NOQ Report Is Moving to AmericaFirstReport.com

There was a time when conservatives needed to read between the lines in commentaries and editorials to isolate creeping socialistic ideas being pushed onto an unsuspecting audience. It was like searching for subliminal messages in television ads; you had to slow it all down to see what the underlying message really was. Today, that need has diminished. They don’t try to sneak in Marxist, communist principles under any guise. Today. they’re just saying it.
They can do that because of two important changes in modern society. The first is the acceptance of cultural Marxism, which I’ll cover in the near future. The second is climate change hysteria which is spreading like an intellectual plague through the masses. Many have become such adherence to the tenets of climate change activism that it has become more of a religion than actual religions. It’s a cult, but not one that hides in the shadows. If anything, it’s doing its best to stay out of the shadows and shove its ideological premises in our faces. And that’s the point. They want to be able to make any claim or ask for any sacrifice by the people. Climate change is the trump card they can play to try to shield any of their demands from reproach. If you won’t give up ______ for the sake of saving the planet, then you must be a selfish climate change denier in their books.
Just as we are fully aware (at least we should be) that the Green New Deal is an economic plan clothed in the glossy robes of climate change, so too should we be realizing that the entire climate change movement is being driven by a desire for a communist near-future in America. I assume, or at least I hope, that most activists in the climate change movement do what they do because they sincerely believe the world is going to be uninhabitable in the near future if we don’t act immediately. But just as these people willfully ignore actual scientific data in favor of the pseudo-science cited by their movement, so too have they willfully ignored the fact that the only possible “solution” to the climate change “problem” is giving up everything: Our property, our rights, and ability to act as individuals. But that has changed. Many have stopped ignoring this fact and have started embracing it instead.
An article by The Nation is a perfect example of today’s practice of being forthright with their end goal. The radical progressives being targeted by articles like these are in mid-stage acceptance of communism as the only viable solution to the existential threat they’ve been sold in climate change. They believe capitalism, individualism, and freedom are the very things that hasten the impending doom they perceive in our future. Therefore, the only solution is to replace capitalism, embrace collectivism, and denounce freedoms for the sake of safety and security.
I don’t recommend reading the whole article, as it’s acute propaganda with no redeeming value for anyone who isn’t a radical progressive, but there’s an important stretch in the article that declares their communist intentions without actually invoking the term “communism”:
California’s Fires Prove the American Dream Is Flammable

https://www.thenation.com/article/california-fires-urban-planning/The valorizing of homeownership and property rights results not only in increased exposure to climate-change-fueled fires, but also in our inadequate responses to them. In a suite of 22 fire-related bills signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom this fall, only two are directed at the physical conditions of settlements. Both restrict their legislation to the “hardening” of individual structures, such as fire-resistant roofing and siding, creating “defensible space” around one’s house, and some measures around community preparedness. There is hardly any emphasis on more collective action or larger-scale spatial planning, except for reassessing traffic flow for evacuations. Any suggestion that we might discourage rebuilding on privately owned land is promptly tamped down.

Our homes and neighborhoods are suffused with memories and meaning. Scenes of scorched and charred hillsides and homes tear at us in visceral ways. And so, after each devastating blaze, communities and officials pledge to rebuild. After such trauma, it seems only reasonable, kind, and dutiful to support these efforts—even if they may be perpetuating the cycle. This is not an indictment of individual homeowners, who are only trying to find stability through the sole system that has been offered to them.

The vulnerable affluence of Porter Ranch and Granada Hills, and the exposed tranquility of Paradise, are two representations of the same westward-expansionist frontier thinking that underlies modern life in the United States. This is the Jeffersonian agrarian ideal, transmuted through the urban, petrochemical century. Cheap energy—both the monetary price of subsidized gasoline and the hidden costs of fossil fuels—and the idealization of individual homeownership have created the scorching landscapes we face today. Cheap energy is untenable in the face of climate emergency. And individual homeownership should be seriously questioned.

There are other options, in theory: Rental housing serves many cities around the world well, although we should be wary about perpetuating the power of landlords in this country without delinking ownership from wealth creation. There has been resurgent interest in government-planned and -built public housing, including recent legislation proposed by Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders that would shore up and invigorate the federal system. The Green New Deal invokes prior eras of government intervention, lending itself to revitalized thinking about the social value of public goods.

If you’re a homeowner, you’re not the enemy of climate change activists. You’re simply a victim of “the sole system that has been offered to” you. It isn’t necessarily your fault that you’ve been taken into the systemic problem of the antiquated American Dream. You’re just a patsy to the evil forces of greed that have destroyed this nation, by their reckoning. You can be reformed and engage in their brave new world of climate change communism. You just have to be willing to give up everything and join their collective.
“The key thing to keep in mind with climate activism is that it is ideologically driven – and that ideology, whether they admit it or not, is totalitarian control of everything or communism,” said Steve Milloy, founder and publisher of Junk Science. “Climate is not about the controlling the environment. It’s about controlling us.”
Learn more about RevenueStripe…

If you need more evidence that climate = communism… https://t.co/MMMnTHHFF4

— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) December 26, 2019

Climate change is the perfect vehicle through which to install communism in America and around the world. It’s technical enough that average citizens cannot test and verify results on their own. They must rely on the “experts” who are comprised of technocrats and activist scientists who now have control of the narrative. This isn’t because there haven’t been objections to their pseudo-scientific claims. Over the last four decades, scientists who examined the facts and came to conclusions that ran counter to the climate change agenda have been systematically “corrected,” bullied, or purged. Saying climate change is not a man-made phenomenon or that it isn’t real at all gets scientists the same treatment from their peers as biologists and geologists who claim the world was created by God. In both cases, truthful scientists are anathema in labs, universities, and the media.
Climate change hysteria also offers a sense of urgency without an ability to see the results in a reasonable amount of time. This is why there have been U.N. studies and scientific community warnings about how the world has one decade to take action. The problem is these final-decade warnings have been in play since the 1970s. When one doesn’t pan out, a new one is issued. And another. And another. We’ve apparently been 10 years away from cataclysm for the last half-century. It is perpetual and can never be debunked because “new” science invariably pops up that says this time, by golly, we really, really, really only have a decade to get things straight, hand over our property, renounce our liberties, and fall in line with communist solutions.
There really is an existential threat associated with climate change, but it has nothing to do with the environment. Climate change hysteria is pushing for communism around the world. If they get their way, the world really could end.

There really is an existential threat associated with climate change, but it has nothing to do with the environment.

Climate change hysteria is pushing for communism around the world.

If they get their way, the world really could end.

h/t @JunkScience https://t.co/wfak1eEDhe

— JD Rucker (@JDRucker) December 27, 2019

KrisAnne Hall

Click on: https://www.c-span.org/video/?431188-1/depth-krisanne-hall to watch  on C-Span speak about the Constitution, etc.

FairTax is an imposition of a Federal Sales Tax (also known as a use or consumption tax) on every NEW item you purchase in place of a income tax.  But, believe me it is a TAX on your income, as you need income to make purchases. Is it a step to get people use to a VAT or Value Added Tax (a propagated word) at every step the item goes thru to get to the end user user?  Will the Government decide to tax the manufacture on the items that go into the product to make it? How about the distributor level,  the wholesaler level?  The so-called VAT Tax is not a Value Added Tax in reality it is a cost added tax as ALL taxes add to the cost of whatever it taxes.

The FairTax rate is as proposed in Hr 25 Sec. 101 was 23%.  But in order for the business collecting the tax to remit the 23% of the selling price they will need to add 30% to the selling price of the item.   Now if the merchant wishes to sell the item at the price he would normally sell it at before the FairTax say a $100. in order for him to make the same profit and collect the tax of 23% the new selling price would need to be $130.  To pay the Government their 23% FairTax on the $130 you would need to times the $130 by 23% which would be $29.90.   $130 – $29.90 to equal $100.10 so the merchant could receive his original selling price before the FairTax.

Now think of how prices for house, boats, cars, properties would increase.  If, you think inflation is bad today wait till you see what items would cost when FairTax is in place.  Will Banks finance the FairTax part of a purchase of a house or a boat or a car, etc.?

Most of the people in business I have asked how they felt about FairTax once they understand it, state they do not like it.  Many felt it would drive sales down.  People would have less money in their pockets to buy things.  Impulse purchases would go down.

DOES NOT ABOLISH the IRS or the US Department of Revenue, or whatever they will call it, as the Government will need some department to collect the FairTax from the Merchants. Who will audited the collectors? Do you think the Government will take the collectors word for the taxes submitted?

By Fremont Brown

So, one way to destroy the World economy is to create a virus that shuts down most of the worlds production of food, energy, and production of product many people need, etc. to create a high inflation rate which makes the World economy worst. Supply and demand controls prices, high demand for product but a small supply of product causes prices to raise.

By Publius Huldah (Joanna Martin, J.D.)

Our Framers understood that a free State cannot exist without an armed and trained populace (i.e., the Militia). Accordingly, they wrote a Constitution which prohibits the federal and State governments from infringing the natural right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Under our Constitution, the federal government has no authority to make any laws whatsoever over the Country at Large restricting the rights of the People to keep and bear arms. Gun control is not an enumerated power. Furthermore, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from infringing the right of the People (the Militia) to keep and bear arms.

The States are also prohibited from infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms by Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution. Those two clauses provide for the Militia of the Several States; and implicitly prohibit the States from making any laws which would interfere with the arming and training of the Militiamen in their States. ¹

Applications for Congress to call a convention under Article V, US Constitution

But various groups, such as Mark Meckler’s Convention of “States” (COS) organizations, have been lobbying State Legislators to pass applications asking Congress to call an Article V Convention.

Whether or not State Legislatures should ask Congress to call an Article V Convention is one of the most important – and contentious – issues of our time. The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and propose a new Constitution, with a new and easier mode of ratification, which would create a new government. ²

The Pennsylvania Senators Roundtable Discussion

On November 8, 2021, several Pennsylvania Senators conducted a roundtable discussion about whether they should pass Mark Meckler’s “COS” application (SR 152) for Congress to call an Article V convention. Mark Meckler and his allies were present in support of SR 152. Firearms Owners Against Crime was present in opposition to SR 152. Gun Owners of America was there also. ³

Much of what Meckler said at the roundtable is not true. But this paper focuses on his comments ridiculing his opponents’ concerns that, if there is an Article V convention, we could lose our existing Right to keep and bear arms.

Meckler showed up at the roundtable decked out in gun garb; and, after dropping names to show his connections with gun rights organizations, proceeded throughout the discussion to preen his commitment to “the Second Amendment”. He ridiculed the warnings that if there is an Article V Convention, Delegates would have the power to impose a new Constitution which, among other horrors, strips us of our Right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

Meckler said that Chuck Cooper, a litigator for the NRA, is on COS’s Legal Advisory Board and has written an open letter saying, “…it’s a ridiculous argument that there could be a runaway convention and we could lose our Second Amendment.” [13:31 – 13:57]

A bit later on, Meckler said:

“…Professor Robbie George at Princeton who is considered the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America is on our Legal Advisory Board. … [43:02 – 43:25]

So who is Professor Robbie George? And who says he is the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America?

Robbie George (Robert P. George) was on the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official branch of the federal government.

Robbie George and three others have drafted a new Constitution which severely restricts the Right of the People to keep and bear arms! His new Constitution says at Article I, Sec. 12, clause 7:

“Neither the States nor the United State [sic] shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes, provided that States, and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.”

So Robbie George’s new Constitution:

• authorizes the state and federal governments to ban the possession of all arms unless they are “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes”. Who will decide what arms are “ordinarily” used for self-defense or recreation? The governments will decide.

• authorizes the state governments and the federal government (in those places subject to its “general regulatory authority”), to enact and enforce “reasonable regulations” on the bearing of those arms they permit us to have. What’s a “reasonable” regulation? The governments will decide; and,

• authorizes the state and federal governments to strip us of our right to keep even those arms “ordinarily used for self-defense”, if someone in the government (presumably a judge) decides you are a danger to yourself or others.

We live in a time when Christians who read the Bible; People who read the Constitution; and Moms who speak out at School Board meetings against pornography in the schools, mask mandates, or the teaching of critical race theory, are labeled “domestic terrorists”.  Should “domestic terrorists” be allowed to keep and bear arms? Of course not- they are dangerous!

At the roundtable, John Velleco of Gun Owners of America said:

“The questions that we’re dealing with on this is how will this [Meckler’s “COS” application SR 152] impact the Second Amendment? Because that’s, as an organization, that’s all we care about. … So we need to determine if this is something that seriously could impact in a negative way the Second Amendment, then we are compelled to engage 100%. … our bigger issues in Pennsylvania are passing constitutional carry.” [1:07:05 – 1:07:51]

Yet even though Meckler’s Board Member Robbie George had already participated in the drafting of a new Constitution which imposes gun control; and thereby would rescind the Second Amendment, Meckler responded:

“And I will tell you there are 5 Million people in this country … that are signed up for convention of states. Right here, there are 90,000 in this state. 90,000!

The question was asked, will this help pass constitutional carry? The answer is hell yes, it will! Because right now, our activists are very angry with gun rights organizations in this state. And they’ll not support anything that these gun organizations are doing, because they’re now sworn enemies on Article V. … But I will say, on Kim Stolfer’s organization, they should be working with these organizations. Every one of those 90,000 should be signed up with these organizations and members of these organizations fighting for everything they [the gun organizations] want.” [1:21:21 – 1:22:05]

So Meckler, who postures as a “Second Amendment guy” [13:31-13:57] , threatened that unless Kim Stolfer supports Meckler’s SR 152 application for a convention, Mecker’s alleged 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania ⁴ will not support anything Kim Stolfer’s gun rights organization does!

Look behind the Curtain

This push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch ever perpetrated on the American People. It’s all about getting a new Constitution under the pretext of getting amendments. ⁵ If Congress calls an Article V convention, Robbie George’s proposed Constitution, or another just as tyrannical, can be proposed. ⁶ And since any new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification (such as a national referendum), it’s sure to be approved.

The solution to our political and economic problems is to read and enforce the Constitution we already have. States and local governments and individual Citizens can take a giant step forward by not taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.

And rescind your States’ existing applications for an Article V convention! It doesn’t matter what the ostensible purpose of a convention is, as set forth in a State’s applications. Once the Convention assembles, the Delegates can do whatever they want including approving the Constitution Robbie George participated in drafting, or another Constitution which will also legalize the tyranny which is taking over our Country.

We are to fight tyranny by resisting it; not by legalizing it.

Endnotes:

¹ With the Militia Act of 1792, Congress required all able-bodied male Citizens in the Country (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to buy a rifle, bayonet, ammo & ammo pouch, and report to their local Militia Unit for training. States may not lawfully do anything to interfere with this constitutional grant of power to Congress.

² This is shown in these flyers:

• How to get a new Constitution under the pretext of proposing amendments;

• The US Constitution & Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report show that COS’s assurances that State Legislatures will control a convention are false and reckless. So what is Meckler’s response? To snicker and belittle the CRS! [1:14:35 – 1:14:42]; and

• What the Convention Lobby isn’t telling you about our Declaration of Independence.

³ These are two large gun rights organizations. John Velleco and Val Finnell appeared for GOA; Kim Stolfer of Pennsylvania appeared for Firearms Owners Against Crime.

⁴ It should be enlightening to ask Meckler to provide documentation of his claim to have 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania. Legislators in other States have looked behind the curtain and found “COS” claims of support to be false: See Phony Petitions and Polls.

⁵ James Madison expressly warned of this stratagem: See this flyer at footnote 2.

⁶ Altogether, the National Constitution Center has three proposed new Constitutions. All of them transfer massive new powers to the new federal government.

Additional proposed Constitutions are discussed here.  One of them, the Constitution for the Newstates of America, was produced some 60 years ago [and factions have been pushing for an Article V convention ever since]. Under the Newstates Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government. Article I, Part B., Sec. 8 provides that the People are to be disarmed. Article XII, Sec. 1, provides for ratification by a national referendum – so whoever controls the voting machines will determine the outcome.

It’s Education Time!

Civics 101: How to Understand the Constitution

https://www.theepochtimes.com/civics-101-how-to-understand-the-constitution_3326004.html

Limits on Federal Authority

https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-limits-on-federal-authority_3817358.html

The Constitution never discriminated against women

httpwhys://www.theepochtimes.com/the-left-is-wrong-the-constitution-never-discriminated-against-women_3633792.html

The 2nd Amendment is not outdated

https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-the-2nd-amendment-is-not-outdated_3801162.html

Defending the Constitution from the Living Constitutionsists

https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-from-the-living-constitutionalists_3780632.html

Why the Founders Couldn’t Abolish Slavery

https://www.theepochtimes.com/defending-the-constitution-why-the-founders-couldnt-abolish-slavery_3752667.html

FEE – Treating symptoms is not enough. When we fall ill, our bodies give us symptoms to signal to our brains that trouble is afoot. A fever, for example, lets us know that our body is working in overdrive to fight off some sort of infection. While it may be causing us tremendous discomfort, we know that the fever itself is not the real problem, but rather a symptom of a greater problem that is about to manifest itself.

But if we are in search of lasting relief, we must first discover what is causing the fever in the first place. Sure, we can try to mask the discomfort by using aspirin or ibuprofen, but this relief is conditional and only lasts for so long. Unless the root causes are identified and treated, the symptoms will come back as soon as the medicine wears off.

Many charities and organizations perpetuate this cycle by focusing only on treating the symptoms of poverty, completely ignoring the root causes.

When put in terms of our health, recognizing that symptoms are merely consequences of a bigger problem but not the actual disease seems obvious. But many fail to see how this principle translates into other realms in life. Poverty, for example, is a vicious cycle with many observable symptoms. Starvation, lack of clean drinking water, and insufficient housing are all symptoms of poverty, but they are not the cause.

Click here to read more.

FEE – Socialism is the Big Lie of the Twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.

In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.

Socialism Ignores Incentives

A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives.

Click here to learn more.

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 9 it states: No tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any state. Export means articles or items shipped over state lines to any other state or country. (See Federalist Papers 42 (11 and 12) Supervision of Interstate Commerce). *Some feel this applies only to the Federal Government and not the states. Q: How do you feel about it after reading the “Federalist Papers 42 (11 and 12) Supervision of Interstate Commerce”? The following is from “Federalist Papers: In Modern Language”: #11 An important objective of this power was to give relief to the states that import and export through other States and are forced to pay improper contributions levied on them. #12 In Switzerland, where the union is very slight, each canton(state) must allow merchandise passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without additional tolls. Note: To the best of my knowledge before 1992, States were not allowed to charge sales tax on purchases being shipped over state lines. Why was that if not for unencumbered trade in a UNITED nation? This law is nothing more but a way for the poorly run state governments trying to bail themselves out on the backs of sovereign of citizens of other states.

Article 1, Section 10 states: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or exports,…….

In Amendment 14 it is stated: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND the State wherein they reside. (No state you do not physically live in or physically do business in should be able to tax you as you are not a citizen of that State. – Fremont’s opinion)
As, you know: U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 1 – All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. NOT ONE word about the Executive or Judaical Branches having any power to make law.

Please, tell your US Representatives and Senators to use the power of Congress and put a stop to Courts making unconstitutional law.

The New American – The plan to flood Europe with Muslim migrants is increasingly being challenged, with EU states Hungary, Poland, Austria, and Italy taking more and more of a hard line against it. Now opposition to it threatens to topple German chancellor Angela Merkel’s (shown) government; in fact, with many of her coalition’s members of parliament (MPs) coming out against open borders, some observers say she could be ousted as early as the end of the week.

As Politico reports: Click here to read more.

FEE – Since he published his bestselling book, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Steven Pinker has been criticized for excessive optimism.

Writing for Open Democracy, Jeremy Lent argues that Pinker is insufficiently concerned about depletion of the planet’s natural resources, including freshwater reserves. He faults the Harvard University psychologist for embracing a “neoliberal, technocratic belief that a combination of market-based solutions and technological fixes will magically resolve all ecological problems.”

The problem with Lent’s argument is that technological fixes and market-based solutions really are an important part of humanity’s efforts to overcome environmental challenges. If you’re unconvinced, just look at Israel’s desalination efforts.
Progress Isn’t Magic, but It’s Close

Lent notes some worrying environmental trends, including “the rise in CO2 emissions; the decline in available freshwater; and the increase in the number of ocean dead zones from artificial fertilizer runoff.”

Pinker does not deny the existence of these challenges. “Progress,” he writes, Click here to read more.

The Daily Signal – This week, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not permit a police officer to enter uninvited onto someone’s driveway to search a parked vehicle, without first obtaining a warrant.

That’s an important ruling, since no one wants police officers roaming across their private property searching for evidence of a crime. But Justice Clarence Thomas raised another important issue in a concurring opinion: In that scenario, what remedy should there be against the officer’s unlawful behavior?

Thomas proposed an answer that bucks Supreme Court precedent, but holds true to the original meaning of the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and generally requires police to obtain a warrant before searching or seizing someone’s property. The Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the warrant requirement, however, including for automobiles—since they can be driven off at a moment’s notice, and are subject to manifold regulations, courts will allow police to search vehicles based on probable cause that a crime has occurred without first obtaining a warrant.

Click here to read more.

California has become a one-party state in a short amount of time.
Its example is a warning to America—not a guide.

#1 reason: Open Primaries… Never forget this as you hear the sirens sing!

Click here to read about: Fighting for Pastor Brunson’s Release, Additional Funds For Hurricane Matthew Recovery, and Taking Care of our Veterans.