Connect with us

Media

Steve Bannon is a more powerful Trump ally from the trenches

Published

on

Steve Bannon 60 Minutes

The promotion of John Kelly to Chief of Staff. The rise of leftists in President Trump’s ear. The purging of right and alt-right personalities in the administration, including Steve Bannon himself. These things might make an observer believe that Bannon would be fighting the President now that he’s back in charge at Breitbart. That’s not the case. In fact, Bannon may be the President’s most powerful ally.

On 60 Minutes, Bannon revealed his undying commitment to President Trump and the agenda he helped to craft. His tone was a bit less harsh than he’s been in the past, even saying that Obamacare shouldn’t be fully repealed, but his fervor for the man who made him a household name appears to be completely unshaken.

That’s not to say Bannon won’t be on the attack. He has some very clear targets in mind. No, it’s not the Democrats. No, it isn’t the liberals embedded in the Trump administration. Bannon and Breitbart are going to go after their familiar foes: Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and anyone Bannon feels is standing in the way of Trump’s plans.

He’s going to push for them to be primaried. He’ll hit them in ways that will weaken them for general elections, even allowing Republicans to lose seats if necessary. The new Steve Bannon is the old Steve Bannon, just better known and more empowered than ever. It creates a strange conundrum for Federalists and constitutional conservatives who do not embrace the alt-right mentality. If the enemy of my enemy is my friend, then Bannon is a friend, right? We don’t like the GOP Establishment. Neither does he. Therefore, we’re on the same side? No. Absolutely not. The Red Sox and the Mets can both hate the Yankees without being on the same team. So too can we share a distaste for the Establishment without sharing Breitbart’s love affair with the alt-right.

A couple of weeks ago, I posted that we would be giving Breitbart a chance. That chance is on the verge of being completely over. Based upon the rhetoric coming from Bannon on 60 Minutes plus the clickbait coverage we’re seeing on Breitbart.com, it’s clear that they’re not a true conservative ally. They’re just a separate force opposing some of the same things we oppose. He’s still a big government guy. He’s still an alt-right guy. He’s still the guy who deflects questions about the white supremacists who support him rather than outright denouncing them as he should.

Bannon was asked why he’s no longer in the White House. “I cannot take the fight to the people we have to take the fight to when I’m a federal government employee,” Bannon replied.

This is the truest answer he gave in the interview. He’s no longer on the White House payroll. He no longer represents the administration directly. That makes him the wildcard he’s always wanted to be. Now, he’s going to use the opportunity he made for himself over the last year to take the alt-right message to the people.

Here’s the problem and the biggest fear I have in all this. While wreaking havoc, what damage will he do? Does he care? I can’t answer the first question, but the answer to the second question is quite obvious. He doesn’t care. If taking out Paul Ryan means putting a Democrat in both the congressional seat as well as the Speaker’s office, so be it. As an agent of chaos, his long-term view is that it’s always best to make big changes regardless of the consequences. That’s the real difference between what Breitbart wants to do and what we want to do. Our goal is to put the right people in office. Breitbart’s goal is to put anyone else in office other than the people they don’t like.

The biggest challenge to conservatism isn’t from the left. It’s from the tainting effects of the alt-right as they run away from small-government, constitutionally-sound messaging so they can spread new, perverse, and false definitions of modern “conservatism.”

Media

Smear campaigns against Rick Scott start just as he pulls ahead in the polls

Published

on

Smear campaigns against Rick Scott start just as he pulls ahead in the polls

Florida has a penchant for tight races. This year is no different with both the gubernatorial and Senate races polling within the margin of error to be considered a toss up. In the latter race, Governor Rick Scott just pulled ahead of Senator Bill Nelson.

On cue, mainstream media and the leftist blogosphere started rallying for Nelson. First, the New York Times posted a highly biased article claiming Scott’s blind trust was blind in name only. The accusatory headline is damaging but the story itself only reveals that he may have been able to see where his money was going if he jumped through a few hoops. It did not show he took advantage of these hoops and there are no indications that he did.

Then, The Young Turks pieced together a “gotcha’ moment when members of a financial firm donated to a pro-Scott superPAC. Then, the state’s pension system invested using the financial firm. Scott is a trustee. Here’s the thing, though. Scott has no influence on how money is invested.

“Neither the Trustees nor their appointed members to the Investment Advisory Council (IAC) are involved in the selection of investments,” SBA spokesman John Kuczwanki told The Young Turks. “Any suggestion that politics influenced the SBA’s investment decision on the Cerberus FSBA Levered Loan Opportunities Fund is baseless and without merit.”

Despite the honesty of the rebuttals, mainstream media and the leftist blogosphere are operating with the singular goal of stopping as many Republicans from winning on election day as possible. There is no merit to either allegation, but it’s easy for the left to distort and confuse just enough to make an uninformed voter question Scott’s integrity.

Florida is better following Scott’s stint as governor. Florida and America will be better off with Scott over Nelson in the Senate.

Democrats and their media proxies count on a majority of people not understanding how blind trusts and pension investments work. They insinuate corruption where none exists in hopes that most won’t see the truth.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Project Veritas stings Claire McCaskill, but also exposes a sad truth about American politics

Published

on

Project Veritas stings Claire McCaskill but also exposes a sad truth about American politics

Project Veritas, the undercover journalists who bring us a steady flow of videos revealing leftist hypocrisies and scandals, was able to get some good dirt on Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill. She’s all in for just about every bit of gun control legislation that can make it to the floor, a stance that won’t sit well in right-leaning Missouri.

But there’s something else revealed in this and past videos by Project Veritas. There are things that certain politicians simply cannot say which promotes the atmosphere of lies and subterfuge that plague our nation’s capital. She’s a “moderate” Democrat when speaking to her constituents, a play that’s necessary in a red state. The same is true for blue state Republicans who can’t come out and say they want to ban abortions or other right-wing priorities because the general sentiment in these states oppose those views.

What we’ve seen is that the youthful, energetic, passionate people who make up the campaign staff and volunteers are often much further to the left than the candidates they support. The same is almost certainly true for Republican campaign staff and volunteers who are likely more conservative than their candidate. What does this really tell us?

Most politicians must cater to the middle while they’re driven by the ideological fringe. This creates a contradiction that cannot be reconciled in today’s two-party political atmosphere.

Is there a solution? Yes. We’ll discuss that after the election. In the meantime, we’ll support the push to keep majorities for Republicans in the House and Senate.

If there’s a red state Democrat that deserves to be moved out of office, it’s Claire McCaskill. The question is whether Missourians will see McCaskill as the centrist she wants them to see or the far-left activists she really is.

Continue Reading

Media

There’s one glaring difference between 60 Minutes’ interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

Published

on

Theres one glaring difference between 60 Minutes interviews with Presidents Obama and Trump

Anyone who expected the 60 Minutes interview with President Trump to be anything like their interviews with his predecessor was likely very disappointed. Mainstream media might pretend like they treated the two Presidents the same, but the differences in interviews on 60 Minutes may be the most stark evidence their claim on being unbiased is an absolute lie.

Here’s a portion of the interview with President Trump, which aired tonight:

“Journalist” Lesley Stahl spoke over the President multiple times. If you watch the entire interview, you’ll see that this happened throughout. She would ask a question, most of which were attempts at “gotcha” responses, then would interrupt the President any time he didn’t give the answer she was wanting.

Now, compare that to the interview in the early days of the Obama administration.

Steve Kroft was the embodiment of politeness and civility. He sat aptly silent as President Obama gave his answers.

Mainstream media has given up on pretending they don’t hate President Trump. It no longer behooves him to do these interviews, giving higher ratings to leftist media outlets that simply don’t deserve it.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report