Connect with us

Democrats

Could the hard-left turn by 2020 Democratic presidential candidates backfire?

Published

on

The short answer is, yes. The longer answer cannot be known until the general election season begins. Through primaries, candidates generally go to the fringe of their party’s politics, then shift back once the nominee is determined.

As Matt Mackowiak, president of the Potomac Strategy Group, noted tonight on Fox News, issues like reparations, Medicare-for-All, legalized marijuana, and Green New Deal are litmus tests for the candidates to reach the rising far-left radical progressives in the Democratic base.

We’re 100% crowdfunded. Join the crowd!

One thing is certain about this batch of Democratic contenders. There’s no idea that can be considered too far to the left. They might try to avoid labels such as “communism” and we’re starting to see them pull back on the label of “socialism,” they’re still promoting ideas that are both communistic and socialistic regardless of which labels they place on them. This may be the most troubling aspect of their strategy. If they can sell socialistic ideas while preventing the label of socialism itself from being attached to them, then they have a chance of swaying the unwitting masses.

It’s not the intelligent, thoughtful voters that should worry us. They’ll see through the lies of the Democrats. The real threat comes with those in the “independent middle” who are blind to the socialistic ideas the Democrats push. They may fall for them. We have to prevent that from happening through the spreading of information.

 


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Your email address will not be published.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

First they came for the gun owners….

Published

on

By

First they came for the gun owners

…but I didn’t say anything because I didn’t own a gun.

One of the more infuriating aspects of the Left’s game of denying reality with their little ‘That wasn’t really socialism’ is that there are distinct parallels between their agenda and that of other socialist nations, past and present. They all have a similar process of imposing socialistic slavery with a specific national agenda. A key part being the deprivation of the means of self-defense to their citizens and those who posses these means.

Denying the right of self-defense is a fundamental aspect of socialism

It is a fact of history that gun confiscation is an integral part of implementing of a socialist national agenda. The USSR required the people to turn in their guns, as did the German national socialist worker’s party. As was Fidel Castro’s response in the question of whether the people should have guns as or the United Socialist Party of Venezuela confiscating guns from the people for their own safety, of course.

These have all taken place at the onset of socialistic slavery, but somehow the new version isn’t the same because reasons. Leftists aren’t really trying to set up a governmental monopoly on the use of force, they are just trying to protect the children* [ *unborn and under 9 months old excluded ]. Even though it has been proven time and again that their repression of Liberty does not work as advertised.

The liberty grabber left is now celebrating the destruction of basic civil liberties

Where this subject not so deadly serious, it would be comical to still witness leftists parroting the ‘No one is talking about gun confiscation’ or a variant thereof. Meanwhile they can scarcely contain themselves in the glee over New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern seizing on their ‘serious crisis’ to confiscate guns with tweets looking to replicate the destruction of a basic human right in the states.

It is more than a coincidence that the tempo of the drum beat for liberty control has increased while the ideological fraud of socialism is being forced on the people. After a long winded piece gloating about leftist victories over liberty, an opinion piece in Bloomberg has even suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts seize on the serious crisis in New Zealand, using it to destroy this basic civil liberty.

Citizens turned into subjects with a change in the relationship between the people and the government

The genius of the founding fathers is that they recognized that down through history, people have had varying relationships with government. In most cases it was one of the government having a monopoly on the use of force. On occasion the people would challenge this monopoly and change the government, but only after an ensuing orgy of carnage and death.

The founders set forth a new paradigm, that of government by the consent of the people with a semblance of parity via a distributed ability to use force. The nation’s Socialist-Left would like to change or ‘reform’ that paradigm back to the old-fashioned version of the government being the sole purveyor of force. Please note that we are dispensing with the tired old line of the left that this is not what they want. They have made this quite clear over the past few years to the point that anyone that is informed of the issue recognizes that this is just another lie on their part.

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” – Thomas Paine

Relegating gun owners to 2nd class citizenship

Those of us who haven’t traded, sold or lost all of our guns in a boating accident are a persecuted class these days. The situation is much akin to a baseball pitching machine throwing fastballs over and over again without let-up. With all kinds of new laws being proposed at state and federal levels that range from invasive Intergalactic Background Checks, liability insurance requirements, gun registration and of course, gun confiscation SWATing legislation.

The destruction of basic civil liberties will only begin with gun owners

Every citizen of the nation is protected with basic Constitutional principles and civil rights including due process, the presumption of innocence and the right to face one’s accuser.

The gun owner has been excluded from these basic civil liberties in some states, and if the liberty grabbers had their way, such would be the case nationwide. With just the flimsiest insinuation of being ‘dangerous’ a gun owner [or those who are merely accused of being a gun owner] will be subjected to gun confiscation raid from the authorities.

This will be just the beginning of the ordeal – if they survive the SWAT team coming at 5:00 AM without warning. Our 2nd class citizen will have to prove they aren’t ‘dangerous’ after they have effectively found guilty in a star chamber. It will only be after spending thousands of dollars in legal fees that they may get their property back in less than stellar condition. The trend is to set gun owners below the legal status of accused criminals in the eyes of the justice system.

We’re just starting on the slippery slope

Fresh from their moves against the basic human right of self-preservation, the chief censor of the government of New Zealand has arbitrarily decided that certain ideas are beyond the pale, sparking a debate over free speech as reported by the Associated Press. This of course is another ongoing controversy in the states over the issue of political correctness and ‘Hate speech’. This shows that isn’t just about ‘military style assault weapons’ or whatever is the phrase at the moment, this is a question of liberty, something the people who use a similar sounding label used to pretend to support.

Make no mistake, the legislative mechanisms and regulations used to deprive gun owners of their commonsense human and civil rights will be used on others if they are allowed to stand. A civil liberties group in California made the point that one doesn’t have to be a gun owner to be subjected to gun confiscation SWATing. If they can go after the property of a gun owner in one instance, because they don’t like their attitude, what’s to stop them from going after a journalist or other type of activist? These orders only have to allege someone is dangerous with little evidence, much less proof that they own a gun. What’s to stop them from deciding free-speech is dangerous or ‘offensive’ necessitating that their computers or cell phones should be seized – at gunpoint no less?

The Takeaway

The whole point of the ‘first they came for’ series is that authoritarians rarely go after everyone at once. They are very careful in picking their targets for their oppression with the tactic of divide and conquer. Today it’s the people who own guns, tomorrow it will be those who don’t conform to the precepts of ‘political correctness’.

This is why President John F. Kennedy stated that: “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

This is why everyone should be concerned at the headlong rush to denigrate the right of self-defense. And why everyone should be horrified that the government could even consider jettisoning the basic civil liberty of due process and the presumption of innocence. The loss of basic civil rights for some will mean the loss for everyone.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democrats hang all hope on a public release and a bad interpretation of Mueller report

Published

on

Democrats hang all hope on a public release and a bad interpretation of Mueller report

Republicans are dancing in the virtual streets of social media today after Attorney General William Barr released a letter summarizing the report he received from special counsel Robert Mueller on his 2-year Russian election interference investigation.

Despite the President’s Tweet, Democrats are pointing out a single line in the document. While there was no collusion, Mueller’s report states that “while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him” on the obstruction of justice issue.

But, as House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows pointed out, exoneration is not the responsibility of the investigator.

Now, Democrats are ramping up their calls to release the entire report to the public. Their hope is that Barr’s letter does not properly characterize what the Mueller investigation found. If it has enough evidence to point to collusion or obstruction of justice in the eyes of the general public, that would be nearly as good as actual indictments.

Their two roadblocks, of course, would be the public release of the government, which the President has called for, and evidence that can be pinpointed and spun in a way that makes it appear as if Mueller was either close to having enough evidence or chose to ignore the evidence in his decision to not recommend indictments.

It’s unclear whether the report will actually be released despite the Democrats’ calls and the President’s Tweet. It’s up to Barr, which most assume means it’s up to the President himself. If there’s evidence in there that can paint him in a negative light, it’s very possible the Attorney General will hold back on releasing it.

A third option, which has already been floated, is for Democrats to subpoena Mueller to testify about the investigation before Congress. This would given him an opportunity to describe the evidence they found in the investigation without the report itself being released. It would be one of the most well-watched testimonies in history, even bigger than Michael Cohen’s testimony last month, because most people have never heard Mueller say anything. He has been very reticent throughout the investigation and has condemned the handful of leaks that hit the press from his team.

For now, the Trump administration and his supporters can breath a sigh of relief. How long that lasts will depend on what’s in the report itself. If there’s not enough to publicly demonize the President or those close to him, then we’ll likely see a release. If there’s more fodder for controversy and ammunition that can be used in the 2020 election, Barr’s summary may be all we ever see.

Democrats are latching onto anything they can in order to justify their loud accusations and false conclusions they made before the report deflated them. Watching mainstream media and Hollywood cry may be the most enjoyable part of all this.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s tax lien actually matters

Published

on

Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs tax lien actually matters

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a tax lien against her for a failed business venture from 2012. She owes $1,877.56 in unpaid corporate taxes. No big deal, right? Things happen.

I would actually be in the camp who’s currently calling this a nothingburger except for one major point. She still hasn’t paid it. It’s not an insignificant amount, but it’s also not an amount that needs to linger for years, and especially not for two weeks after an aide said she would be paying it immediately. Why didn’t she? Why are lawyers looking it instead?

But on Thursday, her aide Corbin Trent said that the Congresswoman’s lawyers were looking into the matter.

It’s one thing to say, “Oops,” and get it paid. It’s another thing altogether to say, “Oops,” then not get it paid, then get lawyers involved in the matter. This isn’t something one would consider contestable; she started a business venture, it failed, now she owes money. As a member of the House of Representatives, and as a socialist who believes in taking people’s money and redistributing it, she should be willing to pay off her debt to the government as quickly as possible.

This will go down as one of the many peculiarities about the Congresswoman that she’s probably going to blame on conservative media. After all, socialism and personal responsibility don’t usually go hand-in-hand.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report