Connect with us

Media

Those screaming about Trump drown out legitimate concerns

Published

on

Those screaming about Trump drown out legitimate concerns

“Donald Trump is going to kill us all!”

That isn’t a quote from anyone in particular, but the cacophony of screams heard out of everyone from mainstream media to Democrats in DC to right-leaning #NeverTrumper invariably points to the notion that given enough time in office, the President of the United States is going to get us all killed. They may not be that dramatic, but their arguments can be extended out to yield this undesirable end result.

Then again, some of them are being that dramatic.

I am a Federalist. I’m also very clear in my discernment of President Trump’s actions and lack of actions; some have been good, others have been bad. These two qualifiers allow me and others to voice concerns about the GOP in general and the President in particular that deserve a measure of attention. The principles of limiting government, defending freedoms, and protecting life that Federalists (and most true conservatives) believe in are being ignored. in DC.

Here’s the problem. We’re not being heard through the noise, nor are these messages receiving any measure of attention.

It’s a legitimate concern for conservatives and Federalists when DC continues to increase spending, but those concerns apparently aren’t newsworthy when the President lashes out at his latest Twitter victim. DC overreach is quietly expanding, but meltdowns on the left and cheers on the right about things like net neutrality make both sides oblivious to the expansion. Power is being consolidated in DC as fast as if not faster than it was during the Obama, Bush, and Clinton years.

The other day I received word of news that flew completely under my radar.

The order targets specific people but leaves a very broad scope through which anyone deemed to be participating in human rights abuses or corruption could have their property seized. Some fake news outlets even reported this was intended to allow the President to seize assets from the Obamas and the Clintons. While technically this order could lead to such an event, it’s not intended for that purpose. However, the broadness of powers that it grants to the executive branch epitomizes what we’re seeing in DC. When the White House or Congress wants to be able to do something outside of their scope, they simply decree that they can and it is so.

This isn’t about my complaints towards Trump or the GOP. This is about the disservice being done by those “in the know” and the complacency of those wanting to fear from these people. Whether it’s mainstream media, pundits on both sides, or politicians themselves, they’re too focused on inconsequential things and using their platforms to blast out unimportant messages. It isn’t just those complaining about the President. It’s the people defending him as well.

Everyone seems to have a very important opinion about Michael Wolff or Steve Bannon, but very few are talking about the infrastructure plan. There are two primary differences between these two topics:

  1. One is interesting in a gossipy sort of way while the other is boring.
  2. One is extremely important and will affect the vast majority of Americans, and one is so inconsequential that its only effect will be on book sales.

Unfortunately, there’s no correlation between the importance of the topic and the amount of commentary or debate devoted to it.

This is a microcosm of the entire Trump presidency so far. If it’s important but not juicy, it gets no play. If it’s something with no real impact other than embarrassing the President, the press is all over it. Unfortunately, they’re not the only ones to blame. Media consumers are aiding them in this farce by focusing on the topics they want us to discuss.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. ed

    January 7, 2018 at 4:47 pm

    Given Trump’s (and Jared Kushner’s family’s) extensively documented ties to Russian money-laundering and Russian Mob members, It appears that both He and Kushner’s financial empires are subject to this new EO.

    I suspect that Mueller ALREADY has enough evidence (from Manafort, Stone, Cohn, & Miller) to tie both Trump and Kushner to enough bribery, corruption and foreign influence (heck – just Trump’s attempts to bribe Putin for participation in his Trump Tower Moscow project) would likely meet the low bar of his EO.

    Thank you for posting this as it it DOES appear to be a loaded weapon that could (and with Trump’s thin-skin and vindictive personality likely WILL) be used against US Citizens to freeze their financial assets until they bow to Trump and do his bidding. We see some of this abuse already with the Trump-cult reaction against Bannon and Trump continuing to fan the flames of Bannon-hatred via his Twitter account.

    I suspect we have our first dictator in all-but-name and Gen Kelley does not seem to be able to contain him sufficiently.

    I also notice there was no sunset provision to Trump’s EO, so it will remain available to future Democrat presidents that wish to personally destroy THEIR rivals as well….

    This is a scary document. Thank you for highlighting it so we can be aware. (I still put my faith in God and in the many, many veterans and LEOs (retired and active) that remain armed and prepared for an attempted coup out of Wash DC.

    With Trump attacking the Judicial branch and now seeing a Congressional faction lined up to attack anyone that criticizes Trump, Wash DC is starting to look a LOT like Erdogen’s Turkey did just last year (before Erdogen carried out his coup and made himself dictator for life).

  2. ed

    January 7, 2018 at 5:16 pm

    I was looking at some of Trump’s other recent actions:

    Presidential Memorandum for the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
    ECONOMY & JOBS (Issued on: December 8, 2017): This appears to require that SBA NOT report to congress on the impact of Trump’s NAFTA renegotiations until AFTER negotiations are complete. This appears to be Trump attempting to remove the ability of SBA to inform Congress of issues that could be resolved during negotiations so Trump can present a (possibly big-business-only) treaty for up-or-down vote, doing harm to small businesses in the short term instead of allowing Congress to influence his negotiations to include small-business concerns.

    Contrary to popular reports:
    Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State
    FOREIGN POLICY (Issued on: December 6, 2017) delays for yet another 6 months the Embassy move to Jerusalem. Regardless of what Trump says or his cult believes, Trump has once again (just as Obama has done) signed the waiver to avoid moving the Embassy.

    HOWEVER: When I checked the public law 104-45 (https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf), I find that Trump failed to justify his waiver or to discuss the speicfic interests or security issues in his waiver as required by that public law.

Leave a Reply

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

Media

Trump’s DHS to compile data base to spy on journalists, bloggers

Published

on

Besides his broken promise to build a wall on our southern border at Mexico’s expense, there has perhaps been no issue more popular with Trump’s adoring fans than his repeated attacks on the First Amendment and the so-called “Fake News” media.

In the 1930s, Nazi propaganda promoted a belief in Lügenpresse—a word adopted by Trump’s followers and translated means “lying press”—to demonize and eventually eliminated media that didn’t adhere to Germany’s nationalist/socialist beliefs and dogma. Likewise, Trump and his minions are edging America ever closer to seeing freedom of the press eliminated for media that refuses to adhere to Trump’s nationalist/populist beliefs and dogma.

And just as it was in 1930s Germany, Trump is working to replace so-called fake news with state-run news media outlets like Sinclair Broadcasting and FOX News.

While Trump typically relies on his FOX and Friends morning intel to tweet his attacks against unfavorable media, the NY liberal is taking additional steps through the Department of Homeland Security to identify media targets that he once referred to as “the enemy of the people.”

DHS just announced that it is seeking a contractor to build a Media Monitoring Services division to track hundreds of thousands of news sources, “including: journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers, etc.” And they won’t be tracking just media content; they will be making arbitrary judgments on the “sentiment” of those they are tracking.

The threat this poses to freedom of the press can’t be overstated, especially when you consider its intentionally vague language.

For those hoping that the political duopoly bought and paid for by Democrats and Republicans will protect the First Amendment, I’ve got bad news. There have been situations over the past few years where members of both parties at the federal and state levels of government have attacked the First Amendment’s protection of a free press.

  • In June 2013, Sens. Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham teamed up to propose a media shield bill that would specifically deny First Amendment protection for bloggers.
  • In December 2014, an Alabama Republican in the state senate proposed a plan to license journalists who cover local politics in order to protect citizens—translated “politicians”—from “shady, fly-by-night websites offering purposely skewed and inaccurate interpretations of hard news.”

If created, the DHS media database will mean we have entered the dangerous and tyrannical territory where the government keeps track of the “sentiment” of citizens and foreign nationals. I’ve written in the past how Trump’s narcissistic, constitutionally ignorant and indifferent nationalist/populist attitude is destroying our Constitutional rights. Sadly, there doesn’t appear anyone in Washington interested in stopping Trump or protecting the Constitution.

But don’t worry folks. Despite Trump’s track record of attacking “fake news” media and Washington’s track record of attacking our Constitutional rights, DHS says this is nothing more than a “tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy.”


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

Guns and Crime

Leftists Demanding Gun Confiscation – The short List updated to March 2018

Published

on

By

An abbreviated list* of the times the national Socialist left talked about taking everyone’s firearms.

In order to execute the necessary steps to confiscate guns, the Left must first take control of private property with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] But they need to Lie about their ultimate goal so that the people will accept this drastic intrusion into their personal lives.

The Left needs this control over private property to get the data for their final solution to the gun problem. This is the critical step for them and the reason they obsess over ‘Background Checks’. The difficulty for the Left is that they need this stepping stone to gun confiscation while denying it’s a stepping stone to gun confiscation.

This is an abbreviated list shows they are openly lying when they deny their intentions, it also shows they have developed some clever euphemisms for the taking everyone’s firearms.

March 2018

Paste Magazine: Repeal the Second Amendment, Idiots
New York Times – John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Vox: What no politician wants to admit about gun control “taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners”

NAACP President OPINION: Gun Safety Is about Freedom [Australian style gun confiscation – making gun owners an offer they can’t refuse ]

Feb 2018

Democrat and Chronicle: Let’s repeal the Second Amendment

New York Times -To Repeat: Repeal the Second Amendment

La Times: No one becomes a mass shooter without a mass-shooting gun

Toronto Star: Want to end gun violence Mr. President? Get rid of guns

November 2017

Splinter news: BAN GUNS

Boston Globe: Hand over your weapons

Redhawks Online: Guns must go

October 2017

Dan Pfeiffer: What to Bring to the Gun Fight [national gun registry, Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition and a national gun buyback program]
Washington Post Editorial Board : “President Trump, end this ‘American carnage.’”[Australian-Style Gun Ban]

June 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

Vox: Becoming a gun-free society would be hard. But we should still try.

June 2015

January 2015

Tallahassee Democrat: Stop the insanity: Ban guns

June 2014

May 2014

December 2012

Washington Post, Eugene Robinson: First, Get Rid of the Guns

April 2007

      Salon: Repeal the Second Amendment

*Abbreviated because a full listing would be far too long and it’s extremely difficult to track down all of these demands by the many varied euphemisms for Gun Confiscation.

 

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Police shooting: don’t trust David French

Published

on

As Ben Shapiro frequently notes, droves of people will agree that they want to cut spending, but when attempting to identify specific programs to reduce or eliminate, they draw a blank. The same can be said for many conservatives’ approach to police shootings.

Ask David French, for instance, senior writer for National Review, whether police shootings pose a significant problem in America. At least in 2016, he would’ve told you that it was all a “media-created fake crisis.” So which hot-button shootings were blown out of proportion by the media and Black Lives Matter? Aside from Michael Brown’s death in 2014 and a lukewarm defense of Officer Betty Shelby in 2017, you’d be hard-pressed to get an answer from French.

In fact, it seems every piece he’s contributed to this discussion has been just the opposite, pointed at decrying the officer in question. According to my research, French has not published a single piece dedicated to exonerating an officer who has fired on a suspect.

Even in tepidly standing by the side of Officer Shelby, he used the opportunity to smear Officer Yanez, who shot and killed Philando Castile, despite the fact that the circumstances surrounding the two shootings were remarkably similar, as I noted in June of last year.

In that article, I wrote, “The war on cops needs to end, especially from the Right. I have far less tolerance for conservatives who sell out justified cops in the name of virtue signaling than I do for those on the Left.”

Well, David French is up to his old tricks, so here I am again.

First, the facts of the case as seen here:

Sacramento police responded to reports that a man had broken a truck window just after 4:00 am. They knocked on the door of a nearby home, asked to search the backyard, did so, and came back to the street empty handed. A police helicopter then spotted a suspect breaking the window of a nearby home and, shortly after, jumping a fence. The officers ran up and down the street looking for the suspect, spotted him in the side area of a home approaching the rear, and shouted that he show them his hands. Instead, the man fled. Police pursued him into the backyard, repeated the command to show his hands, and announced to each other that they had seen a gun. They repeated the command, repeated that they had seen a gun, and opened fire. It appears that the suspect, Stephon Clark, died immediately.

All told, Clark was holding an iPhone, not a gun, and the backyard in which he was shot was his grandmother’s. No, none of this should make any difference, but we’ll get to that later.

Addressing police violence, French wrote in 2016, “This is how the Left sustains a false racial crisis: Step One — Begin with the misleading use of statistics.” Not content to merely know his enemy, French has decided to imitate them.

In his recent article, French questions whether the officers faced any significant risk at all, contending, “According to the City of Sacramento, it’s been almost 20 years since a cop was shot and killed in the line of duty.”

But what about the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, where four officers have been shot dead in the last 12 years, one as recently as August 2017? Coincidentally, the officer murdered in August was surnamed French.

Regardless, to imply that a risk is unrealistic because it hasn’t happened in a while is patently unhinged.

Nevertheless, French persists, “Before you object and tell me that routine encounters can and do escalate, I know that. But what I am questioning are probabilities and perspective.” This is absurd. The likelihood of a police officer being shot on duty is remarkably low anyway. Tragically, it still happens. In all circumstances, regardless of probability, police officers must be vigilant, and French’s suggestion otherwise is dangerous. To be clear, I’m not saying he’s trying to endanger cops; I just think he’s not being level headed.

French “[finds] it deeply disturbing and problematic” that “the encounter … took roughly 17 seconds.” Does he not realize that officers can be (and sometimes are) murdered in far less time than that?

Next, he downplays a likely felony (burglary) to a misdemeanor (vandalism) in order to minimize Clark’s offense (just like Castile, Crutcher, Brown, and Sterling, Clark committed at least one serious crime before being shot). As held in Graham v. Connor, “all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force … are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’ standard,” meaning we must judge what an objectively reasonable officer would have thought or inferred from available details.

Unlike David French, let’s attempt to put ourselves in the officers’ shoes (remembering, of course, that only police officers can truly understand exactly what they go through): a suspect breaks the windows of a vehicle in the middle of the night, a crime we can reasonably assume might precede some other crime, such as theft. The man then breaks the window of a home, which he more than likely wants to enter — civilian’s are now potentially in danger; this is serious. Hearing police are nearby, the man jumps the fence into another yard — another household threatened. When confronted, he runs — this is a guilty man. He refuses to show his hands, and there’s an object in one hand. It’s dark. This man is a felon. He’s fleeing the cops and resisting arrest. He doesn’t want to go to jail. Now he’s holding something as he finds himself cornered. Might it be a gun? Given what we know, isn’t that at least objectively reasonable? The man doubles down on his belligerence. He doesn’t respond. He doesn’t comply. He stands there with the object in his hand. And just like that, he’s dead. And who’s to blame? His own dumb self.

French dubiously insists, “It’s one thing to be in hot pursuit of an armed robber or a known, violent felon. It’s one thing to approach a situation where you perceive that innocent lives are in imminent danger. It’s another thing entirely to deal with a person who, to that point, had broken windows, and no other civilian was perceived to be at risk.”

To quote Luke Skywalker, “Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong.”

According to objective reason, the police believed Clark was armed. They believed he may have committed theft and burglary. They believed that, in potentially burglarizing at least two homes, Clark posed imminent danger to civilians. French is totally, ludicrously, irresponsibly wrong.

In contrast, French would have us believe that it is more objectively reasonable to expect police officers to be mind readers. They should have known Clark wasn’t holding a gun. They should have known that he was in his grandmother’s yard. They should have known that he meant no harm in breaking the windows of a vehicle and a home just a few feet from his grandma’s house. They should have suspected that he didn’t respond because he had earbuds in, despite the only evidence to such being that his grandma said Clark might have been wearing earbuds (you’d think officers would’ve noticed this as they attempted to revive his body). And finally, they should have assumed that Clark was running because he was a scared, helpless victim in all of this, merely misunderstood and startled.

Gag me.

What bothers me most is that French apparently knows all of this but doesn’t care. He has previously referenced Graham v. Connor, asserting, “How, pray tell, is a police officer supposed to discern whether a shooting victim ‘actually’ poses a threat other than through their ‘objectively reasonable’ beliefs? How can anyone tell?” Whereas he once wrote, “It’s always a bad idea to flee from arrest, resist arrest, or introduce any unexpected behavior into an encounter with police,” he now claims it shouldn’t have made a difference. In paradoxically defending Officer Shelby but not Officer Yanez, French admitted, “The law does not require cops to be omniscient. It requires that they be reasonable. It is reasonable to believe that a person who won’t obey commands, won’t get on the ground, and is walking back toward (and ultimately reaching in) his car is a threat.”

He makes many similar concessions in this article as well, such as, “The officers seemed to genuinely believe they faced an imminent, mortal threat,” and, “We don’t require cops to be omniscient, and the fact that the ‘gun’ turned out to be an iPhone makes the shooting horribly tragic, not criminal.”

But as French makes clear from the beginning, these facts, the law, and all objective reason are irrelevant.

“Focusing on whether the shooting was lawful misses the larger point.”

Never go full SJW.

French continues, “When we speak about police shootings, we often focus too much on the most basic question — was the shooting lawful — rather than the far more complex and ultimately more consequential question. Was the shooting proper? … I say no. I say that the escalation and response we saw in Sacramento is more akin to the kind of immediate escalation and engagement you’d find in a war zone when chasing a suspected terrorist.”

I have it on the authority of someone who served in Afghanistan as more than a military lawyer, like French, that “you don’t chase [fleeing terrorists], you shoot ‘em.” The escalation of force as shown by these Sacramento officers in verbally warning, chasing, repeatedly warning, and ultimately firing upon a known criminal who, by objectively reasonable standards, posed an imminent threat to both officers and civilians was not only lawful, but yes, it was proper.

As articulated by Jason Angel — senior police consultant for The New Guards, Marine Corps Captain, and my brother, “Unfortunately David French has not realized that he possesses the same ignorance toward police work that Black Lives Matter does. His analysis is egregiously flawed. His attempt to use military service as a comparison does not work for a number of reasons, but he also forgot that non-threatening civilians are killed far more frequently in war than by the police. … At no point does he put himself in the officer’s position and at no point does he recognize that his military experience as a JAG does not give him combat experience or translating experience to law enforcement.”

French suggests a shift in law enforcement training to better resemble military standards, namely law of armed conflict vs. rules of engagement. He posits, “Cops don’t have a law-of-armed-conflict problem — the constitutional standards and state statutes governing when a cop can be prosecuted are appropriate — they have a rules-of-engagement problem.” In other words, they’re not breaking any laws; just arbitrary rules.

 

He concludes, “It’s time to change the rules.” But what does that mean? Who decides the rules? What will they be? What measures will be taken to ensure these rules are not conflated as law?

What is the proposed punishment for a lawful action that violates French’s beloved rules? Instead of jail time, should we protest and insist upon the firing of an officer who legally shoots a suspect in a manner we don’t like? Will this somehow heal the divide between police and civilians? Will this assuage police officers who are already petrified to do their duty for fear of punishment?

“I say no.”

Thankfully, David French doesn’t speak for National Review generally — here’s an excellent take on this shooting and French’s piece from Jack Dunphy, an actual police officer who knows that French is full of it. And here’s another piece written by another police officer for The New Guards on the proper way to react to a police shooting.

I advise scrutiny in reading anything of this nature — it’s a serious topic. Where possible, talk to actual cops. I’m not nor will I probably ever be a police officer, but that’s why I never write any articles on police work without consulting either my cop brother, my cop father or both; trust them, not me.

And definitely, don’t trust David French.


Richie Angel is the Editor at Large of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.