Connect with us

Conservatism

Granting hero-status to any politician is dangerous and leads to disappointment

Published

on

Granting hero-status to any politician is dangerous and leads to disappointment

What do Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama have in common? They are the political heroes of the last two generations. Obviously, they belonged to opposite sides of the political spectrum, but barring an upcoming scandal hitting Obama, he will be revered by the left for decades. In fact, Obamalore will actually outshine reality within a decade just as Reaganlore has done since he left office. Just as conservatives love Reagan, liberals will love Obama.

The reality is that both had major problems with their Presidencies. Don’t get me wrong – Reagan was exponentially better than Obama. There might be a wee bit of bias in that statement considering that Reagan was a limited-government federalist while Obama amassed the most power to the executive branch in history, but objectively the state of the nation is much worse following Obama than it was following Reagan. That doesn’t take away from the fact that Reagan’s greatness still fell short of his legend in many areas. He was unable to enact much of what he’d hoped and promised. Conversely, he is responsible for enacting some damaging political moves from the Supreme Court to amnesty. Still, he is up there as one of the greatest Presidents in history, yet he still falls short of true “hero” status. Why? Because he was just a politician. We need to understand what that means in order to see how to move forward.

In the 2016 election, at least four politicians were unofficially anointed as heroes by their supporters. Donald Trump was the hero of the populists. Hillary Clinton was the hero of those who embrace identity politics. Ted Cruz was the hero of the conservatives. Bernie Sanders was the hero of socialists. Three of the four failed to make their hero stars shine brightly enough. President Trump has disappointed many of his faithful followers by failing on Obamacare and the wall (so far), while going left on the bump stock ban, tariffs, and criminal justice reform.

The reality is all four “heroes” were doomed to fall short of their expectations just as Obama, Reagan, and every other President since arguably Abraham Lincoln. Why? Because politicians are by the nature of their jobs incapable of being heroes. The demands made of them by those who worship them can never be fulfilled.

That’s how it’s supposed to be. As Americans, we should never view politicians as our saviors. The core of our governmental system is designed to prevent heroes. In fact, when the system is working in its purest form, our politicians really shouldn’t even be leaders at all. They are not given office to be vaunted. They are to do two things: defend the Constitution and act as public servants to the people. We should not look to them to solve problems. We should look to them as the people who can represent us, who can stay as much out of our way as possible so WE can solve the nation’s problems ourselves.

This is extremely important to understand because it’s the basis for federalism in the first place. If the founders wanted politicians to solve problems, they would have built us into a kingdom. All-powerful kings can solve problems, thought they never actually do. Of course, the founders also realized that empowering any individual, office, or body of officials with the power to solve problems alone would invariably lead to them being the ones creating bigger problems. They embraced the notion of individual freedoms as the zenith of government, but somewhere along the lines we forgot this.

Government starts with the individual. As American citizens, we are granted much more personal power than any other country’s citizens. That means we have more responsibility, but it also means we can accomplish more for ourselves, our families, our communities, and our country. From the individual, American government should work its way down to the family followed by the community, city, county, state, and finally to the nation. That means that the federal government should not only be the lowest level of government. It should also be the final safety net. Our system allows for checks and balances that relegate the federal government to be the last line of defense only, not the tip of every spear as it is today.

Let’s look at this in practical terms. An elderly man, for example, is ultimately responsible for his own well being. When he needs help in any way, it’s his family that should be the first to intervene. When the burden is beyond their resources, the community should chip in what they can. Then the city. Then the county. Then the state. If all else fails (which is almost certainly would not if the system is working properly), then the federal government would be the last line of defense to make sure that this person does not fall through the cracks and end up dying prematurely, alone in his bed.

Today, the federal government does everything it can to insert itself into everyone’s lives, particularly those who are deemed “at risk.” We are quickly heading towards a society where the federal government instantly intervenes and maintains the “welfare” before any other level of government steps in to help. This is a problem. Why is it even possible? How did we get to this point? The answer goes back to the original premise: there are no heroes in politics, but that hasn’t stopped Americans from trying to find them.

Instead of taking personal responsibility for themselves or their family, there are too many today who look first to the government. Unfortunately, those seeking office have embraced this mentality as the easiest path to winning votes. They use jamming and scare tactics to set the stage for inappropriate promises. When a politician gets on stage and tells people they are going to solve problems, the righteous response from the audience is to shake their heads and say “no.” We don’t need saviors in government. We need the federal government to assume its proper role as the last resort. The final play. The safety net. Instead, politicians say they will fix things and the people cheer. This isn’t how America was supposed to be governed.

As an organization, the American Conservative Movement will not be looking for heroes. We are looking for representatives who will do what they can to reduce their own power. We aren’t looking for people to solve problems. We are looking for people who will push the government aside to allow us to solve our own problems while being ready to jump in only when there are no other choices. The American Conservative Movement isn’t looking for people to lead us. We’re looking for people to be public servants representing us.

Americans must quickly realize that politicians, by the very nature of the jobs they hold, cannot and should not be revered as heroes. They were never intended to solve problems from their office. They are supposed to make sure that we, the people, have clear paths to solve our own problems and to help those we touch to solve their problems as well. A proper constitutional republic starts with the individual at the top of the governmental hierarchy. Many seem to have forgotten this in recent decades. It’s time to remind everyone about the truth.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

18th century firearm technology, 21st century lies

Published

on

By

18th century firearm technology 21st century lies

Repeating and semiautomatic firearms existed long before the recent phenomena of school shootings

One of the Liberty Grabber Left’s favorite lies is to claim that repeating or semiautomatic firearms are the cause of mass murder tragedies because they only recently came into existence. Hence the line ‘21st Century laws for 21st Century weapons’ line of Bovine excreta parroted by the Marx for our lives Astroturf effort.

This is a continuation of our ‘Conversation’ on guns in honor of Gun Pride Month and AR-15 Appreciation Week. In the usual circumstances, this ‘conversation’ consists of accusations of collective guilt of more than 120 million innocent gun owners with a lecture that we should be glad to give up more of our Liberty. All of this is predicated on outright lies such as that previously referenced.

The problem for gun confiscation brigades is that – as is typical – this often repeated lie fails to match up with reality. We’ve already proven that there were many ‘assault weapons’ technologies that existed long before the 21st Century and Long before the writing of the US Constitution.

Firearm technologies didn’t start in the 21st Century.

Perhaps Leftists fail to realize that weapons technology has always been on the cutting edge [pardon the pun]. They also fail to realize that small arms are usually mass-produced, very durable and extremely valuable antiques. This means that many examples of these weapons in reside in museum and other collections with patent numbers and other indicia that prove their lineage.

This means that there are many examples of these Pre-Constitutional Assault weapons as well as patents and other forms of documentation that eviscerated the ‘They only had single shot muskets at the time of the Constitution’ lie from the Liberty Grabber Left. The fact that many of these technologies existed long before the time of the founding fathers destroys that mythology.

The ‘Cambrian explosion’ in assault weapons technology of the 19th Century.

The development of self-contained cartridge ammunition changed the world with the assault weapons of the 1800s. Cartridge ammunition combined the essential elements of propellant, projectile and primer [ignition] into one unit, that could be easily loaded into the breech of a gun. From that point on, it was just a matter of working a lever or bolt to load and fire a cartridge. Thus it was this point in time mid 19th Century that someone could quickly load and fire a number of rounds.

This innovation also vastly improved the revolver, repeating firearm technology that had already been around for centuries, resulting in the famed ‘six-shooter’ seen in every western. Easily loaded and carried, a couple of these guns could have made for a deadly mass shooting during the early 1800’s.

The fact is these early ‘Assault Weapons’ were around 170 years ago and over a century before the school shooting phenomena. Proving the point that these mass murder tragedies were not caused by the presence of repeating firearms.

The 19th Century development of semi-automatic technologies.

Later on in the same century, it was discovered that the excess chemical energy from the combustion of the propellant in a cartridge could be used to unlock the bolt, eject a spent casing and load a fresh round. This semi-automatic process made it far easier to use a firearm, with the working skills built into the weapon. This is why these are in common use, and wildly popular with the more than 120 million gun owners in the country. It is also the reason these very reliable and easy to use firearms are the prime target of the Liberty Grabbers.

The Borchardt C-93 was the first commercially viable semi-automatic firearm produced in 1893. For those counting up the Leftist Lies, this still wasn’t the 21st Century. Please take note that these are the types of weapons used in school shootings and were on the scene 70 years before these became a phenomena. Not to belabor the point, but this also proves that guns aren’t a factor in recent occurrence of these tragic events.

Other weapons and mechanism were developed at this time to the point that the technology was relatively mature at the turn of the Century [This would be the 20th Century – still not the 21st Century]. To the point that any miscreant of recent times could have replicated one of their crimes over 100 years ago – but did not.

The steep rise in school shooting in the 1980’s and 1990’s

Dennis Prager recently discussed this issue in a “Fireside chat” and a column: Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask The Right Questions And You Might Find Out.

America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower. Grant Duwe, a Ph.D. in criminology and director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, gathered data going back 100 years in his 2007 book, “Mass Murder in the United States: A History.”

In the 20th century, every decade before the 1970s had fewer than 10 mass public shootings. In the 1950s, for example, there was one mass shooting. And then a steep rise began. In the 1960s, there were six mass shootings. In the 1970s, the number rose to 13. In the 1980s, the number increased 2 1/2 times, to 32. And it rose again in the 1990s, to 42. As for this century, The New York Times reported in 2014 that, according to the FBI, “Mass shootings have risen drastically in the past half-dozen years.”

[Emphasis added]

Link to the book: Mass Murder in the United States: A History by Grant Duwe

The Takeaway

Repeating and semiautomatic firearms have been around for Centuries, mass shootings are only a recent phenomena of the past 40 years. A phenomena that has been on the decrease as of late: Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be.

Guns aren’t the problem, they have been around for over 500 years. If they were the problem, why didn’t these take place 300, 200, or 100 years ago? It wasn’t the sudden appearance of guns at the onset of these tragedies soon after the sixties, then what was it? In his column, Dennis Prager had some thoughts. We will explore that issue in a later column.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

A trillion dollar deficit is much more dangerous than the GOP acknowledges

Published

on

A trillion dollar deficit is much more dangerous than the GOP acknowledges

Spending. It’s the thing that helped me make my decision to leave the GOP a few years ago as there seemed to be very little difference between them and the Democrats when it came to fiscal responsibility. Where we spend the money is the only big deviation, but both sides of the political aisle have an addiction to spend more than the country has available. In the past, this was dangerous because of the crushing force of national debt that will eventually bring about an economic collapse. Today, the risk is much, much greater and within immediate striking distance.

What a trillion-dollar budget deficit represents today is an avenue through which Modern Monetary Theory could actually be realized in the United States. Those who are familiar with MMT may still be as complacent about it as I was a year ago; “It’ll never happen, not in America.” But as Democrats push Medicare-for-All, the Green New Deal, open borders, state-funded education, reparations, and outright socialism, there’s only one conclusion that any economist or political pundit can come to: If the new thinking of the Democratic Party gets a foothold and initiates some of their plans, then MMT is the only possible way to make it happen.

They don’t even need to initiate all of them. Just one or two will be enough for catastrophe.

In other words, they’re policy proposals are already writing checks the U.S. can’t cash, so every scenario in which a partial implementation of these policies takes place can only happen through MMT. For those who don’t want to read up on it, MMT is essentially the practice of printing the cash to pay the bills. Proponents say it will be different this time from every other failed attempt at MMT because America is responsible enough and too crucial to the world economy for it to cause hyperinflation. Reading the delusional excuses for promoting MMT reveals an uncanny ability to deny reality while simultaneously suppressing common sense. It’s the type of thing that only progressive economic scholars can truly comprehend, and that should terrify you.

By moving the budget deficit into the ten-digit arena, we’ve broken a threshold that gives MMT legs. Whether it’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez saying, “You just pay for it,” or Elizabeth Warren constantly saying the rich will be taxed until it’s paid for despite the basic arithmetic that demonstrates this is impossible, they’ll all latch onto the notion that if we can spend a trillion dollars in one year that we don’t have, why can’t we spend two? Ten? Fifty?

On one hand, I want to do whatever it takes to convince Republicans they need to do what they campaign to do: cut spending. It’s not as easy as just pulling the plug on frivolous programs, services, agencies, and whole departments… except that it truly is that easy. It’s not popular. Some say it’s political suicide. But considering it’s never been tried in the modern era (no real cuts have been made to spending in decades), now is the time to be bold and do what’s right for the nation. The rise of the internet in general and social media in particular gives conservatives an outlet through which they can educate the masses about the need to make cuts. It’s something we plan on doing as part of the American Conservative Movement.

But on the other hand, one thing that can’t happen in trying to convince Republicans they’re doing it wrong by allowing them to lose. The Democrats are now more than the lesser of two evils. They’re dangerous. The plans they will implement are existential threats to America. Sadly, many of them know this. The Justice Democrats, who are driving the leftward lurch within the Democratic Party, are shockingly aware of what they’re trying to accomplish. Destroying and rebuilding America in their image is the end goal. That image is not a pretty one, even to the Justice Democrats, but things are rarely pretty when radicals get their hands on it.

Modern Monetary Theory will be implemented if the Democrats get full control. Unfortunately, Republicans aren’t helping fight it as long as they’re pushing such untenable budget deficits. It’s time for a heavy dose of fiscal conservatism.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why conservatives shouldn’t support ‘Ag-Gag’ laws

Published

on

Why conservatives shouldnt support Ag-Gag laws

For the most part, conservatism is black and white, especially when compared to progressive ideologies that dwell in contradictions and allow activists to make a living telling lies. But there are circumstances that demand a deeper examination and possibly a little soul-searching to help decide which conservative stance should prevail. One example of this is with “Ag-Gag” laws that attempt to prevent undercover filming of animal mistreatment on farms.

There have been so many undercover investigations at farms that it’s becoming hard to be shocked by what goes on at some of them. The mistreatment of animals at some farms is unambiguous; we’re not talking about poor facilities or crowded cages. We’re talking about physically harming animals while they’re alive and feeling pain. In some cases, the pain is clearly intense as some farm workers seem to get a thrill out of it.

Ag-Gag laws make it illegal for people to sneak onto farms with the intention of filming animal cruelty. Many Republicans support these laws because they help the agricultural and livestock industries that have had rough times over recent decades. Some justify it by claiming it’s easy to find abuses in any industry, and piecing together weeks or even months of footage of abuse to make ten minute videos intended to shut a farm down is unfair.

This is a case in which a conservative-backed industry has appealed to conservative lawmakers for protection against a generally progressive activism topic, fighting animal cruelty. It would seem on the surface that Ag-Gag laws are, therefore, conservative. They’re not. They’re an attack on the 1st Amendment, not to mention a preventative measure designed to stop crimes from being exposed.

Should we support American farms, their owners, and their employees? Yes. But that support does not give conservatives license to suppress a part of the 1st Amendment or to ignore crimes like animal cruelty. We must take the high road whenever it’s presented, and in this case that high road means siding with progressive activists to prevent farms and their workers from committing these crimes.

This video from John Stossel shows both sides of the Ag-Gag debate. In the end, he rightly concludes that subverting part of the 1st Amendment and enabling animal cruelty is inexcusable, even in support of the farming industry.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending