Connect with us

Conservatism

What on Earth has gotten into the Democrat Party?

Published

on

What on Earth has gotten into the Democrat Party

PT-109 was a U.S. Navy Patrol Torpedo Boat commanded by Lieutenant, Junior Grade John Fitzgerald Kennedy in the Solomon Islands in 1943. His heroics in the Pacific during World War II against the Empire of Japan are well-documented.

15 years after the end of that global conflict in which the United States and our allies decisively prevailed against the Axis Powers, after serving in the U.S. House of Representatives (1947-1953) and in the U.S. Senate (1953-1960), the 43 year-old scion of a wealthy Massachusetts family became our 35th president.

While JFK’s relationship with Marilyn Monroe has made headlines over the years, his patriotism has really never been impugned. I was in my early teens and in junior high school during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We won’t go into Bay of Pigs and other events here, but President Kennedy decisively stared down Russian Dictator Nikita Khrushchev.

There are many memorable quotes from perhaps our most eloquent speaker who ever sat at that big desk in the Oval Office. You can Google those if you’re interested.

I have spent a fair amount of time on President Kennedy as the first Democrat President that I personally remember. No one alive back then can ever forget the dark days following November 22, 1963. Perhaps another time we’ll look back more closely at JFK in retrospect.

My point here is that John Kennedy loved the United States of America and gave his life ~ quite literally ~ in the service of our country. Now we must turn to subsequent Democrat presidents to look at and contrast these leaders of the past to those who vie be POTUS 46.

Lyndon Baines Johnson was a corrupt politician from the Lone Star State. The Democrat Party had made him JFK’s running mate to balance the ticket between New England and Texas. To everybody’s shock, he was sworn in as president aboard Air Force One at Love Field.

LBJ went on and defeated Barry Goldwater of Arizona in a sensationalized election in 1964 to begin his own term in the Oval Office. Goldwater was successfully portrayed by the Democrat Party as a warmonger. The political ad of a little girl picking flowers as a nuke hit had a large role in the outcome of that election. Some such images stick with you for a lifetime.

President Lyndon Johnson is remembered for a number of things including Civil Rights Act and the Vietnam War. Both good issues for another time. But whatever else we may think about him more than a half century later, however wrongheaded his actions in Southeast Asia, he was trying to do his best for this country.

After the Watergate cover-up took down Republican President Richard Nixon during his second term in office, Gerald Ford was elevated into the presidency. Which brings us to James Earl Carter, Jr., peanut farmer from Plains, Georgia, U.S. Naval Academy graduate and former governor of his home state.

He is the last Democrat I will ever vote for. I won’t make that mistake again. Not ever.

Feeling disenchanted about the disingenuity and mendaciousness of Nixon and his minions and disappointed with the amiable but inept leadership of Ford, I was a veteran enrolled in college who was ready to give the soft-spoken gentleman from Georgia a chance.

From my perspective, he started well with the Camp David Accords between Egyptian Anwar Sadat and Israeli Menachem Begin. But it all went straight downhill after that.

I was actually in Georgia attending a professional class in November 1979 when Iran took our American diplomats hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. When the rescue attempt failed miserably, I kept waiting for Carter’s Plan B. It never came. He didn’t have one.

My first vote for president was by absentee ballot from Clark Air Base, Philippines for Richard Nixon in 1972. I was back in the Philippines on vacation during the presidential election in 1980. I listened on American Forces Radio as the results came in and Ronald Reagan was declared the winner.

Jimmy Carter’s travels to the Middle East decades after his presidency have greatly disillusioned one who had ever trusted him. His heart has never been with Israel but rather with our best ally’s enemies. So Carter showed a nick in the Democrat armor.

Let’s fast-forward through the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton. I remember hearing Democrat Senator Joe Biden in 1991 shortly after the first Persian Gulf War saying that he saw no way that President Bush would lose the next election. Really, Joe?

New 18-year-old first-time voters in the 2020 election were born while George W. Bush was president and after the terror attack of 9/11/2001. But many of us today still recall Monica and when her boyfriend said that it depends on what the definition of “is” is.

For the scope of this current look at former Democrat presidents, let it suffice to say that however ineffective the man from Hope, Arkansas was in dealing with Osama bin Laden and precluding events of 9/11, at least national security was taken seriously.

Bosnia and North Korea were not handled in an optimal manner. But nobody has really questioned that the incumbent president was doing what he considered the right course of action in each instance.

Moving ahead and saving Dubya for another topic, our 44th president Barack Obama, about whom I have already authored a recent article for NOQ Report, fundamentally transformed America as he had promised, i.e., threatened, to do. Which brings us to the crux of the issue today.

What on Earth has gotten into the Democrat Party? That is more than just a folksy way of posing the interrogative. There is more at play today than mere human politics, more than political corruption, more than unbridled ambitions, more than the quest for mortal power.

Before delving into the real source of the problem with the Democrat party today, let’s consider a few noteworthy examples of the prevailing political attitudes. Both incumbents and hopefuls have subscribed to these perverted objectives.

Our United States Constitution is no longer universally revered and unassailable. Interpretations of the original intent have always differed since the foundation of this nation. That’s where the U.S. Supreme Court plays a vital and indisputable role.

By design and in theory, the Judicial branch of government is apolitical. Yes, in my mind’s eye I can see your reaction to those words. But, that’s the way the Framers of the Constitution intended it and we will save that analytical excursion for another day. Anyway, Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They do not campaign and face the voters for election to their lifetime tenure.

So what we are looking at here are members of the U.S. Congress, both Senate and House, and the man or woman who will serve as both President and Commander-in-Chief.

He or she will be elected on November 3, 2020 and inaugurated on January 20, 2021.

It’s not the time or place to analyze the myriad of Democrat hopefuls at this juncture. Rather, let’s look at the mindset that pervades the field.

Three decades after the demise of the Soviet Union with an old-style Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin striving to re-establish its international stature, Democrats in our own country appear not to have learned the lessons that brought down the Berlin Wall when we had a Republican president. From 77-year-old Bernie Sanders to 29-yo AOC, socialism has re-emerged as the agenda of the day. The young Congresswoman is too young to run today, but will be eligible in 2024 if her political party doesn’t cannibalize itself and implode before then.

Perhaps the best hot button issue that epitomizes the Democrats of our current day is border security. Virtually all those leading their party on Capitol Hill today have done a 180° turn, as a simple review of old YouTube videos will quickly reveal.

Those who try to penetrate our borders between official Ports of Entry are now described with faux passion, not as illegal aliens, but as undocumented immigrants. While feigning concern about foreign children at the border, all the while advocating infanticide of babies in the womb, Democrat demagogues are requisitioning new voters. If they thought any of these queue jumpers and hostiles would vote Republican, their tone would change tout de suite. National sovereignty is a concept they are totally unable to fathom.

I will give you just one prime example. Corporal Ronil Singh of the Newman, California Police Department immigrated legally to the United States. He was a Pacific Islander from Fiji in the South Pacific who had watched the TV show Cops from an early age and fulfilled his desire to come to his adopted country and serve in law enforcement.

A few hours after spending Christmas with his wife and young child, Corporal Singh was slain during a late night car stop by an illegal alien. This was impossible for the Democrat open border advocates to deal with. They simply didn’t know what to say. Despite being repeatedly asked for comment, they said nothing.

Their silence shows that their heart is not with those who love America and come here the right way. Their heart really isn’t even with those who try to come here the wrong way. The evil in their heart simply promotes their own selfish ambitions and doesn’t care what happens to anybody else.

This brings us to the point where we answer our original question: What on Earth has gotten into the Democrat Party? The answer is that it isn’t just something here on Earth that has polluted their heart.

Ephesians 6

11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes.

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

The very soul of America is at stake. Unrepentant socialists and Sharia advocates now “serve” in the U.S. Congress. The moral fabric of our society is in shreds. We are ill-prepared to stand united against all enemies both domestic and foreign.

Those who would turn our shining city set on a hill into a banana republic are already gaining ascendancy to seats of power. Today they reign on Capitol Hill and in many State Capitols.

Tomorrow they may sit where our 40th President Ronald Reagan once sat. Then these words will come back to haunt us:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

That includes women. That includes children. That includes each and every one of us ~ both those who conserve our American traditions and those who do not. Whether we like it or not, our national destiny as Republicans and as Democrats is intertwined and inseparable.

Are we still the United States of America?

Is the nation ready to revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Why forgiving student loan debt for disabled veterans makes sense

Published

on

Why forgiving student loan debt for disabled veterans makes sense

The cries are already coming in from the purist wing of the conservative movement as President Trump signs an executive order forgiving student loan debt for permanently disabled veterans. They’re saying this is a precursor to student loan forgiveness across the board. They say this opens the door for a future Democratic President to do the same thing, only so widespread it’ll damage not only the country but forever change the way education is handled in America.

But there’s one important caveat about forgiving student loan debt for permanently disabled veterans that reactionary conservatives missed. It was already done. This isn’t introducing a new stance on student loans. It’s expediting the process because as of now, about 1/5th of the eligible veterans are taking advantage of it.

Trump signs executive order cancelling student loan debt for disabled veterans

The memo Trump signed directs the government to develop an “expedited” process so veterans can have their federal student loan debt discharged “with minimal burdens.” Currently, just half of the roughly 50,000 disabled veterans who are qualified to have their federal student loan debt forgiven have received the benefit because of a burdensome application process.

Under the current process, disabled veterans can have their debt forgiven under a loan forgiveness program, called Total and Permanent Disability Discharge, or TPD, as long as they have a VA service-connected disability rating of 100 percent. As of July, however, only about 20 percent of the eligible pool of veterans had taken advantage of the program due to the complicated nature of the application and other factors.

This is a political move that will affect thousands of Americans at a relatively low cost, especially when compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of loan forgiveness being proposed by many Democrats.

But the bigger reason nobody should be balking at this is because these are people who have served their country and are actually deserving of the “free stuff” offers being made to everyone by Democrats. And by “everyone,” I mean literally everyone. Democrats want free education for illegal immigrants, and some are balking because the President wants permanently disabled veterans to have their loans forgiven? Fiscal conservatives (of which I am one) need to find another battle to fight.

This is a smart move by the President and turns the chants of “free college for everyone” by Democrats on its head. Loan forgiveness for permanently disabled veterans is pittance compared to the sacrifices they’ve made for this country.

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

Big Facebook announcement falls flat in under 24 hours

Published

on

Facebook's big announcement falls flat in 24 hours

Yesterday, Facebook was very proud to announce the results of a year-long review by former Senator Jon Kyl. The purpose of the review was to better understand the accusations of political bias, mostly from Conservatives, against the platform. According to Kyl’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal, the concerns of those he interviewed fell into six broad categories.

  • Bias is baked into Facebook’s algorithms and they should not be in the business of separating fact from fiction
  • That the platform’s community standards were constantly evolving and objections to the category “hate speech”
  • Bias in the employees charged with enforcing the rules and the appeals process for smaller organizations
  • Requiring advertisers to register as political organizations to run ads with a policy focus
  • The drawn-out ad approval process due to the stringent ad policies
  • Lack of viewpoint diversity at the company

In the announcement, there were several things Facebook planned to address which included how they handled political ads and the creation of an oversight board for how they handled the appeals of some high profile content removal decisions.

The announcement was supposed to ease tensions between the social media company and users on the political right. However, rather than getting out of the business of fact-checking content, the company committed to explaining newsfeed rankings. These algorithms and “fact checks” have already negatively impacted several Conservative sites. Not sure an explanation fixes that problem. They will also now tell you when they limit the distribution of a post because their “fact-checkers” give it a false rating. Again, why not just stop?

Probably because they are serving two masters in this fight. Facebook consented to a series of civil rights audits from a very left-leaning assessor. Facebook COO, Sheryl Sandberg released the commitments from that process on June 30, 2019. One action:

We’re taking steps to address this, including a US pilot program where some of the people who review content on Facebook only focus on hate speech instead of a range of content that can include bullying, nudity, and misrepresentation. We believe allowing reviewers to specialize only in hate speech could help them further build the expertise that may lead to increased accuracy over time.

Balancing the commitments made to both groups will be challenging to say the least. And within 24 hours of the announcement of what they would do to address Kyl’s assessment two high profile content decisions were made.

This morning, news hit that an ad from Women for Trump was removed. I confirmed this with one of the board members. Supposedly, because it assumed the gender of the women in the picture.

 

Can you say peak ridiculousness? Perhaps the assessment they received from Senator Kyl didn’t mention that many people on the right, as well as the vast majority Americans, assume the gender of almost everyone they see. I am also wondering how many posts Forbes Women and Women for Women International have had removed. Since they “assume the gender” of the person pictured on nearly every post.

The other content decision was not allowing the website started by popular Trump-supporting meme maker, Carpe Donktum to work.

Now we all know the left can’t meme, but the right has some pretty good meme artists. And anyone who has spent any time on social media is aware of what a meme is. Satirical short videos or images that everyone knows are a creation, not news or a depiction of factual events. The website was even called “Meme World”. Saying satirical content violates their “Community Standards” is about as stupid as Snopes fact-checking the Babylon Bee. Or just an admission that having a sense of humor is not allowed on Facebook.

Until Facebook decides to employ a good faith approach to known creators, organizations, and campaigns, rather than allowing fringe left-wing zealots to flag content with abandon, nothing will change. Just because Facebook recognizes dozens of genders doesn’t mean most Americans do. Yet activists can use a ridiculous rule based on fringe political ideology to get a perfectly valid political ad pulled.

One that was shared by the President’s official Facebook account. Not the best kick off for a grand announcement about addressing bias. Facepalm Facebook.

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

Was the Inca Empire a successful example of socialism?

Published

on

Was the Inca Empire a successful example of socialism

As socialists pivot from one failed example of socialism to the next failed example of socialism to the welfare state that decries claims of socialism, perhaps we should prepare ourselves for when the socialist reach the bottom of the barrel with examples of the collective ideology’s past successes. And before you say, “well that’s silly, there’s no way a pre-French enlightenment civilization could have practiced a successful form a socialism, sufficient enough to use as an example by the left” consider the fact that a French academic by the name of Louis Boudan penned an extensive treatise entitled “A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru” in 1962.

Now, this work does not appear to be an endorsement of communism, though the author seems to have a vested interest in the using the “no true Scotsman” fallacy given that this was written post World War 2 and in the Cold War with regards to true socialism. However, the very title, provocatively named, is certainly a sign that the political Left in contemporary times could refer to the Inca as a successful example of socialism, that only fell by the technologically advantaged Spaniards. But Louis Boudan is not the only one who has made this comparison, leaving us wondering why the Left has not seized on the Inca who seem to have had a more successful run than any contemporary Marxist regime. The likeliest reason that that Inca are not used as an example of successful socialism is likely that the proponents of socialism, to be blunt, are not historically informed. Still, this is a foreseeable argument in the imminent future and we best know what we are talking about when it inevitably comes because when the Left popularizes an example of alleged socialism practiced by non-whites they will pounce, but until then we await a Vox video.

The Inca Empire could prove to be the only example of socialism that did not self collapse, other than the Catalonia socialism which lasted only three years. But of course, all of this is conditional on the premise of whether or not the Inca Empire was truly socialist country. Perhaps it would be best to grant the Left that premise. Even if the Inca were a socialist empire, the ensuing result was a constant need for war, which is a commonality with the Stalinist ideology. Kings and Generals does a good job breaking down the Inca society for the laymen to understand. Key points discussed in the video are:

  • The Inca were highly adapted to their living environment with regards to agriculture, construction, and irrigation
  • The Inca had what appears to be a welfare state
  • The Inca worshiped their dead
  • The “corporations” of dead bodies accumulated disproportionate amount of wealth
  • The wealth belonging to the dead bodies necessitated the Emperors accumulating wealth of their own through war. This cycle repeats.

As you can see, there were multiple flaws in the Inca society that had a trajectory of collapse because of the pyramid scheme the system creates for its ruling class. The inevitable demise was expedited by the Spaniards. But going back to the foundational premise as to whether the Inca were socialist or not, the contrasts are enough to fail a purity test; had there been an organic collapse, the modern socialist would deny this as true socialism. It’s a never ending fallacy, though the dead corporate estates of the Inca goes against everything socialist preach. However, as human history has shown, socialism has always led to the personal enrichment of those in the innermost circles of power. Socialist or not? You decide, but be prepared to argue that the Inca were not a successful example of socialism.

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