Connect with us


The ultra-thin line between stopping hateful terrorists and condemning our online privacy



The ultra-thin line between stopping hateful terrorists and condemning our online privacy

Is online privacy destined to be extinguished? That very well may be the future we’re seeing, and it might not be a distant one. Following the sick terrorist attacks in New Zealand livestreamed on Facebook and widely distributed across the internet, many fingers are being pointed to social media, chat rooms, and other online forms of communication as both the incubating mechanism and inciting element of online hate that resulted in a real-world tragedy.

We’re faced with a conundrum: If certain types of speech are considered hateful, and certain types of hateful speech can breed the type of real-world hatred that results in massacres like the one in Christchurch, then how do we decide what is considered acceptable? Perhaps the better question is to ask who will be deciding? Our knee-jerk reaction may be to start tracking down groups of haters who could turn into terrorists, but is it possible and if so, where is the line between conscientious objection and hateful rhetoric?

I often find myself concerned about posting my own beliefs on many subjects. It’s not that I believe my perspectives are hateful, but I’ve seen instances where they’re labeled as hate speech and resulted in people being banned from social networks. I’ve even heard of cases (one in particular just yesterday from a friend after I asked what happened to his right-leaning website) where entire publications were essentially ghosted on social media sites because someone deemed them to be hateful.

All of this brings about a certain degree of caution about what I post, and I’m not sure if it’s really all that healthy. For example, I refrain from posting articles about certain topics like sharia law or transgenderism because in both cases, the aforementioned bans or ghostings have happened. Do I think my perspective that sharia law is antithetical to the Constitution is in any way hateful of Muslims? Not at all. If anything, I wish to free those who are being persecuted because of sharia law, but speaking out against it has gotten people banned. Unfortunately, I’ve kept my perspectives rather muted, fearing repercussions.

Things have been changing lately, though. Our site has been picking up steam from multiple sources, including search engines, news aggregators, and social media sites. The diversity of our traffic sources has empowered my writers to be more direct with our perspectives. As a crowdfunded publication, we have a responsibility to speak the truth. As a news outlet that promotes individual rights and freedoms, we have a very clear understanding of where we draw the line on hate speech. It’s one thing to believe transgender athletes shouldn’t be competing against biological females. It’s another thing to call for action or violence against transgenders. The line is clearly drawn in a situation like that; violence or any bigoted action must never be allowed.

But that still leaves the question open about whether the internet in general and social media in particular is enabling the type of hatred that was demonstrated in New Zealand. An article on USA Today asked the question that definitely deserves an answer in light of these events:

The answer to the question is, “yes.” There can be little doubt that social media sites, chat rooms, and the “dark corners” of the web played a major role in fostering hatred, bringing together like-minded haters, and encouraging real-world actions.

So, the real question is whether or not this should be censored, monitored, or both. It would be easy to take the liberty-minded stance that such censorship or monitoring harms the masses for the sake of an isolated minority, but instead let’s look at the practical implications. Is it even possible to prevent this?

4Chan went through an awakening some time ago when they became more mainstream. Doing so prompted censorship that yielded 8Chan, the new home for those who felt 4Chan had become too restrictive.

Reddit cracked down on free speech by policing many of the subreddits where people would post offensive, bigoted, or even illegal content. Some of the users and frequenters of the banned subreddits established Voat where free speech is essentially absolute.

Twitter made a similar move by getting rid of offensive accounts. Gab was born as a result.

The trend is very obvious. One could say that the government(s) should step in and go after 8Chan, Voat, and Gab. They could even be more devious and allow these venues to continue unabated, but monitor them closely for activities that were suspicious enough to warrant action by the authorities. In fact, this is probably already the case. But how does any agency make the distinction between a person like the terrorist in New Zealand and an overzealous 10-year-old spouting anonymous threats with no way of actually acting upon them?

Some would argue that we should keep cracking down, driving them further and further down into the dark web where such things are more common and acceptable. But that still doesn’t solve the underlying problems we’re facing. Like-minded haters will find like-minded haters regardless of how deep you force them into the web. The only way to truly stop it is if you eliminate the internet altogether. By its very nature, anonymity and carelessness create a multitude of trolls, among which will be the guy who turned his guns on people worshiping in their mosques.

Every solution yields a new problem.

The real answer

Short of eliminating the internet, the only solution is diligence at all times. This doesn’t just apply to the internet. The San Bernardino massacre could have been thwarted by neighbors who noticed men bringing in suspicious boxes late at night that, as it turned out, contained the weapons used in the terrorist attack.

Sometimes, the signs will be there. Other times, we’re caught completely off guard with no way to know ahead of time that someone was planning an attack. But by remaining diligent, we can thwart many of the potential attacks.

I was acquainted with a lady who operated a flight school where participants in the 9/11 attacks learned to fly. She told me in confidence that she thought something was strange about them, but didn’t see enough to compel her to talk to the authorities. She told me she regrets it every day.

Does that mean we need to report our neighbors every time we think they’re acting strange? Should we be combing the free-speech-absolutist social networks for signs of a terrorist? Where do we draw the line between paranoia and righteous concern? Between seeing what we believe to be fishy and seeing what our prejudices want us to see? There is no set scale for what to report and what to ignore. There shouldn’t be.

In this crazy world in which we live, one that’s getting crazier every day, all we have is our wits and our discernment. As long as we stay diligent, we can help make the world a bit safer. But if we succumb to knee-jerk reactions following heinous acts of terrorism, we’re going to make mistakes in how we address these issues.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?


NOQ Report Needs Your Help



Entertainment and Sports

XFL unveils teams. Names great. Logos not so much.



XFL unveils teams Names great Logos not so much

The team names are in for Vince McMahon’s XFL, his response to the NFL’s growing dissatisfaction. Before today, the cities were announced in rather large markets, signaling a direct confrontational strategy with the NFL in multiple markets, though in a different portion of the year. The emerging league unveiled its team names and logos this afternoon. The Team names overall seem to be well-received. The logos, in contrast reveal a certain lacking of creativity. The team names and logo judgement are as follows

Dallas Renegades

The logo looks like it came out of a create a team mode on Madden. Not really a fan of the name because a renegade is basically a deserter. Outlaws would have been a better word choice and would sound better because its four syllables, not five.

Houston Roughnecks

This is an excellent team name that pays homage to the community around it. The logo resembles the Houston Oilers, in that they are the same thing, though Roughnecks is more colloquial and blue collar sounding. Overall solid.

LA Wildcats

Hate the team name. It’s 2019 and your team name is the Wildcats? I would joke with my wife when filling out NCAA March Madness brackets about how many Wildcats there were, Kentucky, Villanova, etc. The logo I understand because of the marketability.

New York Guardians

Fantastic name and logo. It kind of has a superhero feel while at the same time a Gothic gargoyle vibe.

St. Louis Battle Hawks

Points for originality. War Eagle was taken. Bird are too generic, but they spiced it up a little bit

Seattle Dragons

It’s risky to go with dragons and pull it off. I think the Seattle Dragons fall short. This logo has also garnered criticism for similarities to UAB.


Tampa Bay Vipers

The logo is a “V” depicting a snake’s eye. Clever, simple, original enough. No complaints. The reptile community is well represented in the XFL.

DC Defenders

The alliteration is the only reason I like this team name. Washington DC does not have a proud military history, getting burned down during the War of 1812, in which the subsequent Battle of Baltimore saved the union. DC Swamp or DC Debt would have paid more accurate respects to the community. better. So again, I don’t get it, but the alliteration works extremely well.

Final Thoughts

That’s the quick rundown of the eight teams the XFL has announced. Compared to the failed AAF, I do not like the team names or logos early as much. The choice naming of the San Antonio Commanders was enough to make me a fan. The Fleet, Apolllos, Hotshots, and Iron were also well-crafted team names. Comparatively, the XFL is generic. But keep in mind the NFL has it’s fair share of bad team names with bad or dull logos. To list a few: Browns, Jets, Giants, Packers. Major League Baseball is also unimmune. So we need to remove the bias that gives the existing team names we have grown accustom to a relative free pass.

The AFF had great team names and great football, but the XFL doesn’t exceed this, but at least they don’t plan to dump scarce money into a failed app. Overall, this announcement was enough to give the league added legitimacy in its daunting quest to challenge the NFL.

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


America desperately needs the biggest red wave ever in 2020



America desperately needs the biggest red wave ever in 2020

I supported a Democrat once in high school. Oklahoma’s David Boren believed in lowering taxes and reducing government intervention in business and individuals’ lives. He was once praised by conservative stalwart Barry Goldwater as someone who should be President of the United States. But he retired before I had the opportunity to vote for him. The best I could do was support his campaign from high school. That was 1990. Democrats were different then.

Today’s Democratic Party is a dumpster fire. It’s a phrase that’s often used, perhaps too often, but I personally use it only when referring to the most egregious examples of chaos and dysfunction. The Democratic Party of 2019 and 2020 qualifies.  It’s not just their lack of unity or the disestablishment of clear leadership. That will come once they nominate a presidential candidate. But there are only a few sane candidates in the mix, and none of them are actually in the mix based on polls. All of the frontrunners and anyone within striking distance is worse than any candidate the Democrats have put forth in modern history. Yes, that includes Joe Biden, who is not the “common sense” Democrat many seem to believe he is. He’s just as unhinged, much more malleable, and clearly more clueless than any of the others. And that’s saying a lot.

When Barack Obama was elected President, a lot of Republicans thought it was the end of the world. I saw him as a risk to the cultural stability of the nation, and I was right. I saw Obamacare as a stepping stone to single-payer because it was bound to fail miserably, and I was right. What I didn’t see was how he would leave the progressive wing of the party feeling unfulfilled. He didn’t meet the promises they imposed on him of transforming America towards their version of “justice.” He made strides. That much is clear. But he wasn’t the existential threat to American society that they wanted so desperately.

In other words, I saw President Obama as someone who would damage the country, but not beyond mitigation. We’re seeing this to be true as President Trump reverses policies and fixes many of the challenges President Obama imposed on this nation. I didn’t buy into the slogan that he would “Make America Great Again” during the election, but I was wrong. I expected him to be above average, staving off the judicial tyranny Hillary Clinton would have brought upon us. But he has far exceeded my expectations. He really is doing many of the things this country needs. When I’m right, I’ll say it. When I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

There have been mistakes. Arguably the biggest was allowing his advisers to keep him from pressing for the wall and shutting down the government if necessary long before the 2018 election. They said they’d get it done afterwards. Big mistake. The ensuing battles following the mini-blue-wave of the midterm elections that lost the House for the GOP were damaging to the President and counteracted progress made at the border. In effect, the lack of GOP action reversed progress and opened up the floodgates of illegal immigration.

President Trump’s second term is necessary, but there is a big difference between a second term with GOP control of the House and Senate and a second term fighting Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or both. It’s not a slight difference. It’s not a big difference. It’s a gigantic difference. If Democrats retain control of the House, gain control of the Senate, or both, President Trump’s 2nd term will be legislative stalemate and constant battles with the judiciary over his attempts to do something by executive order. If the GOP can retain control of the Senate and take back control of the House, his second term can be monumental.

But it’s more than just promoting the Trump agenda. 2020 needs to be a referendum against the Democratic Party for bowing to their radical progressive wing. Nancy Pelosi may be Speaker of the House, but “The Squad” has increasingly been given attention to speak on behalf of the House. And Democratic leadership doesn’t see it. They sit in their committee meetings or caucus gatherings and think “The Squad” is a minor thorn in their side. But in real America outside of the beltway, Democrats are becoming disciples of the Green New Deal. They’re becoming vocal proponents of Medicare-for-All. They’re protesting ICE and calling for open borders. They’re joining Antifa in calls for socialism.

2020 must be a purge of the radicals in DC who are bent on destroying America. The Democratic Party must suffer cataclysmic losses at the ballot box, not just for President but for as many elected offices as possible.

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

Culture and Religion

We don’t need ‘red flag’ gun confiscation laws. The solution to the problem is already in place.




We dont need red flag gun confiscation laws The solution to the problem is already in place

Laws for Civil Commitment procedures that also protect due process are in place in every state -‘crisis’ solved QED.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left keeps on insisting that there is a ‘serious crisis’ and that Gun Confiscation SWATing laws are desperately needed before anyone can rationally think through their true implications of destroying due process and the presumption of innocence.

The problem for the Left is that there really isn’t a ‘crisis’ since there are laws on the books to handle situations where someone may be a danger to themselves. We have already proven this here, therefore, there is no reason to implement these draconian measures that will serve to eviscerate multiple parts of the bill of rights in one fell swoop. Thus the solution to this problem should be pretty straightforward, point this out to everyone and move on to other issues of greater importance.

Solving the problem by simply pointing out that the solution already exists.

We supposedly need to discuss this issue immediately, without any delay. Fine, it is just a matter of having President Trump or Senate Majority Leader McConnell schedule a formal announcement on this allegedly intractable issue. This announcement would simply reiterate that laws for Civil Commitment are already on the books, so there is no reason to waste precious time in debating a non-issue. We also have the added bonus that these laws also protect civil Liberties, something of primary importance for those of us on the pro-Liberty Right.

It will be a formal announcement that there is absolutely no reason for these laws, followed with a press kit detailing Civil Commitment procedures in every state. Then it will be logical to ask why the authoritarian Left keeps on demanding news laws for a problem that has already been solved. Please note that they are essentially doing that on the Intergalactic Background Check issue, since these also already exist, but that’s a separate issue.

Consider the reasons why the politicians should accept this elegant solution to the problem:

  • It wouldn’t require any new laws.
  • It wouldn’t take any political wrangling.
  • It would solve the problem immediately.
  • It would protect the bill of rights –specifically the 2nd, 4th, 5 and 6th amendments.
  • It will resolve the situation with minimum trouble.

Why aren’t the politicians already calling for this perfect solution to the problem?

There are only two reasons why this perfect solution has not been brought forward by the legislators on either side. Either they don’t know the law – which is absurd – or they want the power they would attain from ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation.

Legislators really have only one job – to understand and perfect the law. They should have already known about this solution. This means they only have one reason to push for Gun Confiscation SWATing laws. These politicians would clearly like to expand their own power, even now, Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris is salivating at confiscating the guns of those merely accused of ‘thought Crime’.
Who know what clever ways they will develop for their new-found power? We’ve already shown that these laws don’t work as advertised, that they have caused more problems than they have solved and they are a civil rights nightmare. Why are they being imposed by the government to solve a problem that has been already addressed?

The Bottom-Line.

This editorial could have been just two lines – the headline and the subhead – summarizing the whole point. Solving the problem that gun Confiscation SWATing is supposed to address is simply a matter of following existing law. The same could be said for liberticidal Leftist power grabs – Intergalactic Background Checks, the ‘Assault Weapon’ scam.. er ban and most everything else. It’s already illegal for felons and others to possess firearms. Thus, these measures are like making things double secret, illegal, in the vain hope that people who don’t follow the law [hence the term ‘lawbreaker’] will suddenly do so because of the magic of a new law on the books.

In the specific example here, the laws already exist and they protect due process. Politicians on both sides of the aisle simply need to step up and use them instead of trying to use the latest ‘serious crisis’ to grab even more power for themselves.

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