Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The 2nd Amendment right of self-preservation is closely tied to being pro-life

Published

on

The 2nd Amendment right of self-preservation is closely tied to being pro-life

It should be obvious that pro-life also entails the right of self-defense.

The words of the Declaration of Independence make this quite clear:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.

[Our emphasis]

Despite the assertions of the Left in denigrating these rights, it is obvious that there is a close association between the right of self-preservation and being Pro-Life. This is an important point to recognize in the context of the planned vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act of Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) and polling that shows a Dramatic and Sudden Move Toward Pro-Life Label, as well as the Left’s ongoing efforts to destroy the right of self-preservation.

One of the national Socialist-Left’s favorite little deceptions is to postulate opinion as fact and then base their arguments on this ‘fact’. Consider the assertion by Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez that President Trump is comparable to North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. This is an absurd proposition that a man opposed to socialism is somehow socialist based on a set of bizarre criteria unrelated to the true definition of the word.

The Left’s politically motivated opinion that guns have only one purpose

As is the case with other issues, our friends on the Left would like their opinion considered as factual in dictating that firearms have only one purpose. This ignores the fact that guns are used millions of times a year to deter crime and save lives. While they love to enshrine their little talking points in the realm of facts set in stone, this is only a feeble asseveration on their part.

The founding fathers affirmed the right of self-defense in the Constitution because it is directly tied to the right to life. The Left desperately wants to conceal this fact while parroting the ‘only purpose’ lie ad nauseam. Meanwhile they regularly dismiss a case of someone defending themselves or their loved ones as something unworthy of their esteemed consideration. This is also why it’s a mistake on the part of the Pro-Liberty Right to cast the Left as ‘Anti-gun’. Not only does this misdirect the argument towards a ‘scary looking’ inanimate object, but it turns the debate away from a fundamental Liberty: The Right to Life.

The choice of Individual rights versus Collective rights

Both the pro-life and right of self-preservation issues are closely tied to the Right to Life as referred to in the Declaration of Independence. These are both individual rights as favored by Conservatives and true Liberals alike. Collective rights as favored by the Socialist-Left tend to only value an individual in terms of how useful they are to the rest of society. Everyone’s life is dependent on their usefulness in service to the collective In the world of morally bankrupt ideas of the Left.

A belief system that favors the individual will also value their right to life or the defense of that life. Collectivists place life in the context of value to society, prioritizing the ‘Common Good Before Individual Good’ or Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz in the original German of a certain National Socialist Worker’s Party.

The Takeway

The ugly secret of Liberty [gun] control is that it takes away the right to life of those already born and hands it over to the government, placing the collective ‘in charge’ of the use of force as the ultimate arbiter of who lives and who dies. A government with a monopoly on the use of force has incredible power as compared to one where the people have check on the power of the collective.

This is why the national Socialist-Left obsesses over this issue and why they are working even now to incrementally destroy our basic Liberties. This is not about ‘safety’ or the fears of children. Were this the case they would take actions that actually protect them. The incessant failure of Liberty control or Leftist propaganda on the issue proves this is the case.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement
Click to comment

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