Connect with us

Democrats

Will #MeToo kill Biden’s run or will he be painted as misunderstood?

Published

on

Will MeToo kill Bidens run or will he be painted as misunderstood

Potential presidential candidate Joe Biden has an opportunity to do what very few have been able to do: turn accusations against him into a plea for sympathy. If he plays his cards right, it’s quite possible for him to play the victim card instead of being painted as a sexual predator as many of his detractors have been doing.

It all started with an accusation by former Nevada politician Lucy Flores accused Biden of inappropriate touching, hair smelling, and kissing her on the back of the head at a campaign event to support her run for Lt. Governor in 2014. She was rightly horrified (who wouldn’t be horrified if Joe Biden was touching them and smelling their hair?), but in the whole scheme of things it’s not all too shocking. Biden has long-held the reputation of being creepy.

If he were a Republican accused by a Republican woman, he’d be done. The media would be crucifying him. Alyssa Milano would be Tweeting about public hearings instead of defending him. Pressure would mount for the GOP to distance themselves, and as they’re wont to do when any controversy hits a candidate other than Donald Trump, they would have complied like docile servants of the system.

But Biden is a card-carrying feminist. He’s a progressive from the old days when being a progressive didn’t mean putting out insane ideas like the modern day radical progressives of the Democratic Party have been doing since the Senator Bernie Sanders made his base so woke. Compared to most or even all of his potential competitors for the nomination, Biden is practically a moderate.

That, combined with his strong name-recognition and popularity with the establishment side of the Democratic base is why there’s still a good chance he could come out of these accusations still intact. He won’t be unscathed; more accusations keep popping up. Thankfully for Biden, all of the accusations seem to point to the same thing we’ve known for a while. He’s creepy. Probably not dangerous or overly inappropriate, but creepy.

It’s ironic that 19 months before the general election, many Democrats already see one candidate as the only hope they have of defeating President Trump. The leftward lurch has been harder than we’ve ever seen among Democrats. They’re making the Green Party look mainstream. And then there’s Biden who the Democratic establishment hopes can be the lone voice of reason while everyone else fights with Sanders and Beto O’Rourke for the bats–t crazy vote.

What the Democratic establishment doesn’t understand (or at least pretends to not understand) is the bats–t crazy wing of their party is growing dramatically and will likely do in 2020 what they weren’t strong enough to do in 2016: decide the nominee. This is why nearly all of the candidates are banking on branding themselves as fellow bats–t crazy people. The bats–ttier they are, the more likely they’ll get the nod.

At this point, Biden’s best bet is to come out strong, point to his record with women, try to reconcile with the accusers, and move on. He can play the victim card as well by saying the powers that be are trying to push him out. Who knows? Some might believe him.

For those of us who have no intention of voting for Biden, Sanders, or anyone on the left, this is a good time to grab some popcorn and watch the progressives eat each other.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 



 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Democrats imperiled whether they impeach or not

Published

on

Democrats imperiled whether they impeach or not

The Democratic Party is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have been refreshing talks about impeachment of President Trump for months as it ebbs and flows as a talking point. The threats have been constant, though often from different sources. Yet, they haven’t pulled the trigger. It seems like things are getting awkward.

The rock they face is the futile time- and resource-draining reality of it all. If the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives impeaches the President, it will then be tried in the Republican-controlled Senate where it will likely go nowhere. What makes it worse for them is that impeachment isn’t a popular action with voters; even many Democrats have voiced their concern that it would be a waste of time.

Meanwhile, the hard place they’re up against comes in the form of the radical progressive wing of the party that is growing in ranks and influence. They want the President impeached even if it has no chance of actually going anywhere. They’re pressuring their fellow Democrats and have been rallying their supporters around this goal. If Speaker of the House never brings it to the floor, she and her allies in the House will face the scorn of the likes of Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

They’re damned if they do and they’re damned if they don’t.

As for the President himself, he’s been done with all the investigations, implications, and attacks by the press. He just wants to be President and do his thing. But what he may not appreciate is that impeachment by the House will give him a huge campaign point. He can not only garner sympathy over the ceaseless attacks by Democrats, but he and the RNC can also use it to help them win back some of the seats they lost in 2018.

Personally, I’d love to see them impeach him. Assuming the get all of the Democrats and some Republicans on board, they’ll have the votes they’ll need to make the first leg of the impeachment process happen.

Unless something fresh comes to light that changes public sentiment, impeachment would be a poor move in the eyes of most Americans. But the radicals in the party will voice outrage if impeachment never happens. Such as silly group, the Democrats.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Published

on

By

Top 5 assault weapon technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written

Just a sample of some of the repeating firepower that existed long before the 2nd amendment.

Leftist lore has it that the only guns in existence at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment were muskets that took 5 minutes to reload. This being exemplified by the New York Times in using an image of a musket contrasted with an assault rifle in an article on their usual obsession with gun confiscation. Or from a commercial from a liberty grabber group depicting the long, drawn out reloading of a musket. As is usually the case with leftist lore, this is a complete fabrication.

The fact is that multishot or repeating firearms existed long before the affirmation of the common sense human right of self-preservation in the US Constitution. We’ve already highlighted some of these technologies that predate the Constitution. However, for the sake of completeness, we shall fill out the list with the other fine examples.

Since there is no set definition of the term ‘assault weapon’ or ‘weapons of war’ or what ever farcical term the liberty grabber left has come up with to demonize ordinary firearms, we bestowed this term to these technology as some of the first ‘Assault Weapons’.

Repeating rifles of the early 1600s, predating the Constitution by 160 years

The Encyclopedia Britannica has a very informative article on this subject with this excerpt detailing the most important point:

The first effective breech-loading and repeating flintlock firearms were developed in the early 1600s. One early magazine repeater has been attributed to Michele Lorenzoni, a Florentine gunmaker. In the same period, the faster and safer Kalthoff system—designed by a family of German gunmakers—introduced a ball magazine located under the barrel and a powder magazine in the butt. By the 18th century the Cookson repeating rifle was in use in North America, having separate tubular magazines in the stock for balls and powder and a lever-activated breech mechanism that selected and loaded a ball and a charge, also priming the flash pan and setting the gun on half cock.

[Our Emphasis]

Please note that these multishot or repeating firearms existed almost 2 centuries before the writing of the Constitution, eviscerating the ‘Muskets only’ lie of the national socialist Left. For those who are numerically as well a factually challenged, this was also 370 years before the 21st Century.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock: Portable firepower that predated the Constitution by over 100 years

Our first video from the venerable website Forgotten weapons is of two London-Made Lorenzonis Repeating Flintlocks. This was a repeating flintlock developed in the early 1600’s that was able to fire multiple shots 160 years before the writing of the Constitution.

Early development of revolving cylinder firearms, predating the Constitution by over 109 years

Next on the Pre-constitutional timeline, we have One of the Earliest Six-shot Revolvers from the collection of the Royal Armory that we profiled in a previous article. The Curator of Firearms, Jonathan Ferguson notes that this wasn’t one of the earliest revolvers along with pointing out how the technology has ‘evolved’ over time.

This also brings up an important point, that arms and other weapons of self-defense were vitally important, a matter of life or death. Every living being is in a battle for survival, in the case of human society, these technologies determined its survivability. Thus it is a constant competition with these technologies constantly changing and evolving over time. Something that would have been known by the learned men that wrote the founding documents.

The Puckle or Defense Gun from 1718, was predating the Constitution by over 70 years

We have previously detailed the Puckle or Defense Gun invented in 1718 and demonstrated early ‘automatic weapon’ fire in 1721:

The Puckle Gun, or Defense Gun as it was also known, was invented and patented in 1718 by the London lawyer James Puckle.

This was an early ‘automatic weapon’ was capable of firing 63 shots in 7 minutes in 1721.

For those following along this missed the mark of being a 21st Century weapon by almost 300 years.

The multishot Girardoni Air Gun that predated the Constitution by 9 years.

This is another multishot weapon of war that existed before the Constitution.

Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket – 1786, this also predates the Constitution

Our last video of multishot or repeating firearms that predated the Constitution is the Jover and Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket from 1786. We’re trying to keep this as short as possible, thus we have left off other examples such as the Ribauldequin, Duckfoot or Nock gun.

Very much like the previous example, the Belton Flintlock Repeating Musket was known to the founding fathers because he corresponded with Congress on this weapon in 1777 [Again, before the drafting of the Constitution]. For those keeping score at home, 1786 is still is not of the 21st Century.

Leftist lies on this subject depends on a number of improbable fallacies and assumptions. The founding fathers would have known the history of technological developments and they would have expected those developments to continue. Thus rendering the fallacy that they could not have foreseen that weapons technologies wouldn’t of continued on to the point of absurdity.

The Takeaway

Unfortunately for the Liberty Grabber Left, firearms tend to be valuable historical artifacts, these videos show that multishot or repeating firearms existed well before the Constitution. Thus we have eviscerated the ‘musket myth’. It should also be evident that the violence problem hasn’t been caused by the ‘easy’ availability of guns or repeating firearms.

As is the case with most Leftist lies and prevarication’s, they depend on a lack knowledge of the subject to succeed. This is why is extremely important that everyone of the Pro-Liberty Right be apprised of these facts in engaging those of the Left who have little care for logic, science or truth. The fact that multishot or repeating firearms existed centuries ago should make it clear that the Left is lying about the subject of self-defense from beginning to end.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

4 Retweets in an hour: Bill de Blasio’s campaign failed to materialize

Published

on

4 Retweets in an hour Bill de Blasios campaign failed to launch

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was supposed to make an impact on the Democratic presidential nominating process. At least that’s what a handful of pundits thought. But after a little buzz on his first day and a few jabs by the President, it appears de Blasio was nowhere near ready to run for president despite coming in much later than most in the field.

Last week, we noted how his YouTube channel had failed miserably. But that embarrassment was nothing compared to his attempts to play on Twitter, which happens to be the President’s favorite social media playground.

Bill Tweet

In case he keeps the Tweet up (he shouldn’t) and doesn’t attempt to artificially boost his numbers (he shouldn’t), I’ll put it here to see if it got any traction. Out of sheer embarrassment for him, I shared it and encouraged people to help him out. This is just too cringeworthy to watch unfold on its own.

Is Twitter important? There’s actually as much of a risk to candidates saying the wrong thing on Twitter as there is of them gaining support as a result. But between Trump’s epic use of Twitter in 2016 and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s use of the platform to shoot herself up to fame, candidates need to at least try to do well on the platform. Bill de Blasio is not doing well. That indicates two possibilities: either he and his team were ill-prepared to run for president or they’re not really running for president but rather running for a cabinet spot or something else in exchange for his help delivering the New York delegates to the eventual nominee.

Either option seems viable at this point.

One thing is certain: Bill de Blasio’s campaign for president should not be taken seriously by anyone. Democratic primary voters and Republican operatives need to all ignore him. He’s going nowhere in 2020.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending