Connect with us


Ben Shapiro asks, “Did Trump just give away the border?”



It’s a question that many people are asking. DailyWire’s Ben Shapiro has the answer despite apparently conflicting reports coming from both sides. Chuck and Nancy say the deal is done. The White House says it isn’t. Trump said there would be a wall. Then he said it would come later.

Perhaps worst of all is that Trump is now saying “no amnesty” again while everything that seems to be coming from the deal points to amnesty. Call it what you will – if the Democrats put together a way to “enshrine” DREAMers forever, it’s amnesty. Period.

Watch the show, but first, admire this screencapture from it. “The Ben.” This should be a thing.

Ben Shapiro Did Trump just give away the border

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Silicon Valley is like Hollywood. Conservatives get blacklisted and swept under the rug.



Silicon Valley is like Hollywood Conservatives get blacklisted and swept under the rug

Sometimes, mainstream media jumps straight to conclusions that turn out to be wrong. Other times, they refuse to jump to a conclusion even if the evidence clearly points to it. We have a case of the latter with Facebook, Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, and the anti-Hillary organization he supported.

Several media outlets have picked up on a report from WSJ suggesting Luckey’s ouster was because he donated $10,000 to a group that produced memes against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Why Did Facebook Fire a Top Executive? Hint: It Had Something to Do With Trump Facebook emails suggest the matter was discussed at the highest levels of the company. In the fall of 2016, as unhappiness over the donation simmered, Facebook executives including Zuckerberg pressured Luckey to publicly voice support for libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, despite Luckey’s yearslong support of Trump, according to people familiar with the conversations and internal emails viewed by The Wall Street Journal. Luckey’s ouster from Facebook was a harbinger of battles that have broken out over the past year over the overwhelmingly liberal culture of Silicon Valley, which has given the tech industry public-relations headaches and brought unwanted attention from Washington.

The social media giant has been called out by conservative media and Republican politicians over their leftist leanings, particularly in their coveted news feed that directs millions of users per day to various websites across the internet. The company has been accused of stacking the deck in favor of left-leaning news outlets and even censoring reports from right-leaning sources.

This latest report of actions taken by a tech company against a Donald Trump supporter is big because of the players, but this is a systemic issue throughout Silicon Valley. I know. I’ve seen it myself.

The blacklist

In Hollywood, rumors spread quickly. Someone might be a sexual predator like Harvey Weinstein, in which case reports spread throughout Hollywood for decades before it was ever brought to the public. Through it all, Weinstein continued working and people kept working with him. If he had come out as a conservative, his views might have sunk him more quickly. It’s an unforgivable sin to lean to the right in Hollywood.

The same is true in Silicon Valley, though not nearly as publicized. If anything, it’s more perverse. Very few companies in Silicon Valley will hire executives who express conservative views or support conservative initiatives. Ask Brendan Eich.

Does Mozilla Dumping Its CEO Over Prop. 8/Anti-Gay-Marriage Stance = McCarthyism? last week, Mozilla, the mission-based makers of lagging web browser Firefox, fired its newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich after the dating site OK Cupid publicized Eich’s donation to Prop. 8, a California ballot initiative that barred same-sex marriage in the Golden State.

Conservatives – including those who support gay marriage, such as Hot Air’s Allahpundit – have been howling that Eich’s ouster is an ominous new form of blacklisting that seeks to discredit and silence all opposition to the “hoMOsexual agenda” (as it’s often pronounced by detractors).

A decade ago, I worked with several companies in Silicon Valley. Social media was still relatively new and my company’s products focused on helping organizations use it to reach a broader audience. So many of our clients were in Silicon Valley that we considered opening up an office in the San Francisco Bay area despite insane costs of doing so just to cut down on travel.

One thing because crystal clear after the first few meetings: leftism was not only practiced but it was assumed that anyone dealing with Silicon Valley had to be a progressive. Over lunches with different organizations, the topic would often shift towards whatever politics were high in the news cycle. I’d do my best to avoid them, but my clients were often persistent.

“Thank God Obama’s going to fix this economic mess,” one CEO said to me during a catered lunch in her office.

“We’ll see what happens,” I said neutrally, trying not to betray my feelings. “I’m sure the economy will rebound soon.”

Apparently, I failed at disguising my feelings because the conversation, which up to that point had been robust, turned very quiet. The meetings that were going so well before lunch were suddenly interrupted immediately after lunch when “something came up.”

One of my colleagues called me as I drove back to my hotel to find out what happened. We were fired within minutes of me leaving their office. Later, I learned through another client who had referred us to the this particular CEO that it was my assumed political views that got us fired. “Did you know he was a Republican?” she asked our mutual friend. “Why would you send me a Republican?”

Bottom to top

One major misconception regarding Silicon Valley’s progressive bias is that it’s a result of company culture that trickles down from the top. That may be true at smaller companies, but it’s actually the other way around in bigger ones. That’s not to say progressive employees make their bosses more progressive. But the reason behind most firings at Silicon Valley’s bigger companies is more about backlash from the team than personal feelings from the executives themselves.

In the case of Palmer Luckey, Facebook executives weren’t overly concerned about his $10,000 donation or his political leanings. They cared more about the optics within the company itself. We know this because before firing him, the allegedly tried to get him to publicly support Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson.

Facebook reportedly pressured Palmer Luckey to support a politician Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey left Facebook, neither said exactly why. The implication that it was due to his quiet donation to a group spreading pro-Trump memes. Now, however, we might have a better idea — and it raises questions about Facebook’s behavior as much as it does Luckey’s. The Wall Street Journal has obtained emails and sources indicating that Facebook executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, pressured Luckey to publicly support libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson after word of the donation got out. Moreover, Luckey’s exit wasn’t voluntary. The company placed him on leave and eventually fired him, albeit with an exit package worth “at least” $100 million.

They didn’t really care that he supported President Trump. They feared their employees would revolt when word got out about it. If they could get him to pretend to support Johnson, that could mitigate the damage. After all, supporting a Libertarian isn’t all that bad in the eyes of a progressive. He would just be slightly misguided and probably not very excited about Hillary Clinton. That’s forgivable. But directly supporting President Trump, well, that’s just not acceptable for a top executive in Silicon Valley. Their employees would believe they worked for a company controlled by the prince of darkness if an executive supported Donald Trump.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting executives at Google, Facebook, Twitter, or any other tech giants aren’t social justice warriors promoting their leftist ideologies. I just don’t think they care about an executive’s ideology as much as they’re concerned about internal company optics. Their snowflake employees won’t stand for it.

It’s unfortunate for conservatives in Hollywood or Silicon Valley, but we shouldn’t fret. Our eyes are open. We know the deck is stacked against us. We just need to keep fighting the good fight, spreading the word, and staying informed.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Nancy Pelosi’s anti-gun agenda is supported by Trump and the GOP



Nancy Pelosis anti-gun agenda is supported by Trump and the GOP

As the Democrats prepare to take control of the House from their #UNIBROW counterparts on the Republican side of the aisle, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who plans to make another run to become Speaker of the House, has begun laying out some of her priorities.

Unfortunately, she will likely be successful because many of Pelosi’s priorities are the same priorities Trump and the GOP have been promoting over the past two years.

We already know that Pelosi considers last week’s victory a mandate to save Obamacare and Medicare and that Trump is already on board with doing the same. Now, in the aftermath of the recent shooting at a California bar, Pelosi announced that she will make gun control a top priority for the new Congress.

Trump and the GOP have had gun control on their radar over the past two years, but it began picking up speed in 2018 after they joined forces with the Democrats on the issue.

Based on his endorsement of Pelosi for Speaker, and his anti-Second Amendment track record, Trump will likely work with her to build a bipartisan brood of blockheads bent on blowing up the Bill of Rights.

After the Florida shooting back in Feb. this year, Trump openly promoted a punch list of Democrat-friendly, anti-gun measures, including: raising the age to 21 to buy a rifle (a goal of Dianne Feinstein), expanding background checks (a Chuck Schumer priority), and banning bump stocks “with or without” Congress (ala Barack Obama).

In a “bipartisan” meeting held at the White House to discuss gun control after the Florida shooting, Trump responded to a suggestion from VP Pence that due process rights needed to be protected by saying that police should be able to take guns “whether they have the right, or not” and that the government should “take the guns first, go through due process second.”

Seizing guns without due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) has become standard operating procedure under a Constitution-shredding law growing in popularity across America known as the “Extreme Risk Protection Order” (ERPO). ERPOs allow people to anonymously petition the court to issue an order allowing the police to remove all firearms from people deemed to be a threat to themselves or others … by force if necessary. No warrant. No arrest. No charges.

So far, the clearly unconstitutional use of ERPOs has been limited to the states. But earlier this year, Trump’s newest BFF, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) teamed up with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) to create the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Act, a law that would federalize ERPOs by giving federal courts jurisdiction over the states.

When Trump and the GOP passed an omnibus spending bill back in March, it included another bill introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) known as the Fix NICS Act. This bill gives the government power to deny gun rights to individuals for something as minor as a traffic ticket, and it laid the groundwork for the creating of an FBI database of every gun owner.

On the subject of gun databases, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) introduced the Crime Gun Tracing Modernization Act earlier this year, a bill that will require the federal government to establish a “searchable, computerized database” of all records pertaining to the sale, importation, production, or shipment of firearms.

While the results of Nelson’s re-election are still unknown, his opponent, ex-Governor Rick Scott is an equal threat to the Second Amendment based on his strong anti-gun position taken following the Parkland, FL, high school shooting.

Democrats in the House also introduced legislation after the Florida shooting to ban so-called assault weapons, an idea supported by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL). Equally disturbing is polling conducted at the time showing huge majorities supporting additional gun-control laws across the board, along with majority support for a complete ban of certain weapons.

What could Nancy’s “common sense” gun control look like?

Democrats in the House of Representatives introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act over the summer. This bill would prohibit gun ownership without a license and would require a valid firearms license to transfer or receive a gun. The bill would also require the US attorney general to maintain a “federal record of sale” tracking system for every gun purchase made in America.

When Republicans ran the whole show in Washington, they favored extreme gun-control measures, so any legislation Nancy comes up will probably be a Second Amendment-killing slam dunk.

Originally posted on


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 Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading


Hillary will not run again



Hillary will not run again

The notion that Hillary Clinton could possibly run in 2020 for President has Republicans salivating over the possibilities. She has proven to be a terrible candidate and in even worse politician. A Clinton nomination would essentially guarantee a Trump reelection.

That’s why this WSJ article, fanciful as it might be, is making its rounds and stirring up conversations on social media.

Hillary Will Run Again ready for Hillary Clinton 4.0. More than 30 years in the making, this new version of Mrs. Clinton, when she runs for president in 2020, will come full circle—back to the universal-health-care-promoting progressive firebrand of 1994. True to her name, Mrs. Clinton will fight this out until the last dog dies. She won’t let a little thing like two stunning defeats stand in the way of her claim to the White House.

It’s been quite a journey. In July 1999, Mrs. Clinton began her independent political career on retiring Sen….

Democrats are many things, but they’re not blind when it comes to a candidate’s chances of winning, at least not since they nominated Michael Dukakis. Every nominee since then, including the 2016 version of Hillary Clinton, was a valid choice. Some would argue that Senator Bernie Sanders might have been a better choice, but the left wasn’t quite ready to adopt socialism. They are now, which is why Hillary has no chance.

The Democratic Establishment would prefer Joe Biden or even Michael Bloomberg. The far-left in the party, which is growing stronger every election, would love to see Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren. Neither side wants to see Hillary Clinton and by the time 2020 rolls around, they won’t want to see Bernie Sanders, either.

They’ll want someone who either hasn’t lost or, in the case of Beto O’Rourke, whose losses were justifiable. O’Rourke came closer than any far-left Democrat could have come to unseating Senator Ted Cruz. Even in not pulling off a miracle, he energized the base and proved himself to be the Democrats’ most adept fundraiser since President Obama.

If given the choice between running against Hillary Clinton or a doorknob, Republicans might pick the former. She’s that beatable and Democrats know it. Wishful thinking won’t make it so. Prepare for a real fight in 2020.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report