Connect with us

Politics

Susan Rice’s unmasking lie

Published

on

The Susan Rice Lie

When confronted by Judy Woodruff about reports the Obama White House had been spying on President-Elect Trump, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice lied. She flat-out lied. She claimed she had good reasons to do what she did, but there was no reason to lie about it at that point.

Here’s the exchange:

Woodruff: We’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?

Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

Some in conservative media are pretty fired up about this.

Perspectives

Rice told investigators why she unmasked Trump aides – CNNPolitics

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/susan-rice-house-investigators-unmasked-trump-officials/index.htmlWashington (CNN)Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN.

Levin: Susan Rice lied. Is the GOP going to do anything about it?

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/levin-susan-rice-lied-is-the-gop-going-to-do-anything-about-itObama administration officials have lied, and are still lying about the unmasking of Trump transition-team members and about the surveillance conducted on Trump team officials during the closing days of the Obama administration.

Did Susan Rice Spy on Trump Officials for Muslim Brotherhood? | Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Mag

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267873/did-susan-rice-spy-trump-officials-muslim-daniel-greenfieldSusan Rice’s excuse for unmasking the names of top Trump officials in the Obama eavesdropping effort was that they were meeting with the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates. The carefully packaged CNN story, which reeks of the Goebbelsian media manipulations of “Obama whisperer” Ben Rhodes, tries to clumsily tie the whole thing to the Russians. But for once it’s not about Russia. It’s about Islam.

Susan Rice Lied About Her Role In Obama Admin Unmasking Scandal | David Harsanui, The Federalist

http://thefederalist.com/2017/09/14/reminder-susan-rice-lied-role-obama-admin-unmasking-scandal/As we now know, Rice wasn’t surprised. At all. Wednesday, CNN reported that Obama’s former national security adviser told House investigators that she had unmasked those senior Trump officials in an effort “to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year.” According to the report, the Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan had circumvented some diplomatic courtesy, which, apparently, was enough justification to spy on American citizens.

 

NOQ Report has new contributors being vetted, interns, and long-time contributors who want to remain anonymous. Their stories are posted on this author's account which is operated by Sal.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinions

Jeff Flake says Trump’s fake news attacks sound like Stalin, but does he sound like Hitler too?

Published

on

Jeff Flake says Trumps fake news attacks sound like Stalin but does he sound like Hitler too

When Trump announced last week that his administration would be taking a “very, very strong look” at US libel laws—he called them a “sham”—he was keeping a campaign promise to expand libel laws in order to make it easier to sue the media for writing what he called “purposely negative and horrible and false articles” in order to “win lots of money.”

This attitude is what gave birth to Trump’s worn-out cries of fake news—a claim that has been repeated ad nauseam by Trump and his brigade of goose-stepping followers. As has become abundantly clear, when Trump refers to fake news he’s talking about reports that criticize him or fail to echo his talking points about how awesome he is.

Obviously, the news media has a well-established history of being liberally biased, but biased news isn’t necessarily fake news, and it’s certainly no excuse for suing them into silence.

Trump’s contempt for media not named FOX News has taken some disconcerting turns beginning with his 2016 campaign. Trump would routinely revoke media credentials of news outlets that failed to feed his incessant need for attention, even creating a Nixon-esque blacklist to keep them away from his campaign.

While Trump has continued to beat the fake news drum as president—he plans to hold a Fake News Awards ceremony on Wednesday—his First Amendment-killing attitude toward the media has reached a new low when he referred to them as “the enemy of the American people” in a since-deleted Tweet.

In light of Trump’s Fake News Awards plan and his “enemy” tweet, retiring senator Jeff Flake plans to speak from the Senate floor about Trump and his threat to democracy. In a release of his planned statement, we see where Flake will be calling out the president for using language reminiscent of that used by Josef Stalin when he described his enemies.

The enemy of the people,” was what the president of the United States called the free press in 2017.

Mr. President, it is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by Josef Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase “enemy of the people,” that even Nikita Khrushchev forbad its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of “annihilating such individuals” who disagreed with the supreme leader.

After making his comparison of Trump to Stalin, Flake continues:

This alone should be a source of great shame for us in this body, especially for those of us in the president’s party. For they are shameful, repulsive statements. And, of course, the president has it precisely backward – despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him “fake news,” it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.

While many of my conservative brethren are critical of Flake for making such a comparison—Flake is a RINO, after all—I have to agree somewhat with the senator’s conclusion.

I say “somewhat” because Trump’s fake news spiel is more reminiscent of Nazi Germany when they would refer to the media as Lügenpresse, which translated means “lying press.” And before you comment below or send me a nasty email for making a Nazi reference when discussing Donald Trump, the Trump cult adopted Lügenpresse to attack media during his campaign.

Jeff Flake responded to the uproar over his planned speech, saying that he isn’t comparing Trump to Stalin. Likewise, I’m not comparing him to Hitler. What we’re saying is that Trump shouldn’t be using the talking points of murderous dictators when talking about our Constitutionally protected right to a free press, and when he does it should concern every Constitution-loving American.

While there will be those who will debate these comparisons, Trump’s numerous assaults on freedom of the press are undebatable.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be 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

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

Politics

What makes a Statesman?

Published

on

What makes a Statesman

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary a statesman is defined by two definitions.

1: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially: one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies

2: a wise, skillful, and respected political leader

Sadly, by Merriam-Webster’s definition many so-called statesmen are much known – and preferred to be known – by the first definition, but not so much by the second, unless of course, you are cultishly loyal to either major political party and/or its personalities.

We truly need to focus on the second definition of what makes a statesman. Someone that is truly wise, skillful, and respected. And while it does not mention it let me add a definition. Someone who fears God, does not take bribes, and truly looks out for and loves thy neighbor. How do you do that? You die to self, you cut taxes, and you truly support the people by getting the government out of the way and allow local communities and private charities to help people. You trust them and God to make a better world for themselves and the communities they live in.

Orrin Hatch may be smart and skillful. He fits more with the first definition according to Merriam-Webster, but respected political leader, Hatch is not. I give the Mormon Church credit in one aspect. They are truly great businessmen and politicians. They know the art of the deal. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operates a for-profit business arm called Deseret Management Corporation, which operates an LDS bookstore chain, insurance/investment/retirement services, newspaper publishing including the Deseret News, and a small chain of radio stations (and one TV station) under Bonneville International Corporation; all of these stations broadcast some kind of secular format (although certain stations in the company carry the in-house LDS program “Music and the Spoken Word”). They are not like Salem Media, Educational Media Foundation (K-Love, Air1), Crawford Broadcasting, Bible Broadcasting Network, Bott Radio Network, WayMedia (Way-FM) in which these respected companies (profit and non-profit) that are owned and operated by evangelical Christians and with few exceptions broadcast either Christian Talk or some kind of Christian Music (mostly Christian AC) formats.

Mitt Romney, should he succeed Hatch, has a skill set in both the public and private realms (Hatch was a songwriter on the side). Romney is no respected political leader or businessman either. He is good at what he does, I shall grant you that.

Reference

An Unfond Farewell to Un-statesman Orrin Hatch

https://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2018/01/03/an-unfond-farewell-to-unstatesman-orrin-hatch-n2429306The longest-serving Republican senator in U.S. history announced this week that he will finally, finally, finally, finally, finally, finally, finally retire.

That’s seven “finallys” — one for each of the consecutive six-year terms Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, served. He begin his occupancy in 1976, when all phones were dumb, the 5.25-inch floppy disk was cutting-edge, the very first Apple computer went on sale for $666.66, the Concorde was flying high, O.J. Simpson was a hero, Blake Shelton was a newborn, the first MRI was still a blueprint, and I was a gap-toothed first-grader wearing corduroy bell-bottoms crushing on Davy Jones.

Mitt Romney is the last person we need in the Senate

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/mitt-romney-last-person-need-senate/Raise your hand if you’re excited for Senator Romney!

Democrats tend to elevate to high positions those who most effectively and aggressively champion their values. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to champion those who most effectively promote the values of the other side. Example number ten million? Mitt Romney’s likely run for Senate.

Mitt Romney: Not the senator we need, but the senator we deserve

https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/mitt-romney-not-senator-need-senator-deserve/Since I’m the guy who supposedly cost Willard Mitt Romney the Iowa caucuses twice, I suppose I’m expected to have some hot take at the ready about his prospective bid for U.S. Senate — a real teeth-gnasher about the human Etch-a-Sketch returning to surprise us every day with where he (temporarily) stands on any given issue.

Except I don’t, because as the great prophet Phil Collins once sang, “I don’t care any more-wore.”

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.