Connect with us

Democrats

Trump runs amok on the Bill of Rights

Published

on

In a stunning display of a lack of understanding or care for the Constitution, President Trump today, during a bi-partisan meeting of key lawmakers, announced that he would like “to take the guns and then go to the courts for due process.”

Vice President Pence was outlining a vision in which local authorities would be empowered to go to the courts and petition the legal system to seize firearms from those who were credibly deemed to be a threat to themselves or others (also known as the system presently in place) when the President interrupted him. President Trump made it clear that he wanted to seize guns from those the police deemed a threat and only then go to the courts for due process. The President cited the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida as an example. He further accused Republican lawmakers of being afraid of the NRA, despite the fact that the NRA’s political contributions are a tiny fraction of that of other organizations.

The problem with President Trump’s scenario is three-fold.

1. In Parkland the local authorities in the form of the Broward County Sheriff’s Department not only didn’t even TRY to go through the proper legal procedure, but ignored more than two dozen calls warning that the future shooter was dangerous.

2. The Bill of Rights is non-negotiable. They aren’t there to protect people when it is convenient. It is there to protect innocent citizens from having their rights trampled on by the government, which is exactly what the President seems to have been proposing. The President’s statement, while possibly having been made in the heat of the moment, was to the left of many Democrats, and gives credence to many of the accusations of being a wannabe tyrant.

3. This creates huge political and electoral problems for the President. In a mid-term election year, even Democrats outside of New York and California will run away from gun control knowing they cannot get re-elected if they anger their blue-collar and middle class constituents by trampling on their right to self-defense. Further, the President just yesterday announced his re-election bid and his campaign manager for that effort. In order to win re-election the President will need significantly more votes than he received in 2016 since Democrats are not likely to stay home in the numbers they did the last time. While many who refused to vote for Trump last time have been impressed with many of the things he’s done thus far (myself included) the President can forget winning in 2020 if he attacks the 2nd Amendment in any way.

Republicans reactions across the country were decidedly skeptical.

Shane Hazel, running for the GOP nomination in the Georgia 7th, said, “I will always uphold the Constitution and Americans’ inalienable, God-given right to protect themselves, their families, and property as they see fit and fight for their right to due process.”

When asked for his opinion, Austin Petersen, running for the GOP nomination for Senate to run against Claire McCaskill, a holder of an “F” rating from the NRA, said, “That’s not how the 5th Amendment works, and that’s not how due process works.”

THE TAKEAWAY

The President has done some damage to himself today, and he needs to walk this back right away. Suffice it to say Sarah Huckabee Sanders will have her work cut out for her tomorrow. His people had already walked back his previous statements on wanting to raise the age to buy long guns to 21, but this new gaffe may be harder to spin. 2nd Amendment advocates are rarely single-issue voters, but you CAN lose their votes if you go against gun rights. A Republican going against gun rights has the same chance of being elected as a Democrat who comes out against welfare. President Trump’s team has some serious damage control to do on this issue, and considering Trump’s long history of not exactly being the most pro-gun man in the world, he can’t afford any more gaffes on this.

 

Benjamin Wilhelm served as a commissioned officer in the United States military for 10 years, serving one combat tour in Afghanistan. He is a recipient of the Bronze Star and Combat Action Badge among other military awards. Ben has worked in a variety of private sector businesses both large and small. He is a former military and civilian firearms instructor and an advocate for veterans issues. Ben is a strict Constitutionalist who sees the Federal government as an out of control leviathan, and the federal debt as a burden that will break the country. Ben is a divorced father of two boys.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Public Citizen

    February 28, 2018 at 9:20 pm

    #2 is a mis-characterization of the Nature of the Bill of Rights
    The Bill of Rights is intended to hedge about the Federal Government a fence, the crossing of which triggers reprisals by the States and the Citizenry.
    It isn’t a “granting of rights” to the citizens but a ~statement~ that these Rights Are Among Those That Are Inalienable, and not subject to the control or regulation by ~any~ government authority.
    As to POTUS Trump’s statement, it is either a very disturbing warning or an example of something that Trump has demonstrated great skill with in the past, that being the utterance of a statement that serves to smoke out the opposition and demonstrates what their true position and objectives are.

  2. ed

    March 1, 2018 at 2:24 pm

    Trump’s true positions have been exposed on numerous occasions through his own unsolicited words in both tweets and interviews.

    As a result, as a life-long Republican voter and staunch conservative, my votes in 2018 and 2020 will be for anyone that opposes Trump and his agenda – even if that means voting for the Democrat (any Democrat) that will oppose Trump).

    The constant media kow-towing to and brown-nosing for Trump as well as Trump’s “unofficial” thought-police (red-cappers) spreading hatred and division have convinced me that Trump and all those that support him need to removed from office and positions of power at any cost.

    Only with the removal of Trump and the cancer that he has encouraged and supported within the GOP (OR with the creation of a new 3rd party) can a viable opposition to the leftist ideology emerge on our national stage.

    Trump is nothing more than the progressive movement’s maintaining their corrupt control of our federal government (with the apparent aid of Russian and Chinese agents and money). Removal of that influence is a pre-requisite for any growth or return to US civility which is itself a pre-requisite to US ascendency and regaining our lost US culture.

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

The real reason Ocasio-Cortez is afraid of the press

Published

on

The real reason Ocasio-Cortez is afraid of the press

For at least the second time, reporters were barred from covering an event featuring Socialist Democratic darling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The campaign’s reason: we want attendees to feel comfortable since there’s so much national press covering her.

This is an absolutely ridiculous excuse, of course. Nobody goes to a campaign event without knowing the press will (should) be there. It doesn’t make them less comfortable and may actually give some a sense of security knowing the answers to their questions will be judged by more than the audience at hand. That’s one of the reasons for the press in the first place, to give information about an event to people who cannot attend.

Instead, the press is getting another roadblock:

Ocasio-Cortez bans press from covering campaign event

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/17/ocasio-cortez-bans-press-from-covering-campaign-event.htmlAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic socialist star running for New York’s 14th congressional district, is facing criticism after her campaign banned journalists from covering a town hall meeting with voters this week.

The Queens Chronicle, a local news outlet, reported that the campaign for the 28-year-old progressive prevented reporters from attending a campaign event in Corona on Sunday, even though it was open to the rest of the public. The campaign reportedly barred reporters from a prior event as well.

It’s conspicuous that a local publication was barred because it runs contrary to the narrative the campaign is trying to sell. So why is she being hidden from reporters at these types of events?

My Take

It’s clear that her exposure is her best friend and worst enemy. Being talked about is a politician’s best friend on the campaign trail, but it also offers a risk of failure. This is most common in events like the town hall meetings she is holding because she’ll be forced to think on her feet.

What if she can’t think on her feet? What if her answers when placed in an unscripted situation the type of answers many would expect from an inexperienced socialist?

Until she’s ready to handle the pressure of having press cover these events, she won’t be ready to hold public office at this level. The House of Representatives isn’t for people who need to be protected from their own answers.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Bettie Cook Scott is a racist politician. And she’s a Democrat.

Published

on

Bettie Cook Scott is a racist politician And shes a Democrat

Racism is owned by the Republican Party. That’s the narrative the press and their handlers, the Democratic Party, wants America to believe. Someone forgot to get that memo to Michigan state representative Bettie Cook Scott.

Detroit Rep. Bettie Cook Scott on Asian opponent: ‘Don’t vote for the ching-chong!’

https://www.metrotimes.com/news-hits/archives/2018/08/16/detroit-rep-bettie-cook-scott-on-asian-opponent-dont-vote-for-the-ching-chongMore than a dozen community groups have called on Rep. Bettie Cook Scott (D-Detroit) to apologize for a series of racial slurs sources say she used to describe her primary election opponent, Rep. Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit).

Scott is alleged to have referred to Chang as “ching-chang” and “the ching-chong” to multiple voters outside polling precincts during last Tuesday’s election. She’s also said to have called one of Chang’s campaign volunteers an “immigrant,” saying “you don’t belong here” and “I want you out of my country.”

My Take

There are two important takeaways here. First is the hypocrisy surrounding Scott, a (formerly) rising star in the Michigan Democratic Party. If the comments she made were spoken by anyone other than a Democrat, the calls wouldn’t be for an apology. The press and social groups would be calling for her to step down and jump into a hole somewhere.

The second point is that in the real world, the one not seen through the lens of liberals and the media, racism exists everywhere. It is not owned by Republicans, conservatives, old people, white people, or any other classification. One can even make a valid argument that it’s no more prominent in the Republican Party than it is in the Democratic Party that supports groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter.

Racism must be eliminated from society. That will never happen as long as so many people naively believe it only exists in the minds of certain people on the political right. It exists everywhere. Accept that and we can work to make it stop.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Elizabeth Warren introduces dangerous anti-capitalist bill

Published

on

Elizabeth Warren introduces dangerous anti-capitalist bill

Elizabeth Warren made a big announcement this week in introducing her new bill called the “Accountable Capitalism Act.” Her bill aims to “eliminate skewed market objectives” and return America to an era in which “American corporations and American workers did well together.” It’s unclear when the utopia like conditions were according to Warren; however her website lists the 1980’s as the time period in which corporations shifted focus to maximizing shareholder returns. In any business college, it is taught that the job of a CEO is to maximize shareholder wealth. Senator Warren wants to shift this mentality with her new bill. In the statement on her website, she asserts that the “shift” has led to booming profits and less reinvestment into the companies themselves. She claims that wages have not increased despite booming corporate profits. Elizabeth Warren then moves to make the argument that the top 10% owns 84% of American stock and only 50% of households own stock. Thus, she claims, that this reinforces a cycle of the rich getting richer. This is a growing socialist sentiment that poor people, and even middle class, are incapable of affording stock. The main bullet points are outlined below. Read the text of the bill here.

Office of United State Corporations (more government!)

The bill creates a new administration within the Department of Commerce. Corporations earning more than $1 billion in revenue are required to obtain a charter from the federal government, per this new created office. The charter obligates these large corporations to consider the interests of all stakeholders. Failure to obtain this permit to exist results in loss of corporation, which in business terms mean, it would no longer be treated as a separate entity. Therefore there would be no liability protection. The Director of this office would be a Presidential appointee and requires Senate confirmation. The term last four years. Warren seeks to create a new and powerful tentacle of the Federal government.

Employee Chosen Board of Director

Employees, not shareholders, will have the ability to choose no less than 40% of a company’s board of director. This bullet point is perhaps the most ridiculous and anti-capitalist. Company boards serve to set goals for the company. The board is usually chosen by investors. In the world of private investment, the board of directors is a bargaining chip for control of the company, as opposed to just percentage of stock. Warren’s bill doesn’t outright say it, but she wants unions to control company boards. Meaning instead of the company’s interest, the board will be powerful weapon of the union. Boards start out as founding members, investors and their appointees, and neutral parties because entrepreneurs and investors craft such interesting deals. Insisting that 40% must be elected by employees renders a board relatively useless for small investment worthy companies or inflates company boards well beyond what they should be for their size (ie small company with GM size board.) This will possibly lead to more empowered officers and weakened boards so that CEOs can perform their fiduciary responsibilities without a labor union threatening their disposal. This could also make companies more risk adverse because undoing mistakes, laying off workers, and other rainy day measures are now more difficult to undo. Ultimately this would empower worse CEOs, ones who aren’t as interested in shareholder wealth. The Securities and Exchange Commission along with the National Labor Relations Board are responsible for enforcing this part of the act, as further indication that this applies to all corporations. Stiff daily fines are to be imposed for failing to comply.

Government control of stock options

Elizabeth Warren claims top executives are compensated mostly with stock options. Her bill restricts these executives ability to sell their shares for five years so that they can focus on long term company success. Basically these executive will be given stock, but will have no real ownership of that stock. This would be the government restricting private property. These types of issues are best left to corporations and shareholders who already impose vesting periods to ensure the same exact goal.

Supermajority for political expenditures (not for unions)

This is a jab at Citizens United because Elizabeth Warren and others are butthurt about the outcome of a critical first amendment case Supreme Court case. It forces company shareholders to vote in order for a corporation to make any political expenditures. It imposes a 75% supermajority threshold. Conspicuously absent from this requirement are labor unions.

Revoking of charter

The corporate charter resembles a “rule of club” for large companies. If they don’t meet the requirements of their charter or have a history of illegal activity, they will have their corporation status removed in time. The question is how political will the enforcement of these charters be? Will there be a separate set of rules for democrats and republicans? If the rest of government is any indication, the answer is clearly foreshadowed.

Closing Thoughts

The socialist movement wants to fundamentally change the purpose of starting a business and running a company. This would most certainly lead to lower caliber CEOs. The bill makes no mention of labor unions yet it’s intentions are clearly to empower them in companies that still allow them and to create politics in organizations that do not. This ideas pressed fourth in this bill are sure to gain traction, just as “Medicare For All” became a socialist rallying point. It brings about questions of how business literate politicians like Senator Warren are? Do they fundamentally misunderstand what a corporation is, or do they not care? The bill aims to reduce a shareholder’s power and return on investment which will only hurt our economic growth. While Elizabeth Warren’s bill isn’t socialist, it is heavily anti-capitalist.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.