Connect with us

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
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Guns and Crime

The Russian investigation was never about Russia. It was cover to find dirt on the President.

Published

on

The Russian investigation was never about Russia It was cover to find dirt on the President

President Trump is almost certainly never going to be caught committing the types of crimes that initially prompted the Russia investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller. That was never the goal of the investigation. It was a cover story concocted to give Mueller unimpeded access to the President and his staff.

As I’ve said on multiple occasions, the Russian collusion angle was simply an excuse to justify digging into the affairs of the President, his campaign staff, and everyone associated with them. They knew the chances of finding true collusion were slim, but they needed a reason to try to uncover potentially impeachable offenses. Now, Democrats and mainstream media think they’ve found them in the form of hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal.

The sentencing recommendation documents for Michael Cohen, the President’s former attorney, revealed the investigation is now focused on proving that “Individual-1” ordered the hush money be paid to cover up affairs the President had with the two women. Many experts, including Trump supporters like Chris Christy and Andrew McCarthy, believe there’s a case that can be made against President Trump for campaign finance violations.

There are two questions that must be answered. Did candidate Trump order Michael Cohen to pay hush money? If he did, was it a violation of campaign finance laws?

The answer to the first one is almost certainly yes. It’s hard to imagine Cohen acting on his own. In fact, it’s ludicrous to think that Trump, who is known for micromanaging his affairs, would not be made aware of any threats or perceived threats of these women at the height of the campaign.

The second question has a murkier answer. Arguments can be made in both directions. Was it an effort to stifle potentially damaging revelations that could hurt the campaign? Yes. Was it a personal matter, in which case paying off people for their silence is not against the law? Yes.

The timing of the payoffs may be the best argument the prosecution will be able to make to demonstrate these were campaign finance violations. Because these would be considered damaging to the campaign, one can easily make the connection that they were intended to influence the outcome of the election. On the other hand, the argument can also be made that the threats came out because of the election, but the decision to pay hush money was a personal one. This could be easily corroborated if past payments were revealed.

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/09/president-sure-fire-way-disprove-campaign-finance-violations-wont-like/By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

If President Trump never paid hush money to women before announcing his candidacy, then he’s truly in a pickle. It’s hard to argue this was a personal issue devoid of political motivations because his past is checkered with scandals that mirror or even supersede such claims. Most damaging is the fact that he’s bragged about affairs in books he’s published.

The President’s opponents were willing to take him down regardless of the cost. That’s why they concocted the Russia collusion investigation in the first place. This whole mess stinks and will be a stain on our political system for years to come.

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations, but he won’t like it

Published

on

The President has a sure-fire way to disprove campaign finance violations but he wont like it

As the President becomes more embroiled in Michael Cohen’s payoffs to porn star Stormy Daniels and Playboy bunny Karen McDougal, it’s becoming increasingly likely he will be indicted for campaign finance violations. While it’s unlikely this will affect his first term as President, it could mean charges are brought against him the moment he’s no longer in office. This could also add fuel to the fire for Democrats to win in 2020, as it would open the door for charges to be filed.

There’s a way the President can stop the charges before they’re filed, but it’s a step the President likely won’t want to take. If he has paid hush money to other women in the past, before he announced his run for President, he can demonstrate the hush money was paid to protect his personal reputation. If that’s the case, then this no longer falls under campaign finance laws.

It isn’t illegal to pay hush money to people.

The case that prosecutors will try to make is that then-candidate Trump ordered his attorney, Cohen, to facilitate payments to women whose stories could damage his chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. If they can prove that the President ordered the payoffs, they then have to prove the reason for the payoffs was to influence the election.

By showing past payoffs to women, the President can go with the story that he didn’t want to damage his marriage or business dealings. This play might hurt his reputation, but it would likely quash attempts to indict him.

This is all assuming there were past payoffs. If there weren’t, then it would be difficult for his defense to claim the two payoffs in question were not politically motivated.

It may not be the most elegant solution for the President, but if the investigation continues to build a case that he committed campaign finance violations, he may have no choice but to reveal past payoffs that show he’s immoral, but not a criminal.

Continue Reading

Opinions

The next Chief of Staff will hold all the cards. This is a good thing.

Published

on

The next Chief of Staff will hold all the cards This is a good thing

It doesn’t matter whether you support President Trump or not. There’s one thing we can all agree about: the next Chief of Staff for the President will have the best job security in the White House for the next two years. It’s hard to imagine a situation where the President would get rid of another Chief of Staff in his first term of office, especially after Tweets like this one:

John Kelly, the second Chief of Staff to leave the White House in less than two years, was widely regarded as someone who brought order to a chaotic administration. That reputation has changed in recent months when the rift started forming between him and his boss. The silver lining for his replacement is that if he/she is inclined, they can bring about big changes at the White House without worrying about backlash by the President.

It would be political suicide for the President to fire another Chief of Staff before his reelection. In fact, it would be harmful if there’s any hint of contention between them. Whoever is nominated, they must be in lockstep with the President going forward. The President knows this, which is why he wanted Nick Ayers, a young political star who has demonstrated strong loyalty to the administration. Unfortunately, Ayers was removed as a contender over the proposed timeline.

Pence aide out of running to be Trump’s next chief of staff

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/09/pence-aide-running-trumps-next-chief-staff/Ayers, who is chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, was seen as the favorite for the job when Trump announced Saturday that Kelly would leave around year’s end. But a White House official said Sunday that Trump and Ayers could not reach agreement on Ayers’ length of service and that he would instead assist the president from outside the administration.

Ayers confirmed the decision in a tweet Sunday, thanking Trump and Pence for giving him the opportunity to work in the White House. “I will be departing at the end of the year but will work with the #MAGA team to advance the cause,” he said.

Enter Mark Meadows

Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC), the House Freedom Caucus co-founder, is the ideal choice to be the next Chief of Staff. His conservative credentials are strong and his relationship with the President has been exception since the 2016 election.

Nobody knows how to maneuver through the tumult of Washington DC better than Meadows. He understands all the dynamics on Capitol Hill, and while that’s not a requirement for Chief of Staff, it’s a huge benefit. Moreover, his political acumen will be crucial in keeping the President from making fatal mistakes leading up to the 2020 elections.

Some, including our EIC, aren’t convinced it’s the right move.

He may be right, but at this point it’s better to put in someone who’s willing to try. Even if he fails at steering the President, he may be able to bring much-needed stability. Kelly may have brought that initially, but was unable to keep it all reined in. Perhaps Meadows can succeed where his two predecessors failed.

This is arguably the most important personnel decision the President will make before the 2020 election. The right person can get the White House moving along the proper course. The wrong person can become a further distraction. President Trump should strongly consider Mark Meadows.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report