Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Why didn’t the Green New Deal include the issue of Liberty Control?

Published

on

Why didnt the Green New Deal include the issue of Liberty Control

The latest expression of the fraud of socialism failed to mention gun control. Why?

Socialism has always been a fraudulent ideology, abounding with fallacious promises of free health care, free college, free housing, free food, and free income in the case of its latest abomination in the embodiment of the ‘Green New Deal’. The new wrinkle is that people won’t have to feel guilty about receiving stolen goods because they are saving the planet.

Curiously enough, while it had just about every socialist ‘justice’ cause under the sun, there was no mention of guns, ‘gun safety’ or even ‘gun reform’ (whatever that means). Why does it seem as though the subjects of socialism and Liberty [gun] control are now on parallel political tracks?

Up until a few years ago, it could be guaranteed that Leftists would parrot certain lies and talking points on both the subjects of Liberty control and alluding to the need for socialism. In the case of Liberty control, it would be calling for more and more laws overlaid on all the other laws. In the case of socialism it would be calling for implementation of the policy agendas of this ideology without the use of the word itself. Then recently it all seemed to change.

First came the opening of the socialistic floodgates

For the most part, even though the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Left was closely tied to socialism, Leftists tended to deny this obvious connection. Then along came Bernie Sanders and this seemed to serve to rip the mask off the Left as to their true identity. Now they embrace and revel in the label. Suddenly people who vehemently denied being socialist, almost tacitly admit to the decades of lies on the subject.

The false narrative is that we on the Pro-Liberty Right are somehow ‘afraid’ of them now. That this fear meme traces its roots back 500 years to the book ‘Utopia’ is a subject for another time. Suffice it to say that it began Karl Marx’s horrendous tome from over 170 years ago up to the words of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez today.

Then over time, the Left’s gun confiscation obsession came into focus

We have this Leftist obsession well documented and as in the case of hiding their obvious socialist national agenda, they also tended to lie about this as well. Even to this day they are trying to parrot the line that ‘No one is talking about confiscating guns’ despite over 70 instances that were a variation on that theme.

As of late, they have essentially dropped the mask, but still fail to be honest about their final solution to the Liberty problem. Most major Birdcage liners have openly demanded gun confiscation, sometimes with multiple instances spanning several years. With more gun confiscation demands being added to the list at the occasion of every serious crisis.

There’s something happening here, but it’s not exactly clear

Oddly enough, with both Leftist obsessions out in the open they never rhetorically connect them. Witness the present example of the Green New Deal, just about every Leftist dream ‘imaginable’ except for Liberty control.

Why are they reluctant to connect the tight control of the population and wealth redistribution with the common sense human Right of Self-preservation? Why would they avoid connecting the taking of one’s property with denying the right of self-defense?

The Takeaway – the answer should be obvious by now

They can’t exactly connect up these two issues because it would make it entirely obvious why they obsess over gun confiscation. One can’t forcibly take property from people who have the means to ‘resist’ [to coin a phrase] this governmental theft. Making it perfectly clear that this had nothing to do with ‘safety’ or ‘The children’ [Only after they are born, and in some cases, not even that]

The Left cannot mention gun confiscation and Liberty control in the same breath as socialistic theft because they cannot make it obvious that our right of self-defense throws a spanner into the works. Better to try to keep people perplexed as to their true intent for as long as possible until it is entirely obvious they only care about power.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Gene Ralno

    February 17, 2019 at 4:54 pm

    Leftists can holler and even bay at the moon. Owners of firearms are in no mood to put up with their power grabs. From my perspective, owners will look them straight in the eye and tell ’em no. Nobody will comply with confiscation laws. Law enforcement will have to acquire a warrant for each of a hundred million homes. They’ll have to knock on and batter down hundreds of millions of doors. They’ll have to conduct hundreds of millions of searches. They’ll usually find nothing and will have to read hundreds of millions of affidavits regarding disposal of firearms rumored to be in possession of those named in warrants. At some point, the fuse will be lit and we’ll hear another shot, all ’round the world. It was predicted by our founders and believed by owners of firearms.

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

Published

on

Speculation about ancient human skull in Israel points to unscientific method of modern science

What does an ancient human skull found in a cave in Israel tell us about the past? It all depends on which perspective you take and whether you want to follow sound scientific practices or manipulated conclusions from circular reasoning.

Modern science can give us a tremendous view of the past. With nearly every discovery, we can see God’s work at play in molding the planets and the stars, the oceans and the lands, the people and the other wonderful creatures. Unfortunately, scientists often distort the findings to fit in with their secular worldview. A clear case of this comes to us from a study published four years ago in the scientific journal, Nature, titled Levantine cranium from Manot Cave (Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans, that is still being erroneously taught today.

First, watch the way that it is being reported. Then, let’s discuss the conclusions.

This is an important discovery, one that clearly points to a Biblical worldview of the roots of man from the garden of Eden working its way from what is now Africa into what is now the Middle East. It jibes with the story of the great flood, stories from the life of Adam through Joshua, and a centralized end point of ancient man in the region along the Mediterranean Sea from North Africa up through modern day Turkey.

Of course, that’s not what the scientists doing the research concluded.

“The is the first evidence that shows that, indeed, there was a large wave of African migrants coming out of East Africa and inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region,” said Israel Hershkovitz of Tel Aviv University.

One of the biggest problems with modern science is that our society blindly accepts their conclusions. They know, right?

Proper scientific method that we all learn in high school tells us the conclusions of the research are completely unscientific. We know a few things that are truly observable:

  • Humans very likely started in Africa and Neanderthals were in the Middle East.
  • Humans and Neanderthals interbred to form the basis for Europeans. Today, everyone other than purely African people have at least a little Neanderthal DNA.
  • A human skull fragment was found in Israel.

Given this information, it is obtuse to draw the conclusion that this represents a large wave of African migrants inhabiting the Eastern Mediterranean region. One skull fragment does not tell us that there was a large migration. One skull fragment does not tell us that it was a migration at all. Modern science must establish hypotheses based upon observable facts, but it almost always extrapolates too much.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing if it extrapolated based upon the Bible. We are told the general story of everything that happened from creation through the rise of the Greeks within the Old Testament. Every scientific and archaeological discovery in the region supports this general story, but a culture that utilizes far more distant time frames to explain the discoveries has generated the faulty conclusions that scientists present to us today.

The evidence tells two different stories depending on the observer’s worldview. It’s unfortunate that most have pushed aside the obvious and verifiable conclusions in order to perpetuate the paradigm of secularism.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Seriously, ‘eat mor chikin’ at Chick-fil-A

Published

on

Seriously eat mor chikin at Chick-fil-A

A month doesn’t pass without some organization protesting Chick-fil-A to exclude them from participating in some program or even open restaurants in certain locations. This month’s version of Chick-fil-A hate was the last straw for Senator Ted Cruz (and me) as San Antonio’s city council has voted to prevent the fast food chain from operating at the airport.

Let’s call this what it is. Any individual, organization, or company that supports a Biblical worldview or donates to Judeo-Christian causes are considered to be anti-LGBTQ. The only ones who are not labeled as such are those who go out of their way to embrace the LGBTQ community and who promote such things as gay marriage. Faith-based institutions that prioritize modern day’s version of “tolerance” over the Bible’s teachings are often considered to be A-OK to the leaders of the LGBTQ community (as compared to the actual members of the community, most of whom are not involved in pushing the leadership’s agenda beyond believing marriage is not only between a man and a woman).

Chick-fil-A has done nothing to attack the LGBTQ community. They’ve always been stalwart defenders of equal rights and do not deserve the type of treatment they get from people like the six who voted against them in San Antonio’s city council. Yes, they donate to Christian causes. Yes, they let their employees off on Sunday except in those rare circumstances when they’re presence on Sunday is a blessing. Yes, ownership expresses a Biblical worldview. But such things shouldn’t earn them a place on the blacklist.

Nevertheless, they are, and it’s time for patriotic Americans to commit to a sustained campaign in support of this company which has become a symbol as a primary victim of the left’s contempt and discrimination.

Starting tomorrow (can’t start today since it’s Sunday), it’s time to eat out at Chick-fil-A whenever it makes sense. But don’t just do it once. Make it a regular thing. Thinking of other fast food joints for lunch? Whenever possible, don’t. We need to let them and everyone else know that if the left is going to continue to denigrate and block Chick-fil-A, that we’re going to counter their maneuvers by supporting them with our business.

It can’t stop there. We also need to let those who act against Chick-fil-A know, such as those discriminating against religious freedom at the San Antonio city council, that it’s unacceptable. Notice that I’m referring specifically to those who act against Chick-fil-A and not average citizens who protest Chick-fil-A. Protests are protected by the 1st Amendment, so anything beyond respectful discourse should be avoided with the people who have a conscientious difference of opinion. But those who act against Chick-fil-A, especially if they’re part of the government, must be dealt with at the ballot box. A strongly worded letter wouldn’t hurt, either.

Chick-fil-A doesn’t need our help. They’re doing just fine. But that doesn’t mean we can’t expand our support for them anyway. The best way to show or deny support is with our business. Give it to them. Withhold it from those who oppose American freedom.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died?

Published

on

Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died

History doesn’t tell us exactly when Yeshua was born. Luke tells us that He was about 30 years old when He began His ministry and we know it lasted approximately three and a half years.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, – Luke 3:23 (KJV)

We know that King David died in 970 AD. The math might start sounding pretty cool at this point, but I’ll elaborate.

Scholars put Yeshua’s birth to likely fall in the 6-4 BC range. Experts place the range of His death (and resurrection) between 30-33 AD as a result of the data that they’ve worked out.

If He did die in 30 AD, that would mean that he died exactly 1000 years after his human ancestor King David.

Some will point out that the calendars were changed, going from 364 to 360 up to 365 at different points within this time range across the various regions, but using the accepted calendars, we can claim that it’s possible for it to be a 1000 year gap. Knowing the amazing order and precision with which our Father has established His creation, it wouldn’t shock me to find out some day that it was precisely 1000 years all the way down to the second.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report