Connect with us

Conservatism

A case study in getting the conservative message to the voters

Published

on

A case study in getting the conservative message to the voters

What would you do if you were a conservative candidate for public office in a deep blue state where the Democrats control all levels of government and have the media in their pocket? Oh, one more thing, the Republican Party is afraid of its own shadow and always plays Dem-Lite Games. The few politicians with an [R] after their name who actually get elected are virtually indistinguishable from Democrats once they take office.

Last year in Hawaii, I volunteered in the primary campaign of John Carroll for Hawaii Governor. At the end of June 2018, I interviewed him in his office and transcribed his words. Over the next four days, we worked together to ensure that his remarks were accurately conveyed in the article which I authored in his behalf.

There was just cause to believe that the article would be published in the local media in keeping with coverage of all candidates in the Gubernatorial race. At the time, the incumbent Democrat Hawaii Governor David Ige also had a primary challenger.

The article which you are about to read was ready for publication on June 24th, 2018 which was nearly 7 weeks before the August 11th primary. That was early enough to have had a significant impact and well before early mail-in and walk-in voting began.

Unfortunately, there was no objective unbiased media outlet here in the 50th state willing to let the voters make their own decisions after reading an article which contained not only political considerations but moreover was of significant historical value. It is presented here in NOQ Report verbatim in its entirety.

We will never know whether this would have altered the results of the Hawaii Republican Primary last year in which Andria Tupola prevailed, only to be defeated significantly by Governor Ige in the General Election on November 6th. Could John Carroll have done better in that one-on-one contest against the incumbent Governor? That question will never be answered.

For the 2020 election, we will need to rely upon media sources based outside of Hawaii to reach conservatives here in the islands. The shortcomings of Hawaii GOP which did not adequately promote the message of conservative candidates must also be addressed in the immediate future.

The implications of this media blackout extend beyond Hawaii. The isolation and self contained nature of an island state in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are definitely aggravating circumstances. However I’m sure conservatives in California, Illinois, New York and other blue states will empathize and see relevance to your own circumstances and challenges that you face in next year’s election.

Here is the original article which has been approved for publication in NOQ Report by John Carroll:

************

John Carroll Rates Every Hawaii Governor Since Statehood

By David Ware

On Behalf of John Carroll for Governor

June 24, 2018

In Hawaii, we honor our kupuna who have acquired enough life experience to become family and community leaders as they embody our natural respect.  Before you say, ok, but we don’t elect them as Governor of Hawaii, let’s pause together and consider the nearly 90 years of experience, of which almost 70 are here in Hawaii, that John Carroll brings to this 2018 gubernatorial campaign.

On August 21, 1959, when Hawaii became the 50th State of the Union, John Carroll had already been working for the people of Hawaii for 10 years. He is familiar with every Hawaii Governor since Statehood.  His rating of each man and woman who has held the highest office in these islands will give insight into his urgent agenda for the road ahead when he takes the oath of office next December 3rd.

The following are John’s own recollections of each State of Hawaii Governor along with his explanations of what he will do differently. It may really surprise you whom he rates as the best and whom he rates as the worst Governor.  This will give you a window into what to expect from John Carroll when you elect him our next Hawaii Governor.

William F. Quinn [Republican]

August 21, 1959 – December 3, 1962

[Hawaii Territorial Governor August 29, 1957 – August 21, 1959]

Bill Quinn was one of the very nicest people I’ve ever known. He was a good Catholic, good family man and very, very good Governor. We had an excellent economy at that time. Everybody was employed. There were no beggars, there were no homeless, nothing of that sort. He managed based on what I would call Republican principles. I was basically a fighter pilot and airline pilot during the time that he was in. I used to play volleyball with him and knew him from that basis and also knew a couple of his kids who were friends of mine. So the only thing I could say about him was that I think he was a very good Governor and I listened and heard him talk. He was a very good singer by the way and part of his political career was based on his ability to sing. All I can say about Bill Quinn was God bless him.

John A. Burns [Democrat]

December 3, 1962 – December 2, 1974

Governor Burns was a retired Police Captain. Very smart, nice guy. I knew him only as Governor. I did not know him other than that he was Governor when I was first running for politics. I was never in office while he was Governor other than possibly for a while after 1970. He was a reasonably decent Governor. The one thing that he did do which I will do quite differently is that he basically turned over all of the activity which was productive by the prisoners in the various prisons including in Kulani on Hawaii Island and Olinda on Maui as well as on Oahu. He did a disservice to the idea of rehabilitation vs. recidivism. He was endeared to the union leadership. The net effect of that was basically to eliminate hard labor and allow prisoners to play volleyball or handball or weight lift or just fool around and waste time. I think what he did was a terrible disservice. When he took office, one of the first things he did was to look at the prison system. Apparently the people who helped get him elected against Jimmy Kealoha were union leaders of both private and public sector unions. What he did was to take all of the printing, automobile repair, license plate construction; all of those things were taken out of the prison system and given to private sector interests. This basically ended up costing the tax payers a lot more money but endeared him totally to the union leadership. The thing that bothered me about it is that it left the prisoners who could be being rehabilitated with nothing to do. I think that was a terrible disservice and what I intend to do as Governor is to get hard labor put in as a major tenet of the law. If anybody is sent to jail for a misdemeanor or felony crime, it will be for hard labor. Prisoners could earn a small stipend of perhaps 50 cents per hour to earn and to build up a small bank account for accessing when they are released. I also intend to get the license plate production, printing and auto mechanics as well as stream cleanup and other types of work to be done by the prisoners into law. Nobody’s going to be sitting around cells wondering what to do as soon as they get out of jail. I think Burns did a very, very bad thing with respect to that particular issue. Other than that, he seemed to be a decent Governor.

George Ariyoshi [Democrat]

December 2, 1974 – December 1, 1986

When Governor Ariyoshi came into office in the early 1970s, I had been in the Hawaii State House of Representatives for two terms. I had worked well with Jean King, Tadao Beppu and other Democrat leaders. With George Ariyoshi’s help we were able to get passed all of the current environmental law that is on the books in this state. That goes for everything from monk seals and green sea turtles protection to clean water act and shoreline protection management act. Geothermal or other types of alternative energy use. I believe that Ariyoshi was an excellent Governor of all of the Governors I served under here or have been in office under their administration. I should say has he has really been the best and I include Lingle in that comment. The best thing that I know about him is that when we ended up my last term in office as a State Senator, we had over a 500 million dollar surplus and the state was in really good condition financially. I don’t remember any homelessness, jobless or anything of that sort so I would give George Ariyoshi an A+.

John D. Waihee III [Democrat]

December 1, 1986 – December 5, 1994

When Waihee came into office, I had known John as a first graduate of the Richardson Law School.  I was a House Committee member involved with getting the new school put into being. I met him after a hearing in which he had submitted a document which was questionable. I asked him: why did you do this? His response was “we do what we have to do”. Later on when he became Governor, I never forgot that particular instance and I watched him go on to increase the cost of, or at least the numbers of, state employees by over 25%. The cost of government increased dramatically and the economy started to go downhill from that time. I consider Waihee probably the worst Governor that we ever had here other than, possibly, Lingle.

Benjamin J. Cayetano [Democrat]

December 5, 1994 – December 2, 2002

Ben Cayetano and I were friends in the State House and in the State Senate. We always got along well. I found him reasonably conservative. I thought he was a breath of fresh air after getting rid of Waihee and I worked well with Ben. By that time I was completely out of the political arena in terms of having anything to say about what was going on. Ben wrote a book in which he condemned me for getting single-member districts as opposed to multi-member districts. I did that through the U.S. Federal District Court. All in all, I think he was a decent Governor and reasonably conservative but not as conservative as I would have liked.

Linda Lingle [Republican]

December 2, 2002 – December 6, 2010

Linda Lingle was a very intelligent but totally self-oriented person. I had known her before she got elected and had actually helped her get elected. I had held signs for her, spoken on her behalf, things of that sort. I ended up running against her for the Governorship in 2002 on the basis of various things that she had not done as Party Chair. I believed at the time that she really was not a person who should be Governor. She was a very clever politician. She worked well with the unions but the things that she did I find totally destructive. The first one and the foremost in my mind is that she refused to even discuss the elimination of the shipping restrictions which are imposed on the state by the Jones Act. We had had as part of the Republican Party platform plank for years the fact that we do everything as a Republican Party to rid Hawaii of the Jones Act restrictions. She had that plank taken out as Party Chair about 2002 and continued on that course from that time on. In addition to that, she was basically a Democrat in Republican clothing. She was able, by working with the unions and giving them what they wanted, virtually to negate any other good that had been done in earlier years by Ariyoshi. I felt that Lingle was a disaster in terms of getting anything done positively for this state. We ended up with the homeless starting to come in. We ended up with higher taxation. The whole theory of Hawaiian homes issues were not resolved. Agriculture was in decline. Nothing that needed to be done was done. The reason that I am currently running for Governor is to correct the things that happened during the Lingle administration as well as Waihee’s.

Neil Abercrombie [Democrat]

December 6, 2010 – December 1, 2014

I knew Neil Abercrombie for several years before he was elected to the State House. Ultimately around 1972, I believe we were in the State House together. We then went on to the State Senate in 1978 where we again served together. I served only two years. He served four. As far as his political philosophy is concerned, on some issues such as environment we were closely aligned. On other issues that tend to be more socialistic or Marxist, we were totally opposed. I always considered Neil a friend. As Governor, I watched what he did pretty carefully. I think he was dealt a kind of a bad hand because he took it over from Lingle. Things had already deteriorated and he did not seem to have the ability to do much except talk. The ultimate result of his period in office was that he served only one term and agriculture, business, housing, homelessness, all of those things became worse during his tenure. I still consider him a friend but I would never vote for him for Governor.

David Y. Ige [Democrat]

December 1, 2014 – (December 3, 2018)

I met Governor Ige for the first time before his current term. We were both campaigning at the same time, he for Governor and myself for the United States Senate. He seemed to be a quiet gentle man who appeared intelligent. What I’ve known of him since that time is approximately the same. I believe that he has been dealt a very bad hand to deal with the Democrats who have run this state into the ground. We have no agriculture. We have high homelessness. We’ve got people living hand-to-hand mouth-to-mouth barely making it once a month. People have two or three jobs just to survive. The cost of living is 25% higher than any state in the union and higher than the highest states in the union and it is probably 100% higher than places like Alabama and Arkansas. The thing about Governor Ige is I think he’s a very good person. I think he’s trying to do the best that he can but he’s been given an almost impossible job. The changes that need to be made obviously are to get rid of the shipping restrictions, number one, to reduce the cost of government, reduce the taxation. Those are things that will never be done by any Democrat. I like Governor Ige and I’m sorry that he’s in the position that he is in. The only good part of this is that it makes a very clear-cut demarcation between what needs to be done and what’s been done. I will make that very clear in this campaign.

Looking at the 2018 Campaign

Now let’s turn a page from this review of the past & current gubernatorial administrations to look through John Carroll’s expert eyes at the other major hopefuls to replace Governor Ige in 2018. Following are his views on his Primary opponent and his potential General Election opponent to contrast his knowledge of governance with their track records.

Andria Tupola

Republican Candidate for Hawaii Governor

Well, first of all, she’s one of the most attractive candidates we’ve ever had here. If this were a beauty contest, I would not even think about entering it. Unfortunately, other than being a teacher and apparently a very nice person, she has almost no background to be Governor or perhaps anything else in terms of her business background and legislative background. She is the House Minority Leader, but a review of her history as a House member has been that she’s voted 92% with the Democrats and she’s offered no legislation that would indicate anything that would be helpful in terms of the economy, in terms of agriculture, in terms of reducing taxation. In addition to that, she has voted for things such as giving Driver Licenses to illegal aliens. She has voted or at least asked for a study regarding this so-called everybody-gets-paid-bill. In other words, a socialistic thing where everybody gets a certain amount of money so nobody can say that they’re unemployed. I just don’t see anything that she has authored as a legislator or stated in any speeches that would indicate capable leadership. In fact I see nothing other than failures if she should be elected Governor.

Colleen Hanabusa

Democrat Candidate for Hawaii Governor

Colleen Hanabusa ~ I do not know her personally other than to have met her at various functions. I know that she’s bright. I know she’s an attorney. She’s totally the opposite of me on almost every issue I can think of. People don’t remember it, but I clearly remember that when Ed Case put in as a US House member a resolution to have the Jones Act either repealed or at least eliminated as far as Hawaii is concerned, she through Dan Inouye’s efforts got over $800,000 from Alexander & Baldwin and Matson and other connected groups to take Ed Case out and he’s been out ever since. It’s so remarkable that she’s as popular as she is given the fact that what she has done over the years has been nothing except take care of union or major business interests such as HECO and Matson and Alexander & Baldwin. She’s certainly bright, she’s certainly capable but she’s wrong-headed on virtually every subject matter that I can think of from taxation to business control to agriculture.

What Is Next for Hawaii?

Now that John Carroll has contrasted his own conservative views with those of past Hawaii Governors and current gubernatorial hopefuls of both major parties, let’s see what he has to offer in terms of his own positive vision for the next four years under his own administration.

John S. Carroll

Agenda for 2018-2022 as Hawaii Governor

My first interest in politics began in in high school when I heard about the grassroots landslide which kind of appealed to me. My dad was involved with the Manhattan Project and rehabilitation of Japanese chemical industries and things like that. There was always some talk about Republicans doing this or that and for the most part I tended to disagree with him as he was a very strong Democrat.

As far as my own personal involvement was concerned when I came back from law school, I was a Major in the Air National Guard and an attorney. I was asked to run against the U.S. House Democrats, Patsy Mink and Spark Matsunaga. I was asked to run as a running mate with Jimmy Kealoha who had been a Lieutenant Governor with Governor Quinn and former Mayor (Superintendent) of Hawaii County. He had run against Quinn. They had both lost to Governor Burns.

They needed to try to pick up at least one of the House seats. They had Jimmy but nobody else so they asked me to run basically as a sacrificial lamb. I did so thinking that I could win anyway. But the only thing that I won was that I ended up beating Jimmy Kealoha by about 5000 votes but of course came nowhere near beating Patsy Mink or Matsunaga.

With my appetite having been whetted, I then went on to run two more races which I lost. Then finally won my first race, which was for the State House of Representatives.

My diving, hunting and other outdoor activities had me very concerned about the environment. To make a long story short, I put in bills to protect the monk seal and the green sea turtle. I went on from there to introduce a large number of environmental-protection-oriented bills. None of them passed under my own name but check the standing committee reports and my name is on all of them.  I’m very proud of that legacy of environmental law protection.

The challenge before us right now is really to rectify that chaos, the economic chaos that’s stated clearly in everyday life here. People are working two or three or four jobs just to get along. They’re living month to month with their paychecks. The education system here is terrible. Agriculture is almost non-existent. Homelessness is out of control. While we have a very low unemployment rate, the problem is there is just nothing for people to do and they quit looking for work and end up going on welfare.

I intend number one to get rid of the Jones Act restrictions to get shipping opened up worldwide. The Jones Act, by the way, totally violates the Commerce clause by being imposed on this state.

The basic rules as far as operating a business here need to be looked at very carefully. We are terribly overregulated. There are other issues such as Hawaiian homes distribution. 24,000+ qualified Native Hawaiians should have homeland grants. There is no homeland being given out to speak of by that commission. I intend to find out why that is happening. I want to get homelands in fee simple to each qualified Hawaiian. I intend to do that in the first two years that I am Governor.

Those are the major things that I have in my mind other than a forensic audit of the rail HART. We must know where every dime came from, to whom it went and if people have to go to jail, then so be it.

I am honored to be allowed to run for Governor and I’m definitely old enough to run.

Putting It All Together

As we conclude this excursion into the analytical mind and caring heart of John Carroll, let’s take a moment to ask a member of the generation that lived through World War II what he remembers about that date that will live in infamy, December 7th, 1941. John was just under 12 years old and living in scenic Marin County, just across the Golden Gate Bridge north of San Francisco.

John Carroll Devotes His Life to Service

I recall it was a Sunday morning and we had heard that Pearl Harbor had been bombed and I believe I was walking to church and thinking about what would happen, what we were gonna do about it. Why it even happened was kind of a mystery to me but my main thought was to get revenge. I started immediately to think I want to get into military and do something about this. I was an altar boy at that time.

A Purposeful Life

The war ended in 1945 when John Carroll was still just 15 years old, but he later fulfilled his dream while living in Hawaii. He became both a fighter pilot in the United States Air Force and a commercial pilot for Hawaiian Airlines. He has always kept trying until he accomplished his goals.

What Happens Next?

When you cast your secret ballot in the Republican Primary on August 11th and in the General Election on November 6th, your economic future may well outweigh your political party affiliation. Ask yourself whether or not making Hawaii affordable for Hawaii families once again is the number one factor in your choice of our next Hawaii Governor.

Will you vote for the best interests of your family or for a straight party line that has stagnated Hawaii’s economy?

It’s up to you.

 


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