Connect with us


Senator Sasse hits Trump on 1st Amendment



Senator Sasse hits Trump on 1st Amendment

There’s only one GOP Senator who has consistently called out the President when he does something bad. Ted Cruz? Mike Lee? Rand Paul? No, no, and no. Though they’ve been bold at times, they have backed down when deemed necessary.

Senator Ben Sasse, as new as he is, has been the only consistent voice to call out the President. The President Tweeted an attack directed at his latest target, NBC:

The Senator shot back:

“Are you tonight recanting of the oath you took January 20th to preserve, protect, and defend the First Amendment?”

Source: Twitter

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Foreign Affairs

Conspiracy? George W. Bush doubles down on John McCain’s globalist push



John McCain George W Bush Globalists

I like George W. Bush. I don’t think he was anything other than an average President during extraordinary times, but I’ve always liked him personally. I respected the discipline he used to stay out of the fray when President Obama was in office; former Presidents should avoid speaking ill of their successors. That unofficial rule was broken today in a speech with elements that targeted President Trump.

Had he spoken out about Obamacare, the Middle East, or any of a plethora of failing policies President Obama put forth, I’d be okay with his indirect criticism of President Trump today. Coming out now after eight years of silence is unfortunate. He chose to hold his tongue through the last presidency and come out swinging with this presidency. The lack of consistency makes his current stances moot.

One thing the media has intentionally missed in Bush’s speech is that it wasn’t truly anti-Trump. They want you to believe that it was and will highlight the few instances when Bush appears to call out the President’s mentality and agenda, but they’ve excluded the portions of the speech that focus on failures by the left. This wasn’t an anti-Trump speech, though he shouldn’t have attacked the President’s agenda at all. It was a pro-globalist speech that condemned elements of both sides of the political aisle. Moreover, it highlights one of our biggest problems as a nation: the lack of experience young people have with facing global threats. They don’t remember the Cold War. They won’t acknowledge the failings of their pet ideologies such as socialism. They didn’t grow up with a media industry that retained acceptable levels of trust.

If it didn’t have a blatant push for globalism and indirect attacks on a sitting president, I’d say the speech was very good.

Now for the conspiracy theory: with Senator John McCain coming out for globalism last week, and Bush coming out with the same basic message this week, is someone pulling their strings? Are we really in the midst of a “deep state” push to make people on the political right abandon concepts of sovereignty and nationalism in favor of a globalist agenda? I’m not a conspiracy theorist. They’re not putting anything in the water to turn the frogs gay. However, back-to-back speeches from two of the most powerful Republicans in the nation jabbing at Trump and pushing for globalism is enough to raise an alarm bell or two.

It’s conspicuous that Bush mentioned the last 70 years in his speech. It reminded me of something McCain said in an interview in July about punishing Russia and Vladimir Putin:

“Does anyone doubt his intentions of undermining American supremacy, undermining democracy, the principles of freedom, and all of the things that have epitomized Europe and the world since the end of World War II? For the last 70 years we’ve had a new world order. And that is now under severe stress not only in Europe but all over the world.”

Cue the conspiratorial dun dun dunnnnn.

The most likely scenario is that two known neoconservative Republican globalists happened to be speaking a few days apart. Plugging in jabs at Trump were natural and not coordinated. They both believe the United States should be active across the world, so their push for a globalist agenda is less newsworthy than a Kardashian wardrobe malfunction. That’s probably what happened. If Mitt Romney makes a speech next week about embracing the global community, I’ll start to get worried.

The problem with their globalist message

Whether it’s conspiracy or coincidence that these two speeches have drawn the media’s spotlight is irrelevant. Plenty of people will hear the speeches or read the transcripts, so the important task now is to remind people why these views are not righteous. They can sound righteous. Globalism is actually pretty easy to sell to liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between as long as they don’t dig beneath the surface or consider long-term ramifications.

Before I address the message President Bush and Senator McCain put out, it’s important to understand the root cause for confusion from the current White House. Arguably the biggest challenge with President Trump’s foreign policy is that it means different things to different people. His ambiguity in both message and action have some people hearing him call for isolationism while others read interventionism into his words. They all know he pushes for nationalism, but does “America First” mean we ignore the rest of the world, manipulate them to do our bidding, or bully them to succumb to our will? Frankly, nobody knows for sure and actions towards all three variations of “America First” have been taken or hinted at since the President took office.

Both of these speeches were pleading for America to avoid nationalist principles. They were intended to make it seem appealing for the United States to continue down the road of intervention that we’ve been on for the aforementioned last 70 years.

They want us to police the world, or as Bush said: “For more than 70 years, the presidents of both parties believed that American security and prosperity were directly tied to the success of freedom in the world.”

They say pushing democracy is our responsibility, or as McCain called it, “the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last best hope of earth’.”

They paint nationalism as a threat to the country’s prosperity. Bush summed it up by saying, “Economic, political and national security challenges proliferate, and they are made worse by the tendency to turn inward.”

They tell us our standing as the world’s leader is the secret to our success. McCain made a plea to this end that was intended to pull at our heartstrings while reminding us that we’re actually helping ourselves. “We have done great good in the world. That leadership has had its costs but we have become incomparably powerful and wealthy as we did.”

All of these globalist messages are framed powerfully and intended to generate a sense of patriotism that turns into globalism instead of nationalism. What they don’t do is convey the shortcomings of their agenda.


  • It started with WWII (which we only got involved with AFTER we were attacked), but it hasn’t been truly successful ever since. The only notable example of globalism succeeding since then is the acceleration of the Soviet Union’s demise, though an argument can also be made that it would have collapsed regardless of our interventions.
  • Sovereignty is a two-way street. Just as we shouldn’t want others to interfere in our business, so too should we not impose our business onto others.
  • Anything  can be defined as a “national interest” to promote the globalist agenda.
  • Treaties, acts of terrorism against Americans, and acts of war against America are the only justifications of foreign actions. We can and should lead by example. That means leaving others alone just as we’d want them to leave us alone. Refer back to point #2.
  • Free trade happens outside of intervention. In fact, a lack of interventionism is the fastest course towards freeing up the global market for American businesses.

The list of arguments against globalism could go on and on. There are much better arguments than I could make that have already been published. My point is that we shouldn’t be isolationists but we also shouldn’t promote a globalist agenda. Bush and McCain seem to think the scales for the argument are tipping towards isolationism, but that’s not really true. President Trump’s threats have not materialized in an isolationist way. Those paying close enough attention might come to the conclusion that he’s been more of a globalist than he billed himself as during the campaign.

That these two powerful Republicans are trying to push him and our nation even closer to the globalist abyss is telling about their long-term agenda. Unfortunately, the effects of their agenda if it comes to pass won’t just hurt us long-term. If we go down their road, we’ll start feeling the pain as a nation sooner rather than later.

Continue Reading


DEVELOPING: Democrats try to break Sessions, but he holds up [Watch LIVE]



Democrats have been trying all day to break Attorney General Jeff Sessions, probing into his conversations with President Trump, his recusal from the Russia investigation, and former FBI Director James Comey’s firing.

  • Comey has refused to comment on discussions with Trump, citing executive privilege
  • He’s refused to discuss the decision to appoint Robert Mueller as special counsel in the Russia investigation, citing his recusal
  • He’s refused to speculate whether Mueller’s being fired would result in his resignation, declining to “deal in hypotheticals”
  • He would not allow Sen. Chris Coons to conflate Comey’s firing with the Russia investigation, claiming that the AG still has supervisory authority over the FBI regardless of specific case recusals. This allows the AG to communicate with the president on other issues such as Comey

The questioning has stopped for a break and will resume around 1:25 p.m.

Comey hasn’t taken the bait (even from Republican Sen. Ben Sasse) on Russian interference.

Sessions said the Clinton investigation is closed. But there’s obviously a lot more to look at.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein tweeted during the questioning her support for DACA.

Topics to be discussed will include Operation Choke Point and DACA.


Continue Reading


Mitch McConnell needs more patsies like Mars needs women



This week President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held a joint press conference in the Rose Garden.  McConnell decided to use this opportunity to remind use that we need to elect Republicans that can “Win.”  He points out the losses of the Republicans that “could not win” like Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Todd Akin, and Richard Mourdock.

I agree with and support Mark Levin’s campaign to defeat Mitch McConnell and force him out of the U.S. Senate, even if he might pull the strings on the outside while enjoying retirement

Let’s unpack that

Angle came within five points in taking out Harry Reid, and that was going to be hard battle to take out the Democratic Leader of the Senate at the time. Still, she he is a nutter in McConnell’s book.

Mourdock served as Treasurer of the State of Indiana. However, Mourdock along with Akin misspoke in their respective campaign runs and the media hit them hard to make sure that both were defeated and their Democratic opponents won.

Christine O’Donnell took out Mike Castle in her primary in Delaware but since it’s a progressive state it was going to be hard for O’Donnell to actually win.  Radio talk show host Mark Levin for the record called Castle, “Susan Collins with pants.”

McConnell didn’t lift a finger to help

McConnell allowed these candidates to be defeated and did not left a finger for them.  Years later, McConnell lectures us on how we need to elect Republicans that can win.  In ‘McConnell speak’ what he is saying is that Republicans that run as such (i.e. conservatives, small “r” republicans, and/or federalists) can’t win.

It should be pointed out that Mourdock in the 2012 primary defeated longtime incumbent Richard “Dick” Lugar who was a U.S. Senator since 1977, and an ally if not a good buddy of McConnell. McConnell’s thinking:

‘Since this “Tea Party” candidate took out my buddy Dick, I  am not going to lift a paw for this Mourdock character and I will allow him to be thrown and fed to the Democratic wolf pack (including the labor unions),’ 

A great description if the subject in the “Pyramid” (speaking of the TV game show) ‘Winner’s Circle’ round was “What Mitch McConnell Might Say.”  Just don’t mention his name cause you shall forfeit the big money if not already.

He wants patsies

When McConnell, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, (who gave us the same provda in a FOX News interview with Martha MacCallum regarding Steve Bannon’s campaign tactics) and the Republican machine tell you to nominate candidates that can win, what they are really telling you is that they want candidates that they can easily control, and will always reward the likes of McConnell with more power because they are entitled to it somehow. Those who dare challenge the McConnells of the world much be punished.  Look at how John Boehner punished certain members of Congress who did not hold their nose and allowed Boehner to continue as House Speaker when he was such.

Remember the winners

Lest we forget the Republican candidates that were not supported by McConnell and the Republican establishment, and actually won.  Marco Rubio (who defeated political opportunist Charlie Crist), Mike Lee (who took out Bob Bennett who was in the U.S. Senate for almost two decades), Rand Paul (who was elected to an open U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky), Ron Johnson (who took out long time Democrat incumbent Russ Feingold from Wisconsin since 1983, and was the co sponsor with John McCain on the dreaded Campaign Reform Act of 2002) and last but not least Ted Cruz from Texas.

This is the other side of the story that McConnell on purpose left out of his Rose Garden speech.  He is still clinging on to Duverger’s Law, and encouraging you and me to do the same.  After all it’s the political rule of a French Marxist has only helped McConnell feather his nest.

I agree with and support Mark Levin’s campaign to defeat Mitch McConnell and force him out of the U.S. Senate, even if he might pull the strings on the outside while enjoying retirement.  I disagree with him that the Republicans will advance a conservative agenda once he is gone.  They might be able to if the right people who call themselves Republicans are in charge but Rove and company will try to find another person who is of the same strips like McConnell.  That should not stop us supporting candidates that are Conservative and/or Federalists.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.