Connect with us


Very poor choice of words by HHS Secretary Tom Price



Very poor choice of words by HHS Secretary Tom Price

Update: FORMER HHS Secretary Tom Price…

A slip of the tongue or an inappropriate use of words is par for the course in Washington DC. Normally, these faux pas are dismissed (unless you’re George W. Bush, in which case every one is scrutinized and ridiculed). When you’re already in deep with everyone from the press to the people to the President of the United States, it’s important to avoid the use of certain phrases.

HHS Secretary Tom Price had a minor faux pas, but this lapse in judgment is worth noting in light of his possible ouster.

“Every time I travel I submit the travel plan to the ethics department that evaluates it line by line to make sure that I am above the law.”


In context, it’s not a big deal. We live in a world that takes things out of context regularly. Knowing this, he should have avoided the phrase altogether.

Source: Crooks and Liars

Trump’s Interior Secretary Brags His Private Jet Travel Is ‘Above The Law’ | Crooks and Liars time I travel I submit the travel plan to the ethics department that evaluates it line by line to make sure that I am above the law. And I follow the law. Of course, we are always continuing to look at ways of lower cost in the department. You’ll find out to increase revenues. I’ll always be honest and up front about my travel.

NOQ Report has new contributors being vetted, interns, and long-time contributors who want to remain anonymous. Their stories are posted on this author's account which is operated by Sal.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

Empty Churches: Roman Catholic Cardinals Push Activism on Immigration And Trump



Even the Roman Catholic Church’s top American leaders are not immune from the earthly allure to virtue signal on immigration. Both ordained and lay Catholic voices, have argued that people of faith have a moral duty to accept the “Dreamers,” to support DACA, and indeed, to oppose the Trump Administration’s policies on immigration.

This weekend, one American cardinal, Joseph Cardinal Tobin of the Archdiocese of Newark (New Jersey), declared that American Catholics have a “duty” to call their elected representatives to support the Dreamers.

However, truth can be inconvenient. Even for learned Church prelates. Tobin and others have selectively picked and chosen from Church teachings. In so doing, they’ve ignored concepts of duty and responsibility.

A careful reading of comments on actual Catholic social teaching from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops, reveals that the current Catholic Church’s embrace of open borders is, ahem, misplaced.

While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there. By this principle the Church recognizes that most immigration is ultimately not something to celebrate. Ordinarily, people do not leave the security of their own land and culture just to seek adventure in a new place or merely to enhance their standard of living. Instead, they migrate because they are desperate and the opportunity for a safe and secure life does not exist in their own land. Immigrants and refugees endure many hardships and often long for the homes they left behind. As Americans we should cherish and celebrate the contributions of immigrants and their cultures; however, we should work to make it unnecessary for people to leave their own land.

Because there seems to be no end to poverty, war, and misery in the world, developed nations will continue to experience pressure from many peoples who desire to resettle in their lands. Catholic social teaching is realistic: While people have the right to move, no country has the duty to receive so many immigrants that its social and economic life are jeopardized.

Recent years have seen the Roman Catholic Church demonstrate its worldly fallibility as an institution, while on doctrinal issues, under the current Pope (Francis I), the Church has moved clearly to the Left.

Yet as recently as 1996, Pope Saint John Paul II wrote:

When no solution is foreseen, these same [social and charitable] institutions should direct those they are helping, perhaps also providing them with material assistance, either to seek acceptance in other countries, or to return to their own country.

The rejection of some unconditional duty to receive refugees is clear. The individual’s plight is not ignored; it is, however, not treated as the only factor to be considered to the deliberate exclusion of the hosts. The current Church would do well to follow it. Its own faithful — and its own benefactors — deserve to be ministered to as well, and not viewed solely as a silent audience of putative sinners (and donors) whose Americanism equates to irredeemability.

In societies where cultural traditions emphasis liberty over obedience, freedom over force, and the individual over the collective, shaming your faithful is a recipe for falling Church attendance, falling Church donations and closing institutions. Indeed, in many places, the Church has been closing schools and hospitals, merging parishes and selling off its properties — often bought eagerly by growing Moslem congregations. It’s alarming that Roman Catholic Church leaders are increasingly electing to attack America’s faithful, in favor of pursuing acceptance by “the world.”

Continue Reading


Bill Mitchell reveals his phony conservatism on constitution



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.


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


$543 million for California’s capitol building is a waste of money



$543 million is no drop in the bucket. When you have a California legislature that is floating an idea of single-payer healthcare that would cost approximately $400 billion a year it seems like $543 million is a bargain for a new annex capitol building.

So why do I think the demolition and replacement of the capitol’s 66-year-old annex building is a waste of money?

One reason it is a waste of money is the fact that California has a full-time legislature. When you have a full-time legislature, you have larger staffs. With the continual growth of centralized governance in California and more decisions being made by state legislators, we need to recognize that more decisions should be made at the local level, not in Sacramento.

This is one reason why I created Trickle-up-Taxation; a plan that empowers local municipalities to have the power and resources needed to address the unique demands of their community.

Full-time legislatures are not needed. Only ten states have full-time legislatures. Out of these ten, four are categorized as full-time, well-paid, and large staffs. Thus, only 8% of states, including California, operate at this bloated level.

Not that these other forty-six states are the perfect model for how to run a state, but it is self-evident that having such a bloated centralized state legislature isn’t necessary for the proper functioning of a state.

Another reason we shouldn’t spend $543 million on a new building is the fact that all our state legislators have district offices. These offices are meant to give constituents greater access to their state representative. The problem is, your representative is never around. Your representative should spend most of their time in the district they represent, not in Sacramento.

So why not have our state legislators work from their district office?

The trend of working from home or remotely is increasing each year. My own company has moved in this direction. With cloud-based servers, cloud-based phone systems, email, and tele/video conferencing it is possible to work from anywhere with an internet connection.

Let’s have our legislators and their staff work and live in the district they represent, not away from their constituents. We need to think how we can do things better, faster, and cheaper; just like the private-sector.

We don’t need to spend $543 million on a new building. We should move more decision making away from state legislators to local government, move to a part-time legislature, and have our state legislators work from their district offices. If we do this, we will actually save millions, instead of spending $543 million on the demolition and building of a new annex capitol building.

Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.