Connect with us

Opinions

Mueller’s indictments are exactly what Donald Trump wanted

Published

on

Principles do matter

Today could not have gone better for President Trump. Robert Mueller’s indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, along with the newly unsealed indictment against George Papadopoulos could not have helped Trump more.

Remember, Trump isn’t interested in defending anyone not named Donald Trump (with the possible exception of his children). Therefore, hiring dirty Manafort and literally siccing the special counsel on him isn’t a problem for him. The fact that (so far) nothing has tied Trump himself to any of these charges is simply heaven-sent for the president.

This reminds of of Mark Cuban‘s wry (or rye, as you wish) observation.

Look, if you spotted Donald Trump two pieces of bread and behind him was a refrigerator full of ham, he couldn’t collude with the Russians to make a ham sandwich. Right?

The fact is, whatever Mueller is looking for, he is unlikely to find some kind of smoking gun of Trump campaign collusion, without uncovering a smoking gun of the DNC, Obama administration, and Clinton campaign’s collusion. Vladimir Putin is an equal opportunity colluder.

Mueller’s also unlikely to “flip” Manafort over some tax and foreign agent charges from six years ago, unless by flip he means spill the beans on Tony Podesta and the Democrat lobbyist firm The Podesta Group.

All these things are good for Trump, because he gets to deflect yet another news cycle away from any inconvenient legislative failures, military casualties, Gold Star families, and focus on Russia for a day. As much as Russia seems to be the bane of Trump’s presidency, it’s always been his go to when he wants to wag the MSM’s dog.

Reports

Paul Manafort Indictment: A Guide to Understanding | National Review

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453241/paul-manafort-indictment-george-papadopoulos-guilty-plea-trump-russia-collusionFirst things first, does the Manafort indictment have anything to do with the Trump campaign?

No, not on its face. The indictment relates to Manafort’s personal business dealings with the Ukrainian government, former Ukrainian president Victor Yanukovych, and a Ukrainian political party called the Party of Regions. It remains to be seen whether Special Counsel Mueller will use this indictment as leverage to pressure Manafort to cooperate fully with his much broader investigation into whether there were “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”

BREAKING: Another Trump Advisor Pleads Guilty To Making False Statements | The Resurgent

http://theresurgent.com/breaking-another-trump-advisor-pleads-gulty-to-making-false-statements/Another indictment of a former Trump advisor has just been revealed. Papadopolous pled guilty on Oct. 5, but the case was sealed until this morning. Papadopolous is the third Trump associate that is known to have been snared by the Mueller investigation.

Trump RESPONDS to Manafort’s indictment! – The Right Scoop

http://therightscoop.com/trump-responds-to-manaforts-indictment/Trump just took to Twitter a few minutes ago to respond to Manafort’s indictment by the feds this morning. It’s entirely possible that more indictments will come that includes “Hillary & the Dems”. The rumor mill is ripe that the lesser known Tony Podesta’s group is one of the unnamed groups in Manafort’s indictment.

Final thoughts

While Papadopoulos’s indictment does indicate that he lied to the FBI about the timing and nature of his contacts with a Russian “professor,” and his possible intention to serve as a go-between for the Trump campaign and Russia for getting “dirt” on Hillary, that doesn’t necessarily point to collusion. The Clinton campaign itself paid for all kinds of dirt on Trump from the Russians, albeit through a law firm, then Fusion GPS, and finally to Christopher Steele, the dossier’s compiler. What constitutes “collusion,” how many cut-outs and convoluted money trails does it take to establish this? And is an effort to get dirt on a political opponent enough?

Certainly, there’s more to come as the investigation moves into a prosecutorial phase, and continues to unfold in its fact-finding mission. Nobody can declare Trump clear. But for today, he revels his own exculpation. And even more, that the media has nothing on him this day.

Managing Editor of NOQ Report. Serial entrepreneur. Faith, family, federal republic. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

Alexander Hamilton was right about the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment

Published

on

It’s amazing how many people have a fundamental misunderstanding about the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It’s less surprising, however in the context of how bad our public schools are failing our children and by extension, the country as a whole. Now, this isn’t an article on why it’s not the solution. I believe Torcer was eye-opening in explaining why gun control is a dead solution. This isn’t a defense if the 2nd Amendment or a statement of the impracticality of its repeal. Rather this is more focused on the context of the Bill of Rights as a whole.

Context

Believe it or not, the idea of placing a Bill of Rights in the US Constitution was controversial. There was a huge divide when the United States was transferring from a confederacy to a federalist form of a republic (not a democracy). A stronger central government was and still is a grave danger to the rights of the people. Then Thomas Jefferson, anti-Federalist, side of the spectrum sought to have a Bill of Rights in order to place explicit limitations on the government. The Bill of Rights was a compromise on the Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, side of the spectrum. The 9th Amendment was the compromise on the anti-Federalists part:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Danger to Freedom

You might be wondering why a Bill of Rights was so controversial? What seemed like a no-brainer really wasn’t. Despite favoring a larger government than Thomas Jefferson, rivals like Alexander Hamilton did not want to explicitly protect rights through a Bill of Rights because the protection of some would lead to the exclusion of others. Hamilton pens Federalist 84 arguing:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted.

Hamilton follows the logic whereby if rights are given extra protection, the Constitution would then invite tyrants to use these provisions as mere limitations. Thus these tyrants would be assuming power that the Constitution did not grant. He uses free press as his primary example.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

It’s amazing, looking back, how valid Hamilton’s arguments are in modern contexts. The danger he describes, we see today in various forms. The protection of free speech has led to the regulation of speech. The protection of religion invited the regulation of the pulpit

This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Threats to unenumerated rights

The 9th Amendment is hard to use in defense of a freedom. Though to their credit, I do see liberals claim it more often, while conservatives champion the 1st, 2nd, and 10th Amendments. In truth, we see the 9th Amendment in action all the time. The Amendment defends a person’s right to be gay without government intrusion. This Amendment is succeeding for leftists wants on multiple fronts. However, on a broader scale, the government has regulated and in some instances outright banned freedoms.

In theory, a person should be able to donate money towards causes they believe in yet campaign finances are highly regulated which is why we have Super PACs. Courts are ruling that Christians can’t act on their religious beliefs regarding homosexuality. The right to life can be taken away from the unborn because apparently, the right to life wasn’t clear enough (though to be fair Roe v Wade had virtually no Constitutional pretext for their decision.) The government could penalize you for not purchasing healthcare. The list goes on but I’m sure you see the point about an overreaching federal government.

Jefferson was right also

In the end, we truly do need a Bill of Rights. Many abusers have threatened the freedoms of others on speech, guns, and investigations. Conservatives hold the lesson that freedom is a generation away from extinction as Ronald Reagan said. The culture during the time of the Constitution valued natural freedoms. How else would rivals of politics both seek the same goal? If that same culture existed today, Alexander Hamilton would be right that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. But today, a prominent belief is that natural God-given rights derive from the government. A culture that believes rights come from the government necessitates a Bill of Rights to protect from the government taking away from those freedoms.

Second Amendment

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. 

The Second Amendment is under fire, and if we had, Hamilton’s way, the battle may have been lost already because our view of government has changed. Though luckily the prevailing Heller v DC case solidified the right to private gun ownership ending leftist hopes to confiscate our guns. But Hamilton’s point remains that the protection of the right to firearms has encouraged the regulation of them. How many gun control arguments begin by stating that the founding fathers hadn’t envisioned “AR-15 military-style assault rifles?” A good amount these days. These may be the semblance of reason that Hamilton was referring to.

Moving Forward

  1. The advancement of conservatism needs to be done emphasizing that the source of our freedom is not the government, rather they are natural and God-given.
  2. The 9th Amendment is largely what we make of it because of how open-ended it is. We need to strive to protect implicit freedoms whether or not we agree with them.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The root of the problem

Published

on

I saw the above meme the other day which seeks to point out the hypocrisy of liberals – which it does – but if you’re being intellectually honest, you’ll realize that the same logic can be used by their side to portray conservatives as hypocrites. They could just as easily put a photo of conservatives holding “Stop Killing Babies” signs above a photo of conservatives holding “Keep Guns Legal” signs. So both sides, using the same logic, believe the other is being hypocritical. I hope you can see how fruitless this is.

If we really want to stop mass murders, we need to stop the petty arguments and have real conversations that address the root of the problem, not the symptoms. Like any health problem, treating your symptoms doesn’t make you healthy. The killer carrying out his carnage with a gun is a symptom. You can take the guns away to make yourself feel better, but doing so won’t treat the source of the condition.

We are all feeling very emotional right now. Yes liberals, conservatives do care about the kids who were killed. It’s a hard reality for us to accept, especially when the act occurred using a tool we support. But don’t mistake our logical response as apathy and indifference. With all due respect, I think you’re asking the wrong questions. While most of the country has been focused on, “How can we prevent someone who wants to murder children from doing so”, what we should be asking is “How do we stop someone from wanting to murder children?” That is the root of the problem… Why do some people want to murder others?

Make no mistake, the only person responsible for killing those kids is Nikolas Cruz. But there are pertinent questions to be answered. Why has this person felt so alienated from people that he could carry out such a horrendous act? What could the people within his circle of influence have done to convince him that his peers were worthy of their lives?

If I were one of the students at Stoneman Douglas High School I would be asking myself “what if” questions. What if I’d gone further in kindness towards Nikolas Cruz? What if I’d greeted him with a warm hello, instead of just passing him in the hallways? Was I ever rude to him? If so, what if instead, I’d given him an unexpected kindness, or even just chatted with him? If I were a resident of Parkland, Florida, I’d be wondering if I’d inadvertently contributed to the depression of this kid with my aloof and insincere actions. What if one day in traffic I was rude to him? What if I’d let him merge instead? Did I contribute to his departure from the human connection? What if right now, in my own circle of influence, I’m contributing to the depression of the next killer?

Again, the only person responsible for killing those kids is Nikolas Cruz. Not the NRA, not video games, not Hollywood, not his peers. But we all have a part to play, don’t we? Our lives touch other lives at every moment of the day. It is unavoidable. So if you feel like you just can’t take it anymore, and you want change, then realize what you can control – you. Then challenge yourself to act with love, compassion, acceptance, mercy, and forgiveness in everything you do. Maybe, just maybe, treating each other better is all that is needed.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Bill Mitchell reveals his phony conservatism on constitution

Published

on

Many legitimate conservatives follow Bill Mitchell on Twitter. I don’t think less of them for it, because often times he talks the talk. And when someone has over 100K tweets, it’s hard to pick up on the inconsistencies. I don’t follow him, nor do I retweet him these days, out of an unexplainable distrust towards people like him. I guess I thought he was a Mike Huckabee, a poor spokesperson for conservatism or rather Trumpism. To me, he’s no different than the “Never Trump conservatives” who refuse to acknowledge things are much better than if Hillary had won. Bill Mitchell took some time to show us why we shouldn’t trust him. In a span of an hour he tweeted a contrary position on guns as follows.

Bill Mitchell retweeted this.

He begins by stating that no one needs a bump stock and then concludes by supporting the idea that the 2nd Amendment was intended for defense against the government. Which is it? Is it possible to believe one and not the other? Another question arises. Does he support Trump’s position or does he think its beneficial in the long run to (his version) conservatism? Both can be true in this instance?

Mitchell is one of those annoying people that believes Trump is playing 4D chess when, in reality, he’s caving under political pressure, a topic worthy of another article. Trump supports infringing upon the Second Amendment, and Bill Mitchell is on his knees like a dog smiling at his master. It’s quite pathetic for him to support Trump in this as if the GOP is really in danger come midterms. Our 2nd Amendment rights are not some pawn in a chess match against a fabled Blue Wave. Those of us who think that rights aren’t negotiable are more than the 0.001%. Mitchell is as he says in one instance: he’s not a purist. And if you’re not a “purist” on the Second Amendment, you have no business claiming conservatism, let alone having a large platform among conservatives. It’s the same as Tomi Lahren on abortion. But the 2nd Amendment isn’t the only part of the Bill of Rights that Mitchell regards little.

5th Amendment

Apparently, Bill Mitchell questions why we have a 5th Amendment. Allow me to cite the entirety of it:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It’s a pretty packed full amendment. So because he didn’t specify the nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, we should take his statement at face value. Major crimes require a grand jury indictment. The government can’t have a do-over if you’re acquitted. Why would one oppose that? The government is barred from forcing someone to self-incriminate. This means tortured confessions are inadmissible as is sodium pentothal and any confessions made while the accused has been denied a lawyer. This right matters! It flows right into the next clause which is due process, something we conservatives highly regard. The 5th Amendment concludes with eminent domain which is a topic where conservatives and Trumpist disagree.

Dave Chappelle pleading the fif

I get that Bill Mitchell’s followers don’t like the injustice allowed by politicians pleading the fifth, but they are exercising their rights. The 5th Amendment was written as protection for the rights of the accused. I would rather political scumbags get away with things than us regular people lose this freedom.

Takeaway

There are really only two possibilities for why he holds these positions. The first one is stupidity. He believes that the 5th Amendment is unimportant because he’s too stupid to realize its worth. The second one is that his head is so far up Trump’s rear end that he doesn’t know left from right or up from down. Both of these show that he holds no real regard for a limited government. Nor does he think that individual freedoms are to be esteemed high. The Bill of Rights are co-equal protections from the government. Bill Mitchell’s views do not reconcile with this core tenet of conservative and federalist beliefs. Thus, conservatives should look elsewhere for political commentary.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.