOQ report.

We contribute our writing to the report as a form of activism and from one standpoint, to become better versed at writing. We do this without receiving any compensation. These are very dangerous times at present. Our government has grown so out of proportion that each election cycle has become critical in the preservation of Liberty. This time around is no different. It used to be that hardly no one paid attention to ‘off-year’ election cycles, now these have taken on the it’s own import in the course of the country.

We cannot allow the Leftist media run roughshod over us in the never-ending news cycle. We have to provide a voice that counterbalances the Left.

The takeaway.

This is why you need to support this site with your much-needed donation. As JD Rucker stated a few days ago in A final plea for help to conservatives:

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.

A GoFundMe page was created for this purpose. We are doing our part in keeping this site alive. You have our thanks if you can do your part to do so as well.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report