Connect with us

Everything

No whataboutism: Trump pardoned a scumbag

Published

on

We’ve all had our “walking tall” stories of local corruption. We’ve all seen various petty local officials caught with their hands in the till, their zippers down, their kingdom-building fiefdoms exposed. Some of these have been sent to prison.

One well-known case is the former city manager and other officials of Bell, California, who bilked this tiny city of millions. Robert Rizzo got 12 years, and nobody pardoned him. I’ve seen some local scumbags avoid prison, and even frame up others who got sent away. Politics is a blood sport and a lot of vampires play the game.

In what would have been just another high-profile petty political scumbag getting his comeuppance, former Sheriff Joe Arpaio was awaiting sentencing for contempt of court charges in a politically charged case on how Arpaio defied DOJ orders on immigration enforcement. If that was all “Sheriff Joe” had done, I’d have been happy to see the octogenarian walk free.

But I was uninformed, like most people. I follow politics as part of my living, and I missed the back story here. Imagine how ignorant people outside of Maricopa County are about Arpaio’s corruption and scumbagginess.

Jon Gabriel, editor of Ricochet, whose pieces frequently get shared here at The New Americana, penned a scathing takedown of Arpaio in USA Today. Imagine if the local Boss Hogg in your community teamed up with President Trump, glommed on to the Trump Train in various public and sycophantic ways, and just when some scintilla of justice was about to dump on the local version of McNairy County Sheriff Al Thurman. the President of the United States pardoned him.

That would be an outrage.

We should be outraged that a man like Arpaio received a pardon. It doesn’t matter how political Obama’s immigration non-enforcement was. It doesn’t matter that Bill Clinton pardoned a tax-evading scumbag because the guy’s wife shoveled money at the Clintons. There’s no whataboutism that justifies an abrogation of justice.

Gabriel’s subheading reads:

Convicting Arpaio of contempt of court was like busting Al Capone on tax evasion. It was the tip of an iceberg of misdeeds I saw my longtime sheriff commit.

Arpaio was so badly regarded by locals that in the 2016 election in which Donald Trump won Maricopa County by 3 points, the sheriff was defeated by a Democrat who kicked him to the curb by a 10 point margin. The locals know best.

The locals knew that Arpaio was an ineffective sheriff who didn’t serve his county residents. The conservative Goldwater Institute–in 2008–detailed his years of waste and abuse.

The locals knew that Arpaio personally cost the county $1,102,528.50 in taxpayer money to pay off a man who was completely falsely accused–framed–for a 1999 murder plot against the then-sheriff.

We all know that scumbag politicians like Arpaio frequently stay in office for many years past their crimes, because people fear them, and because they’ve made many friends in exchange for various favors. I’ve seen it myself, and you’ve probably seen it in your own community.

The federal government is already too big, too powerful, and too corrupt. President Trump promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington D.C. But in Maricopa County, Trump dumped a metric ton of swamp water and sewage on voters’–his own voters’–heads. This is the thanks they get for supporting him.

Next, it might very well happen in your town, to your own personal version of scumbag Joe Arpaio.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Kelly Burke

    August 28, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    That was totally unconvincing. The reason he shouldn’t get a pardon is he lost the election? Or had a bad outcome in a case?

    • Steve Berman

      August 28, 2017 at 1:49 pm

      Kelly, I’m not burning your straw man. I never said the president shouldn’t have pardoned Arpaio because he lost the election, or any other reason. I just said it’s an outrage for a president to pardon a scumbag. If I thought it wasn’t legally or politically justified, I’d have said it was a travesty.

      What is a travesty is that more people didn’t know about the decades of scumbaggery committed by Arpaio.

Leave a Reply

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

Politics

Trump’s proposal to defund Planned Parenthood under Title X is fake news

Published

on

Last week, Donald Trump, the self-absorbed occupant of the White House who routinely rails against news outlets that print unfavorable news stories and refers to them as “Fake News,” engaged in a bit of his own version of fake news with his announcement that he would be defunding Planned Parenthood.

Calling it the “Protect Life Rule,” Trump proposed withholding $50-$60 million received by Planned Parenthood each year under the government’s Title X Family Planning program, which is used to provide family planning services to low-income individuals.

If the proposal is accepted—an unknown outcome since Trump provided no details on what it would look like—it will model a regulation first implemented by Ronald Reagan and modified over the years.

Despite claims by Ingraham—one of the many members of the so-called conservative media on the Trump Train—this is a fake news story because it doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood, a fact confirmed by a White House official on the day of the announcement.

“This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning, which is required by the Title X law.”

Under the proposal, as long as Planned Parenthood uses taxpayer money to pay for what “candidate Trump once called the “good work” they do and not for the “relatively small part of the business” known as abortion, the largest provider of baby-killing services in America will continue receiving every penny of Title X funds they want.

Even if successful, Trump’s proposal is nothing more that a restatement of existing law. It’s been illegal for Planned Parenthood to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions ever since the Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976, even though Planned Parenthood still receives federal funds that have now reached over half-a-billion dollars a year.

How is this possible? It’s because money is fungible.

By providing Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money, other funds are freed up to bankroll the murder of over 321,000 unborn babies a year. To put it another way, Planned Parenthood is able to make nearly all of its non-government revenue from killing babies because taxpayers are paying for everything else.

Of course, with 2018 being an election year and the GOP in serious danger of being wiped out by a Blue Tsunami come November, Trump’s fake news announcement fits right in with the rest of the GOP’s election-year game plan where recycled campaign promises are used to cover a track record of ineptitude and cowardice.

Much like the House “show votes” earlier this year regarding term limits and late-term abortions, this proposal by the man evangelicals are calling “the most pro-life president in history” is simply the latest effort by Trump and the GOP to get conservatives to the polls to vote Republican in November while doing absolutely nothing to defund Planned Parenthood.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Will school shootings be the next step toward a nationalized police force?

Published

on

The recent shooting at Santa Fe High School outside Houston, TX, that resulted in ten dead and thirteen wounded is fueling another round of demands by liberals in Congress to pass more anti-gun laws “to protect our kids” with some blaming the NRA for preventing such laws from being passed.

While conservatives and those who claim to be conservative willingly point fingers at the Democrat side of the aisle, the sad fact is that many Republicans agree with Democrats on the issue of gun control.

For example, after blaming local police for the Parkland, FL. high school shooting in February, Trump held a bipartisan meeting with members of congress where he openly supported the idea of seizing guns from Americans who committed no crime, even if it violated their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.

Weeks later, Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos wrote an opinion piece praising Trump for signing the disastrous Omnibus bill because it contained over $700 million to fund the STOP School Violence Act to pay for so-called mental health services designed to prevent school shootings. DeVos’ rhetoric aside, Rep. Thomas Massey (R-KY) stated in an interview with Conservative Review at the time that the STOP SVA essentially nationalized public-school safety.

I think that nationalizing public-school safety is the ultimate goal of big-government progressives. It’s been building for quite some time now, and I think the hype over recent school shootings will be the thing that puts it over the top.

The desire to create a nationalized police force began gaining traction under the Obama administration. Consider the actions of the Congressional Black Caucus following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In a letter to then-president Obama, the CBC demanded the appointment of a Police Czar to give the feds control over the local police. Not long afterward, Al Sharpton called for a march on Washington to demand the DOJ to take control of the police nationwide.

Though neither of these efforts came to fruition, Obama succeeded in laying the groundwork for a nationalized police force by leveraging a series of tragedies into policies giving the DOJ control over local police forces in several communities across America.

Trump has bought into the idea of federal control of local police since becoming president, threatening to “send in the feds” in January, 2017 to clean up Chicago after a FOX News report about gun violence in the Windy City.

Shortly after the Santa Fe tragedy, Trump demanded action “at every level of government” which is exactly what he said following the FL shooting. This led to the creation of a host of anti-Second Amendment proposals by Republicans and Democrats designed to disarm Americans and place armed security in every public school.

Obviously, there’s nothing wrong with working to make schools safer, but with Washington working 24/7 to limit our Constitutional rights, should we give the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security that power?

Before you answer, do you remember how George Bush and a fully compliant Congress federalized airport security and created The Transportation Security Administration in the name of “safety” following 9/11? Besides creating tens of thousands of lifetime unionized government jobs, and the likely violation of our Fourth Amendment rights, these “transportation security officers” have been an abysmal failure.

Federal control of school security essentially creates a type of nationalized police force. Doing it “for the children” doesn’t change that.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and FacebookSubscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Kentucky Primary

Published

on

Kentucky is the state that gave us Rand Paul. He is the biggest highlight, however he is not alone like Ben Sasse in Nebraska. Thomas Massie is also a strong Conservative. This primary has a chance to unseat a major swamp creature. Aside from this one race, there wasn’t much action to be had. Mitch McConnell shows that Kentucky does not have a rich history in holding bad politicians accountable. So if there are any Conservative victories in Kentucky, they should be celebrated vocally.

Best Pick: Geraldo Serrano
Worst Picks: Harold Rogers, Chuck Eddy, Andy Barr
Best Race: District 5
Worst Race: District 6

District 1

James Comer is more fiscally responsible than most RINOs, but he still voted for Omnibus. He is unopposed.

District 2

Bill Gutherie is an unopposed RINO.

District 3

Three Republicans look to win Louisville. The first is Vicky Glisson. She is running a limited issues campaign focused on drugs, healthcare, and a hint of fiscal responsibility. Next is Rhonda Palazzo, the most upfront Conservative in the race. She is a real estate agent and devout Christian. Her stance is overly simplistic, to a fault. Lastly is Mike Craven. His platform is also too simplistic. This race is a three way crapshoot in terms of determining the best candidate.

Conservative Pick: Rhonda Palazzo

District 4

Since 2012, Thomas Massie has been a solid Conservative. He is unopposed.

District 5

Harold Rogers is a decades experienced swamp creature, 33 years in the making. Gerardo Serrano is his challenger. Serrano has Rand Paul potential in both foreign and domestic policy, such as FISA. His website features a unique story of him and a county sheriff, where he held a sheriff accountable when the 2nd amendment was in danger. (The sheriff wasn’t a villain in the story).

I especially like his twitter handle. Geraldo Serrano is a strong candidate, and we desperately as a nation need to unseat swamp monsters such as Harold Rogers.

Conservative Pick: Geraldo Serrano

District 6

Andy Barr is another RINO with a horrendous spending record. He is being challenged by Chuck Eddy. This was a huge disappointment.

I don’t believe he realizes how much a massive walking contradiction he is.

Conservative Pick: None, Barr will undoubtedly win

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.