Connect with us

Everything

Finally, Sessions takes on ‘the culture of leaks’

Published

on

Attorney General Jeff “beleaguered” Sessions, now secure in his job, has moved to the real problem festering like an infected wart on Donald Trump’s ugly presidency. “This nation must end the culture of leaks,” Sessions said.

Amen.

The AG announced that the FBI had created a new counterintelligence unit to deal with a “staggering number of leaks.” The DOJ is pursuing three times as many leak investigations as the Obama administration, the announcement said, according to the New York Times.

“I strongly agree with the president and condemn in the strongest terms the staggering number of leaks,” he said. The announcement by Mr. Sessions comes 10 days after President Trump publicly accused him of being “very” weak on pursuing these investigations in a post on Twitter.

A lightheaded sense of irony swept over me as I read about how Trump “has been bedeviled by leaks” from one of the chief newspapers specializing in obtaining and printing those leaks. It’s really astounding that the NYT can, with a straight face, report this.

Before the investigation gets too far, the NYT and its consigliere in leaking, the Washington Post, will surely empty their grab bag of (not necessarily illicit, as NYT was careful to note) carefully curated dirt and mud on every embarrassing, compromising, and damaging word spoken at the Dump White House.

The NYT is worried they might end up on the other side of the leaky pipe, warning employees of possible infiltrators.

In the end, the press will take the very low road, claiming that leaks are ethical for me, but not for thee. Watch them lawyer up about First Amendment protections, the sacrosanct immunity for safeguarding source identities, and all that “we’re the press!” stuff. Yes, it’s important to have a free press.

But it’s also important to rid the government of a true Fifth Column that is working to dismantle and damage the executive branch, and its head, the President of the United States. It doesn’t matter whether you love or hate Donald Trump the man. The office is not to be made into a sieve of leaks and rumors.

Leaking–especially classified–information damages more than just Trump. It damages America.

It’s good to hear Sessions finally crack down on the leakers.

Advertisement
4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Catalina Hererra

    August 5, 2017 at 8:02 am

    I’m kind of flabbergasted. That “first amendment stuff”? Really? Guess how Hitler started? He censored the Press. If a respected newspaper wants to turn itself into a tabloid, it’s their business. No newspaper or any other media outlet is obligated to make the president look good. The reason Trump gets bad press is because Trump is a filthy individual who spews garbage, lies and assorted incoherent ramblings and guess what…it WILL make it into the news. When people act as if the press has an obligation to protect the president from ridicule, we have lost as a nation and are headed toward tyranny. This has left a REALLY bad taste in my mouth for the Federalist Party. Other than leaking classified secrets, reporters are free to report on anything they choose without government interference. If Trump wants bad press to stop, he should stop acting like an idiot. Then they’d have nothing to report, would they?

    • Steve Berman

      August 5, 2017 at 8:28 am

      First, you misquoted me. Second, you misquoted me out of context. Third, you attributed a pretext to my words that I never meant. Here’s what I actually wrote:

      In the end, the press will take the very low road, claiming that leaks are ethical for me, but not for thee. Watch them lawyer up about First Amendment protections, the sacrosanct immunity for safeguarding source identities, and all that “we’re the press!” stuff. Yes, it’s important to have a free press.

      But it’s also important to rid the government of a true Fifth Column that is working to dismantle and damage the executive branch, and its head, the President of the United States. It doesn’t matter whether you love or hate Donald Trump the man. The office is not to be made into a sieve of leaks and rumors.

      I take the First Amendment and press protections very seriously. But they should not be used to protect people who committed actual felonies with a political purpose. These leakers are not hero patriots, they are political assassins. The press has plenty of stuff to publish about Trump (for whom I could never be accused of cheerleading), without resorting to these kinds of tactics.

      As for the Federalist Party, I do not speak for it. Although I feel fairly confident many in the party would agree with my sentiments, there is room for differing opinion. I can’t even call it “dissent” because the ethos of the Federalist Party is that everyone (including the press) is entitled to an unrestricted voice. But the rule of law and the proper functions of the executive branch should not be impeded or permanently damaged by an organized effort to use the press as a political weapon.

  2. Catalina Hererra

    August 5, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Ok. I was not trying to “attribute” anything. The way it was written it was just hard to understand what you meant. Shoot me.

    • Steve Berman

      August 5, 2017 at 5:15 pm

      No worries. I simply want to be careful not to attribute anything to the Federalist Party that may not fly well. We are small and news travels like laser dots chased by catnip-enhanced felines.

Leave a Reply

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

Judiciary

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court case

Published

on

Why Neil Gorsuch stood alone as the only conservative perspective on the Yakama Tribe Supreme Court

The judiciary is supposed to have one guide when forming fresh perspectives: the Constitution. As they examine the constitutionality of laws and other government actions, they often refer to previous rulings as precedent while looking for similar rulings as justification for leaning one way or another, but at the end of the day it’s the Constitution alone that is supposed to guide their judgments. That’s why we should look for judges who have originalist perspectives, not necessarily conservative ones (though, let’s be honest, the vast majority of originalist perspectives will align with a conservative perspective).

Part of conservatism is conserving the original intent of a law, or in the case in question, a treaty. The Yakama Tribe signed a treaty with the United States government that gave them control of a huge amount of tribal land in Washington state. Part of the exchange included the ability for Yakama traders to use U.S. highways for free.

Washington charges per gallon for fuel trucked in from out of state. One Yakama company claimed the 1855 treaty meant they were not to be charged this tax. The decision in the Supreme Court went mostly along expected political leanings with the “conservative” Justices wanting to charge the tax and the “leftist” Justices siding with the Takama Tribe. The tiebreaker turned out to be Neil Gorsuch, who went to the “leftist” side but with the only conservative reasoning to drive a vote.

The dissent claimed the treaty allowed for free passage on highways just as any American citizen can travel, but that the taxes set by Washington must still be paid. Only Gorsuch recognized that the original intent of the treaty was to grant the tribe free passage, as in free of charge regardless of what the U.S., state, or local governments wanted to charge. This is the right perspective. It’s the conservative perspective.

Should the other Justices who voted like Gorsuch get kudos as well? Probably not. I haven’t read their statements, but it’s safe to assume they ruled based on the party politics of supporting Native American rights whether they’re justifiable or not. Gorsuch ruled based on a proper interpretation of the treaty.

Conservatism and originalism go hand-in-hand when judges take the politics out of what they do. It’s hard. I’m not a judge so I shouldn’t… judge. But this seems to be a case where party politics played too much of a role. Gorsuch was right.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Snopes downgrades truth about Beto’s arrests to ‘mostly true’ because a meme got his band’s name wrong

Published

on

Snopes downgrades truth about Betos arrests to mostly true because a meme got his bands name wrong

Fact checkers are all the rage in the age of fake news. Unfortunately, all of the major fact checkers are left leaning at best, downright progressive at worst. That’s why I make it part of my daily routine to check the checkers to see what they spun today. This latest installment is minor in the whole scheme of things, but it highlights the intense need to protect Democrats whenever possible.

Snopes took on the task of fact checking the following statement:

Beto O’Rourke was in a band called the El Paso Pussycats and was arrested at least twice in the 1990s.

This is true. Beto was arrested twice, which makes him an ideal candidate for the party of lawlessness and disorder. But Snopes, in their certified fact checking wisdom, decided to pick the statement about the arrests that included the name of his band. The statement they chose had the wrong name for the band, using their album name instead. This was enough for them to downgrade the statement from “True” to “Mostly True.”

Not a big deal, right? Actually, it’s bigger than one might think. When people search for Beto and look only for things that are true about him, they will not be shown information about his arrests. The site could have picked literally any other claim about the arrests to fact-check, but had to dig deep to find an internet meme from his failed Senatorial bid last year in order to find one with a statement that included something incorrect in it.

Beto ORourke Arrest

You’ll notice they made sure to mention that both charges were dismissed. The circumstances behind the dismissals seemed to do nothing to negate the crimes he actually committed.

This is just another example of the “fact-checker” running cover for a Democrat they like. The meat of the fact, Beto’s arrests, won’t be found on this site as “True” because they were selective in how they wanted to frame this narrative.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Education

‘Academic’ journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers, fails miserably

Published

on

Academic journal editor Roberto Refinetti tries to explain why they published absurd hoax papers fai

An under-reported story last year revealed multiple “academic” journals, where only the highest levels of academic thought leadership is allowed to publish, put nonsense hoax articles in their publications simply because they perpetuated radical progressive thought. These peer-reviewed journals were willing to publish utter garbage as long as the garbage smelled like the hyper-leftist garbage they normally publish anyway.

Libertarian pundit John Stossel tried to interview the editors of these prestigious journals which were hoaxed, and was only able to find one willing to go on camera. Roberto Refinetti from the academic journal Sexuality and Culture came on air to discuss the hoax and the problems with academic journals. But even he was unable to come up with a valid response about why these journals were so easy to fool.

Stossel read some of the reviews from “experts” in the field that were used to determine whether or not the papers should be published. When Stossel noted that one of the reviewers was an idiot, Refinetti rushed to the defense by blaming the hoaxers and said, “They made up data that he or she [the reviewer] wished he had but he didn’t, so when he sees, ‘Wow, these people did this study that I wanted to do and they got the results that I thought should be there, this is great!'”

In other words, Refinetti came to the same conclusion as the hoaxers and Stossel: Some if not most of those who review these papers make their decision based on whether or not the conclusions fit their worldview, not whether or not the papers were actually correct.

This is just one of many examples of why leftist academia, which is the vast majority of all academia, operates with the sole goal of reinforcing their biases rather than informing students or giving the education system proper facts about the world.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report