Connect with us

Politics

House Committee to vote on voiding Fourth Amendment rights

Published

on

House Committee to vote on voiding Fourth Amendment rights

While the country was being treated to a mega-dose of tweets proclaiming Trump’s “genius” over the weekend, so-called conservatives (i.e. Trumplicans) in the House of Representatives were making plans to hold a vote on a bill that will void the Fourth Amendment rights of every American.

Scheduled for this week, the House Rules Committee will meet to consider a bill re-authorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which, according to Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) “allows the government to conduct warrantless searches on Americans and maintain massive troves of our data.”

FISA originated during the Cold War and was used to gather foreign intelligence information. However, since 9/11, it has become a tool of government to spy on anyone anytime anywhere. This has resulted in numerous abuses by government agencies such as the NSA and led to the passage of the USA Freedom Act, a law designed to reign in the government’s blatant abuse of power.

While progressives in both parties have worked to expand Big Brother’s control, current members of the GOP have shown a frightening willingness lately to shred the Constitution in the name of safety and security.

For instance, in July 2016, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) introduced the Homeland Safety and Security Act (H.R.5611). Though never passed, this was an attempt to create a division within the Department of Homeland Security straight out of the movie Minority Report and was designed to deny the Second Amendment rights of Americans based on a prediction that a person might someday be a terrorist.

Another example can be found by one of the House’s biggest fans of warrantless electronic spying on Americans, Rep. Pete King (R-NY), who as recently as December 2017 called for a return to NSA-styled data gathering following the pipe bombing of The New York Port Authority bus terminal in New York City.

Some in the GOP are claiming that protections for our Fourth Amendment rights have been added to the bill reauthorizing FISA 702 by giving oversight powers to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. However, according to the Patrick G. Eddington of the CATO Institute, this fails to protect our rights and gives these two individuals the power to make up the rules as they go along while holding no regard to the Constitution.

As a president who wants his own private global spy network and who has instituted policies expanding civil asset forfeiture laws, thus denying Americans their “due process” rights (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), Trump isn’t likely to have any problems signing FISA 702 into law if passed by Congress.

When people want to know why I don’t support Trump and the GOP, it’s because they don’t support the Constitution. And that’s exactly why I support the Federalist Party and the Article V Convention of States.

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

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative, your source for opinion that's politically-incorrect and always "right." His articles can also be found on RedState.com. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

The #SchumerShutdown will deliver 2018 GOP victories if they stick to their guns

Published

on

The SchumerShutdown will deliver 2018 GOP victories if they stick to their guns

The current scenario makes it likely there will be a government shutdown. I’ll edit this if it ends up being averted, but if it is, it will be because the Republicans buckled to Chuck Schumer’s demands in whole or in part. Either way, this article is relevant.

In one set of scenarios, Republicans will be given all the ammunition they need to coast to major victories in the 2018 midterm elections. Instead of simply retaining their majorities, as is the hope for most in the GOP, they may actually end up making gains. The President called for such an event today:

It should be noted that I am not a Republican who is simply cheering them on. I’m a Federalist, so my analysis is not guided by hope or propaganda. Both parties promote big government policies. The only difference is which topics they focus upon, which means the ebb and flow of control by the two-party system will incessantly grow DC’s overreach… but that’s all for another article.

Assuming there’s a shutdown, both sides will continue to point fingers at the other in hopes of making their version of the narrative stick. The reality should be crystal clear to anyone other than the liberally indoctrinated or mainstream media: this is 100% on the Democrats. We’re talking about a spending bill. The fact that they’re holding it up to score points with Dreamers and their supporters is despicable.

Let’s look at the two types of people affected the most by this. The first are obviously those working for the government. They will not be getting paid. Some will have to work despite not getting paid for it. The effects of the Democrats’ actions will impact them immediately. These are American citizens.

The second people “affected” by this would be the Dreamers. They will almost certainly have some form of amnesty before March 5 when the DACA executive order officially runs out. If Schumer’s Shutdown is averted without a DACA protection element, what will happen to these people? Exactly what would happen to them with a DACA protection element included. Their lives will not be affected by the outcome of the continuing resolution, but even if there were small differences, those wouldn’t be felt until March. These are not American citizens.

The Democrats are posturing for one reason and one reason only: They want the credit for saving Dreamers. As it stands, they will not get that credit if a bipartisan bill is signed by the President in February or March. Today, they have the opportunity to stamp a big letter “D” on the DACA fight and they’re willing to harm American citizens to do it.

I am opposed to a government shutdown because Americans will get hurt by it. We need to curtail spending dramatically, but shutting down the government is not the “wakeup call” many conservatives are promoting it as. Address budgets, reform entitlements, and cut the billions in wasteful spending that gets pumped out of our wallets and into the ether, but keep the government running in the meantime.

To do this, the Republicans may buckle. By the time you’re reading this, they may have done so already. However, their path to victory in 2018 will be paved by first keeping DACA out of the CR and then fixing DACA before March 5. If they do this, they can point to the fact the President and Republican leaders promised a fix and delivered, but the Democrats shut down the government in an effort to claim credit. That message is true and can resonate if they blast it out there loud enough during election season. That means they can’t buckle now and they must deliver later.

I’m not a proponent for “fixing” DACA, but since it’s almost certainly going to happen, this is the path the GOP must take in order to keep their majorities.

This whole shutdown debacle is a parade of conflicting buffoonery. Democrats are marching down the street clothed in false righteousness. Republicans are following behind them wearing the clown outfits of incompetence. America may deserve a government shutdown for keeping the two-party system intact for so long.

Update – The Democrats do not have the people on their side and even CNN is forced to report it:

CNN poll: DACA not worth a shutdown, except to Democrats

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/19/politics/cnn-poll-shutdown-trump-immigration-daca/index.htmlWashington (CNN)With hours to go before a midnight deadline for Congress to fund the government or shut it down, most Americans say avoiding a shutdown is more important than passing a bill to maintain the program allowing people brought to the US illegally as children to stay, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

Published

on

The Real Mitt Romney

Utah is abuzz with rumors and anxiety over the possibility of a Senate run from former governor of Massachusetts and Holladay, Utah’s own (according to his recent Twitter edit), Mitt Romney. Romney has yet to declare candidacy, but according to a poll on Thursday from radio host Rod Arquette, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee’s favorability among Utahns approximates 60%.

His intentions remain a mystery, but should he toss his hat into the ring, Utahns would face a far more compelling question: which Mitt Romney will we see?

That could depend entirely on his audience.

Utah is a strange place politically. The more I participate in local politics, the more I realize that most Utahns care little, if at all, about policy. Their main concern is personality — and I can prove it.

According to Conservative Review’s Liberty Scorecard, Utah’s federal representation boasts the largest spread within the same party: a 71% gap between Senator Mike Lee’s 100% rating and Senator Orrin Hatch’s dismal 29%. As for Utah’s remaining representatives, Chris Stewart comes in 2nd place with a 70% score, followed by Mia Love with 62% and Rob Bishop with 60%. Recently elected Representative John Curtis is too fresh to merit a rating, but his predecessor, Jason Chaffetz, amassed a score of 78%.

In other words, the same electorate is voting overwhelmingly for candidates with wildly differing philosophies. But the common thread is easy to find: niceness.

Utah may be a traditionally red state, but it’s also a caring state. And when the two come into apparent conflict, Utahn’s typically opt for the latter.

Mitt Romney’s image of clean-cut benevolence is deeply ingrained in the Beehive State’s collective psyche, which is why he can garner a comfortable majority in favorability without hinting at any policy whatsoever — besides his obvious disdain for President Trump.

In fact, Romney’s renewed prominence in Utah most notably stems from his 2016 speech at the University of Utah, during which he rightly condemned then-candidate Trump’s character and personal history. Trump’s lifelong moral despotism and his abrasive conduct on the campaign trail were deep causes of concern for stalwart Utahns, who accordingly panned Trump in the primary (13.82%) and reluctantly nudged him to victory in the general election (45.5%).

Now, a week following Trump’s “bleep-hole” comments about Haiti and African countries in favor of places like Norway and South Korea — comments Mia Love has already condemned — Mitt Romney is again perfectly poised to emerge as Trump’s foil.

But unfortunately, his chances in Utah have little to do with policy.

Now that we know our audience, we’re brought back to the initial question: which Mitt Romney will we see? Whether you like Romney as a person but dislike him as a politician, vice versa, both, or neither, his long-standing reputation as a flip-flopper is unarguably well deserved. From abortion and Reagan to guns and taxes, Romney’s history of political metamorphosis is scrutinously documented.

Not coincidentally, his progressive standpoints persisted throughout his governorship and Senate candidacy in left-leaning Massachusetts, while his conservative reformation occurred just in time for his presidential bids.

Of course, it’s possible that Romney was sincere in his numerous changes of heart — one thing people are entitled to is the evolution of their personal beliefs. But as this is politics, one should be very cautious in attributing motive, one way or another.

The problem is that while Romney painted himself as a Democrat Lite for Massachusetts and a red-blooded conservative for the RNC, there’s no telling what persona he might adopt for a Senate race in Utah beyond that of the “nice guy,” and in politics, words like “nice,” “caring,” and “compassionate” often mean social programs.

Ideological shifts aside, Romney is at best a pragmatist, not a constitutionalist, having proven his disregard for natural rights on matters of health care and abortion — Romneycare was as much a violation of rights on a state level as Obamacare is federally, and his “pro-life” position that states should have “the authority to decide whether they want to have abortion or not, state by state” exhibits ignorance of the sole purpose of the federal government: securing our unalienable rights, even in matters of state nullification.

Romney also experienced backlash from conservatives in August 2017 when he publicly defended Antifa, a domestic terrorist organization, following the horrifying neo-Nazi display in Charlottesville.

In short, Mitt Romney is not good for Utah, nor is he good for liberty. At best, he would establish an elevated moral compass in terms of personal lifestyle, but that’s no excuse to squander freedom.

Romney would most likely amount to no more than another Jeff Flake — a well-meaning, moderate, Mormon Senator, a good man with strong values, who blatantly misunderstands the role of government and the cause of individual liberty.

This has nothing to do with objective opposition to Donald Trump. I applauded Romney’s speech at the University of Utah, and I’ve had plenty to say about Trump’s shortcomings over the past two years.

But the cult of personality is just as dangerous in one direction as another, and if Romney has plans to run for office in Utah, he’s found the perfect base to latch onto a “nice guy,” whatever he stands (or falls) for.

Richie Angel is a Co-Editor in Chief of The New Guards. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Continue Reading

News

Joe Arpaio calls criticizing Trump an act of treason

Published

on

Joe Arpaio calls criticizing Trump an act of treason

Earlier this week Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) gave his much-anticipated speech from the Senate floor where he criticized Donald Trump for his never-ending assault on the First Amendment.

After a year’s worth of listening to the president refer to unfavorable news stories as “fake news,” and going so far as to label the media “an enemy of the American people,” Flake reminded his colleagues in Congress, as well as the president, that these attacks were eerily reminiscent of words infamously used by Russia dictator Josef Stalin when describing his enemies.

As I wrote in the days leading up to Flake’s speech, Trump’s fake news mantra also bore a striking resemblance to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

While Flake’s status as a RINO might make it easy to dismiss his speech, the conclusion of his dissertation is undebatable—Trump is increasingly becoming a threat to the freedom of the press.

However, there are Trump sycophants who disagree with me.

Former Arizona State Senator and current GOP candidate to replace Flake, Kelli Ward, threw down the Trumplican gauntlet as she challenged every candidate in the race to publicly condemn Flake’s remarks.

While the response to her challenge has been weak, candidate Joe Arpaio, the 85-year-old former sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, and undying Obama “birther,” one-upped Ward in a TV interview where he not only condemned Flake; he accused him of treason.

“I don’t know if Sen. Flake should make some comments against our commander-in-chief. It could be considered by some a borderline treason-type situation.”

Arpaio went on to suggest that the public should be “careful” when criticizing the president and that the right to do so should only be exercised “within reason.”

How much more Donald Trump can you get?

The GOP has been hijacked by Trumplicanism and Sheriff Joe is running on the Trumplican platform, a platform that considers the First Amendment a threat to Donald Trump, and believes that those who exercise their free speech rights are most likely guilty of treason.

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

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.