Connect with us

Politics

Like Hillary, Trump finds phone security “too inconvenient” to worry about

Published

on

During the presidential debates, Donald Trump routinely attacked Hillary Clinton for using a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. Though he changed his mind after winning the election, Trump went so far as to promise the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate her illegal activity.

With chants of “lock her up” echoing through the adoring crowds attending his rallies, Trump often reminded his supporters that Hillary’s email-server scandal was likely criminal due to the serious threat it posed to national security.

Hillary’s “extremely careless” behavior, as the FBI called it, proved to be a valid concern. During their investigation, the FBI confirmed that Hillary’s email servers, as well as her cell-phones, were repeatedly targeted by hackers. Due to the lack of proper security features, the hackers may have had some success.

Concern over Hillary’s threat to national security was well justified, which is why a recent story in Politico about Donald Trump should create the same concern where have recently learned that the Tweeter-in-Chief is using cell-phone equipment that creates the same threat to national security.

According to senior officials in the White House, Trump is using a cell-phone that isn’t equipped with the vital security features considered necessary to protect him from hacking or surveillance.

Trump uses two iPhones—one for voice calling and one for his Twitter fixation—and aids have urged him to swap out the Twitter phone on a monthly basis. However, Trump has rejected these security-check requests, calling them “too inconvenient” to comply with, which is the same excuse used by Hillary when her cell-phone equipment was investigated by the FBI.

Apparently, Trump often goes up to five months between security checks on his Twitter phone. It’s unknown how often Trump’s voice phone is swapped out, but since it has a camera and a microphone, it makes Trump susceptible to hackers who can use those features to monitor his movements.

Trump has the authority, of course, to override or ignore the advice of his staff on this issue but doing so is irresponsible and creates a national security risk. Just like Hillary!

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His politically incorrect and always “right” columns are also featured on NOQReport.com and TheResurgent.com.

His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is 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

Culture and Religion

What’s at stake: Nancy ‘Slippery Slope’ Pelosi wants to control your property

Published

on

By

What's at stake: Nancy ‘Slippery Slope’ Pelosi wants to control your property

Mrs. Hope for a slippery slope has promised the critical step to gun confiscation – Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.]

Anyone paying attention to the Left’s ongoing war on Liberty should take notice of the Red flag Nancy ‘Slippery slope’ Pelosi just ran up the pole. She stated that so-called universal background checks would be among Democrats’ top priorities if the party wins control of the House in the midterm elections. These are in essence, government controls over property, despite the emptional spin placed on them.

Government Control of property has no Constitutional Justification.

For starters, the national socialist Left doesn’t have the authority to control private property in this way, referring to the words of the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Try as we might, we couldn’t find the words ‘Government Control of Property’ in the founding documents. In point of fact, the opposite is quite the case. Even if it’s an item the Left considers to be ‘scary’ or dangerous.

Then consider this portion of the 5th amendment:

“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.”

A requirement for one to get government permission to exchange one’s possessions would in effect set the government as the owner of that property. This in effect would constitute one being deprived of that property – this being explicitly prohibited by the founding documents.

Still further, consider the spirit of the 4th amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

A requirement for governmental permission for any type of exchange of property would most assuredly violate the 4th amendment. Again, control of property directly equates to ownership of said property. Government controls with Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] would be ownership of said property.

Presumption of Innocence.

Then of course the reason that a strict government requirement of this type would presume that someone is guilty of being some sort of miscreant in the eyes of the Left [Being a gun owner and all..] So one would have to prove that isn’t the case before exercising a basic human and Constitutional right.

Finally of course, this would also violate the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It should be logically easy to see that requiring government permission to exercise a Constitutional right would be an infringement of it. In many ways, Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] could take the record for the most violations of the people’s Constitution rights to date.

The Precursor to Confiscation.

We’ve already proven that the national socialist Left desperately wants to ban and confiscate guns. There have been over 70 different instances in the past few years where they have openly made this demand.

This should readily explain to everyone why they obsess over a step that will do nothing for security, but everything for control over our Liberty. Their Holy Grail is to be able to send a threatening letter to every gun owner [or supposed gun owner] demanding that they turn them over for destruction.

Incremental Liberty Control.

A few years ago when the Liberty grabbers felt they had the wind at their back, with that mindset they were open and honest about how they would go about banning and confiscating guns.

First off they talked about it’s not being an overnight process as being a good thing since incrementalism is key. A massive change would mean non-compliance, so a ‘Progressive’ approach would put in place the means for confiscation over time, beginning with: Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.]

They began with a call for a national registry – they need to know who owns the guns and where they are, then:

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

So the process of registration for gun confiscation starts with making ‘private sales illegal’. Yes, in a nation that values property rights, they want to make it illegal for one to exercise those rights.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that “lost” them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn’t. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Interesting that they use the phrase Red flag’. Now after they have their lists of gun owners they start cracking down on gun owners, raiding those who don’t comply with their edicts.

So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported.

‘we can do what we will’ isn’t that just lovely? This from people who want the law enforcement to raid anyone who may have a few guns.

The Takeaway.

Everyone should be mindful of two very important points in all of this. Intergalactic Background Checks [Universal, Enhanced, etc.] will do nothing to solve a problem caused by the nation’s Socialist-Left in the first place – the destruction of the family and moral underpinnings. But whether it solves the problem is irrelevant to the Left, It is but one crucial step to their final solution to the gun problem.

Those unfamiliar with this issue may wonder why the Liberty grabbers tend to obsess over this one item in their agenda over all others. It should be obvious that this sets them on the road to registration and then confiscation.

 

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Democrats are right about Trump’s actions but wrong about his motives

Published

on

Democrats are right about Trumps actions but wrong about his motives

Donald Trump sent out a tweet over the weekend accusing Democrats of being “obstructionists” on the issue of so-called immigration reform. According to Trump, this is causing “needless pain and suffering” while creating the conditions responsible for the “horrors taking place on the Border.”

Besides being a blatant example of how Trump and the GOP have turned the politics of distraction into an art form, his blame game is a lie — at least, where the “horrors” on the border are concerned — because Trump has full constitutional power to stop the border invasion without Congress.

So, why perpetrate the lie that the border problem is not his fault? It could be, and most likely is, Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution and his blame-everyone-but-himself narcissism. In this case, however, I think there’s more to it.

I believe we are also witnessing Trump’s adaptation of the “never let a crisis go to waste” Saul Alinsky-inspired rule perfected by the Obama administration. Trump uses the border “crisis,” which he promised to fix and could fix if he wanted, to orchestrate a political advantage for himself by spreading the lie that the “horrors” at the border are the Democrats’ fault.

Meanwhile, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi have their own theory concerning Trump’s motivation. They believe he’s trying to put the focus on immigration as a way to “change the subject” away from health care.

Considering the fact that Trump and the GOP have failed to repeal Obamacare as promised, I can see how “Chuck and Nancy” might reach that conclusion. However, they’re incorrect because the NY Liberal in the White House and his swamp buddies in Congress are all-in with the Democrats on the healthcare issue.

Earlier this month, I wrote a piece about an op-ed allegedly written by Trump where he decried the Democrat Party’s call for “Medicare for all” — which is Washingtonese for single-payer — while promising to protect Medicare and parts of Obamacare. He doubled down on this commitment a few days ago.

Despite promising for the fourth election in a row to really, really repeal Obamacare if voters let them keep their majority, Republicans have assumed complete ownership of Obamacare. And when you add that reality to the inevitable expansion of Medicare, the creation of single-payer, government-run socialized health care is guaranteed, which has been the goal of Obamacare from the very start.

Heck, there’s even a movement within the GOP to advance single-payer as the conservative answer to the health care crisis.

The sad reality of today’s Republican party is that it has been transformed into the Trumplican Party. Equally sad is how so-called conservatives have become Trumpservatives whose betrayal of conservative values is so obvious, they aren’t even hiding it anymore.

Democrats are right about Trump using the immigration problem as a way to change the subject, but they’re wrong about what’s motivating him to do so. He isn’t doing it to avoid the Democrats’ goal of single-payer, government-run socialized health care … he and the GOP love it just as much as they do.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is 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

Democrats

Left vs Right: Is there really a legitimacy crisis in the courts?

Published

on

Left vs Right Is there really a legitimacy crisis in the courts

The 9th Circuit Court has some vacancies and President Trump has made nominations to fill those holes. This bypass of traditional norms comes after a Supreme Court confirmation process that deviated from many norms. Senator Feinstein was undoubtedly culpable for that. In recent weeks, the Left talks a lot about the legitimacy of the courts. In fact, to them the confirmations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh represent a crisis for the legitimacy of our nation’s highest court. Michael Tomaski at the New York Times writes:

And if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh soon, the vote is likely to fall along similar lines, meaning that we will soon have two Supreme Court justices who deserve to be called “minority-majority”: justices who are part of a five-vote majority on the bench but who were nominated and confirmed by a president and a Senate who represent the will of a minority of the American people.

See, Tomaski doesn’t seem to realize, in his calculations, that the 17th Amendment wasn’t always a thing. The Senate was never intended to represent the will of the people. It was intended to represent the will of the states. Therefore is metric of legitimacy is entirely unfounded in our nation’s history, a complete creation of a leftist melting down over Kavanaugh. He continues to implode on this these premises.:

But I implore you to take a moment to be angry about all this, too. This is a severe legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court.

The court, as Professor McMahon notes, was intended never to stray far from the mainstream of American political life. The fact that justices represented that mainstream and were normally confirmed by lopsided votes gave the court’s decisions their legitimacy. It’s also why past chief justices worked to avoid 5-4 decisions on controversial matters: They wanted Americans to see that the court was unified when it laid down a major new precedent.

But now, in an age of 5-4 partisan decisions, we’re on the verge of having a five-member majority who figure to radically rewrite our nation’s laws. And four of them will have been narrowly approved by senators representing minority will.

But of course, this talk is hardly the result of Kavanaugh whom they will paint a vehemently partisan judge. Neil Gorsuch is the thief on the stolen seat, and Merrick Garland is an angel perfectly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Nevermind that Merrick Garland failed a basic reading comprehension in DC v Heller. Trump and Cocaine Mitch defiled the norms, the latest norm being blue-slipping.

Initial Story

Fox News: Trump snubs Feinstein, Harris to nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

President Trump is plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, brushing aside Democratic resistance to nominate conservative judges.

Presidents traditionally work with senators from judicial nominees’ home state — in this case, California — to put forward judicial picks. They often seek what’s known as a “blue slip,” or an opinion from those senators.

But in a snub to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, the White House announced Wednesday that Trump had nominated Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) to the influential circuit. The court, with a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against the travel ban and limits on funding to “sanctuary cities.”

GOP critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Any working relationship is likely only to have soured further after Harris and Feinstein led the charge on the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In particular, Trump and Republicans accused Feinstein of withholding information about an allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh until after the hearings were over. Both Feinstein and Harris voted against Kavanaugh’s nomination, joined by all but one Democratic senator.

Solutions of the Left

Fake Conservative of the Washington Post Jennifer Rubin has this much to say about “salvaging” the Supreme Court.

In some respect, the fix for the Supreme Court is the same as the fix for our politics — leveling a right-wing populist party that abhors democratic norms and building a center-left to center-right coalition. (Some structural reforms such as ranked voting, eliminating gerrymandering and automatic voter registration would help.)

Basically, get rid of Conservatism. But at least she knows that 17th Amendment exists. This is a simplistic petty fantasy of a solution. Then there is the age old progressive trick to stack the courts. What failed under FDR, is now table talk once again. Socialist online publication, Jacobinmag, writes an apocalyptic defense of court packing. Note: he thinks the New Deal worked.

And this is the important point: with union density near an all-time low and climate catastrophe on the horizon, future lawmakers will need tools even more robust than what FDR was able to get through — think a Green NIRA on steroids. A handful of justices pulled from Federalist Society debating clubs can’t and shouldn’t get in the way of a more democratic and sustainable economy.

A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past. With inequality and human rights abuses spiraling upward and justices making it all worse, the time to begin mainstreaming an enlarged Court is now.

Ultimately, the Left’s arguments for court packing openly admit that they do not care for the process of interpreting the law or the intent of the US Constitution. They see the court as a means to protect their agenda. Take court packing argument from The Outline:

We cannot lose sight of one simple point. We — those of us left of center, who believe that the role of the courts should be to protect the weak from the powerful and not the other way around — are right and conservatives are wrong.

The New Republic isn’t as petty but they believe that the court should have a more democratic representation

Court-packing is bad, but allowing an entrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party that refuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable or democratically legitimate, either.

Final Thoughts

The 9th Circuit Court has a terrible batting average with when it comes to the Supreme Court upholding their rulings. And that batting average is sure to crumble even lower seeing that the next SCOTUS session has multiple cases where the 9th Circuit Court is in conflict with the rulings of other appellate courts. If any court isn’t legitimate, it’s the ultra left 9th Circuit Court. Yet the issue of the Supreme Court reveals a substantially different view of the Court’s duties. The Left, dating back to FDR, believes that the Court’s job is to uphold their agenda. Don’t take my word for it, take theirs. In contrast, Conservatives believe that the court should uphold the Constitution in its original form. These are the foundations for which one from either side would determine a legitimacy crisis.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report