web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

CNN’s Jake Tapper Gets Fact-Checked On Air By Joe Kennedy

Westlake Legal Group jake-tapper-620x349 CNN’s Jake Tapper Gets Fact-Checked On Air By Joe Kennedy sham Senate scif republicans Politics media bias joe kennedy Jake Tapper Intel Committee impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Fact Check democrats CNN clown bias Allow Media Exception adam schiff

CNN’s Jake Tapper has always held a special place in the hearts of some conservatives. Desperate to feel like part of the club, a certain sect on the right long for his retweets and snarky acceptance. Even when he steps out of bounds, they lay off just to be sure to not burn any precious bridges. Because of this they paint a mythical picture of Tapper just being a straight news guy. Never mind his long history of partisanship or the fact that he’s a Democrat, by golly he’s fair.

Sen. Joe Kennedy was on Tapper’s show yesterday and got a taste of his fairness. It ended in Tapper making a ludicrous claim and getting fact-checked.

The Daily Caller provides some excerpts.

“But the Senate intelligence committee, run by your colleague Republican Senator Richard Burr, also has a great many hearings and depositions completely in private,” Tapper said. “Completely in private.”

“That’s true,” Kennedy nodded. “That’s true.”

“And Democrats are allowed to participate …” Tapper continued.

“That is classified information,” Kennedy interrupted. “They are dealing with classified information.”

“Not everything,” said the CNN anchor.

I want to stop here because you’d think a newsman like Tapper would understand the difference between the Senate Intel Committee, which by definition deals with classified intelligence, and an “impeachment inquiry,” which is political by its very definition. You know what else the Senate Intel Committee doesn’t do? Selectively leak from every interview in order to push a public, partisan narrative.

Tapper might have an argument if Schiff weren’t leaking like a sieve to bolster his political position. The claim that things must be kept secret, even while these leaks occur doesn’t pass the smell test. Has Tapper asked Schiff during one his near hourly CNN hits why it’s acceptable for a 15 page opening statement to end up in the public domain but not the other 10 hours of testimony which contain all the context? Of course he hasn’t.

Eventually, Joe Kennedy would set the record straight.

“Almost all of it is,” said Kennedy. “There is no classified information here.”

The fact that Tapper was even trying to make that line of argument shows how biased he is. The fact is that absolutely nothing Schiff is doing in the SCIF requires secrecy. There is no classified information being exchanged or studied. He’s using the SCIF as a political shield and the media are happy to play along. Trying to compare that to the Senate Intel Committee is just disingenuous on its face.

Tapper was crying last weekend because Republicans were refusing to come on his show. I can’t imagine why they would with this kind of interviewing, right?

Impeachment is literally the attempted removal of a duly elected President from office. There’s a reason the historical precedent is to keep it as transparent as possible, vote on rules, and allow the minority certain powers. What Schiff is perpetrating is a travesty and deserves to be called out, not excused by hacks like Tapper.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post CNN’s Jake Tapper Gets Fact-Checked On Air By Joe Kennedy appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-2-300x168 CNN’s Jake Tapper Gets Fact-Checked On Air By Joe Kennedy sham Senate scif republicans Politics media bias joe kennedy Jake Tapper Intel Committee impeachment Front Page Stories Front Page Fact Check democrats CNN clown bias Allow Media Exception adam schiff   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons

Westlake Legal Group hillary-clinton-pointing-harvard-620x317 Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons white people Politics media bias lynch mob lynch Jerry Nadler impeachment Hillary Clinton Harry Reid Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats CNN Bill Clinton bias Allow Media Exception

Hillary Clinton points to the audience as she is introduced at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., Friday, May 25, 2018. Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute honored Clinton with the 2018 Radcliffe Medal. (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)

While it’s hard to keep up with all the freak-outs constantly percolating within our media establishment, one of the latest involves Donald Trump using the term “lynch” to describe the secret impeachment investigation they are carrying out. This came as part of his frustration with the Democrats refusing to take a vote and shutting off all minority rights for Republicans, something that’s unprecedented.

My colleague streiff wrote on it earlier today. Here’s the tweet in question.

This of course led to all manner of gnashing of teeth. How could the President use such a historically charged word!

Of course, a little digging has turned up the reality that Democrats have used the term “lynch” in its various forms (lynch mob, lynching, etc.) many times. It’s pretty laughable just how prevalent their use of the word has been throughout the years. Worse, they did so specifically decrying impeachment, the very thing Trump is decrying. You can’t make this stuff up.

Check it out.

Here’s Joe Biden in all his double talking glory.

And while it wasn’t specifically on impeachment, this hilarious shot and chaser also exists for your viewing pleasure.

That’s CNN’s Brian Stelter clone fretting at the use of the word lynching to describe a Congressional proceeding. The only problem is that CNN called the Benghazi hearings…a lynching.

I think you could call this hypocrisy, right?

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group hillary-red-AP-300x200 Apparently Every Democrat In Existence Used the Term “Lynching” To Defend The Clintons white people Politics media bias lynch mob lynch Jerry Nadler impeachment Hillary Clinton Harry Reid Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats CNN Bill Clinton bias Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Another Federal Judge Spits In the Face of the Supreme Court

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-1-620x414 Another Federal Judge Spits In the Face of the Supreme Court Supreme Court Politics partisan immigration Front Page Stories Front Page federal judge Featured Story Emergency Delcaration El Paso donald trump democrats Clinton appointee Border wall bias Allow Media Exception

In this Saturday, Jan. 6, 2018, photo, Texas Democratic Congressman Beto O’Rourke, right, passes a “No Border Wall” sign during a visit to the National Butterfly Center in Mission, Texas, a possible location for a border wall. O’Rourke is forsaking a safe seat in Congress and a rising-star career for the longest of odds in an attempt to unseat Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. O’Rourke says that after Donald Trump was elected president, he decided he had to do more in politics than stay put in the House. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Stop me if you’ve seen this movie before.

Another federal judge has decided that Trump building a border wall through his emergency declaration is illegal. This came from Judge David Briones, a Clinton appointee (shocked face). His reasoning is as specious as the first judge that tried this.

Another federal judge ruled against President Trump’s use of a “national emergency” declaration to divert funds for the construction of a border wall on Friday, finding the use of an emergency proclamation “unlawful” because it violated a Congressional budgeting measure from January.

“The Congressional language in the [bill] reveals Congress’s intent to limit the border barrier funding,” wrote Judge David Briones, who was appointed to the federal District Court for the Western District of Texas by former President Bill Clinton.

There’s so much wrong when you drill down into this.

First, how does El Paso County and an activist group (who are the plaintiffs here) have standing to challenge federal agencies using federal funds on federal land? The simple answer is that there’s no legal reason they have standing. Yet, this judge decided they did based on the laughable notion that El Paso County would suffer “damage to their reputation.” By such a standard, anyone could have standing in any lawsuit against the federal government. It’s just ludicrous.

The Supreme Court has already slapped down a judge earlier this summer for an equally ridiculous ruling, which bounced back and forth between the 9th circuit originally. In it, the issue of standing came up, as it was yet another activist group doing the suing. The highest court has already ruled that Trump’s use of the emergency declaration is lawful and the gyrations of this judge don’t change that.

In the end, this will make it’s way up the change and be overturned. But until Chief Justice John Roberts stops sitting on his hands, lower court judges will continue to spit in his face and gum up the judicial system with unsupported rulings such as this. Allowing this ruling to stand for even a day is an affront to our system. It’s not enough to let this spend months going through the system. The Supreme Court should immediately overrule this and then take away the ability for district court judges to make national injunctions.

Meanwhile, the wall keeps going up, whether these rogue judges like it or not.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post Another Federal Judge Spits In the Face of the Supreme Court appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-border-wall-300x186 Another Federal Judge Spits In the Face of the Supreme Court Supreme Court Politics partisan immigration Front Page Stories Front Page federal judge Featured Story Emergency Delcaration El Paso donald trump democrats Clinton appointee Border wall bias Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Report: Ukraine whistleblower had a professional tie to a Democratic presidential candidate

Westlake Legal Group as-2 Report: Ukraine whistleblower had a professional tie to a Democratic presidential candidate whistleblower The Blog republicans democratic byron york bias atkinson

An intriguing scoop, although the fact that this vague clue to the guy’s identity is being leaked by Republicans to Byron York helps explain why Dems are convinced the whistleblower will be outed in a nanosecond after he testifies unless his identity is concealed somehow.

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower’s part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday’s impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower’s possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year’s election.

“The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” said one person with knowledge of what was said…

“What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential candidate,” said a third person with knowledge of what was said.

One obvious possibility is that the unnamed Democratic presidential candidate is Joe Biden himself. If you think this matter is a clusterfark now, imagine if it turns out that the guy who complained to the IG about Trump trying to jumpstart an investigation of the Bidens once … worked for Biden. That’s the most likely bet too, no? Biden spent decades in the Senate and eight years as VP, when he would have interacted with all sorts of intelligence personnel. There’s no one in the Democratic field (at least the top tier) who’s more likely to have had a “professional connection” to someone in the intel bureaucracy than Grandpa Joe.

There’s a less obvious possibility but one with similarly interesting political consequences. What if the whistleblower worked with or for one of Biden’s chief rivals, whether Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren? A “registered Democrat” (as the whistleblower reportedly is) would have a partisan reason to damage Trump no matter what, but offering Biden as the victim in a story about Trump leaning on a foreign government to investigate an opponent would risk creating sympathy for Joe among Democratic voters. Not an obvious move if you’re a Warren or Sanders supporter.

Question: Unless the unnamed candidate is one of the big three, in which case the question of bias sharpens up, does the whistleblower’s relationship with someone in the field matter? It matters potentially, I think, if it turns out the whistleblower was working in a political role for that person, e.g., if they volunteered for Cory Booker’s Senate campaign, say. That would suggest that they’re not just a registered Democrat, they’re passionate about politics. Passionate people are more prone to bias. But if it turns out the whistleblower was some sort of CIA liaison to Booker’s Senate office or whatever, well, so what? What do we glean from that? Remember, for what it’s worth, Atkinson says his investigation of the complaint confirmed that the allegations are credible. Being a member of the wrong party doesn’t mean you’re necessarily lying.

There’s other whistleblower news this afternoon. Hmmmm:

A White House official who listened to President Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s leader described it as “crazy,” “frightening,” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security,” according to a memo written by the whistle-blower at the center of the Ukraine scandal, a C.I.A. officer who spoke to the White House official.

The White House official was “visibly shaken by what had transpired,” the C.I.A. officer wrote in his memo, one day after Mr. Trump pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in a July 25 phone call to open investigations that would benefit him politically…

“The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official’s view, the president had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own re-election bid in 2020,” the C.I.A. officer wrote.

Is it John Bolton? Please say it’s John Bolton.

A few obvious questions about this. One: Is the “visibly shaken” White House official the same person who’s now come forward as the second whistleblower? Whistleblower #2 is alleged to have firsthand knowledge of some of Trump’s conduct towards Ukraine. Listening in on the call would fit the bill.

Two: How high up in the food chain is this person? Not just everyone gets to listen in on the president’s calls, especially a call in which POTUS intended to lean on the president of Ukraine for help with investigating the Bidens.

Three: Was there more to the call than what was relayed by the official White House quasi-transcript? Questions have been raised about the use of ellipses at key points in that document. Did Trump say something to “frighten” this official that didn’t make it into the transcript?

Four: How many other White House officials, lawyers included, came to the conclusion that the president might have broken the law with what he said to Zelensky? A key Republican defense of Trump during an impeachment trial will be that, however shady his behavior may be, it simply doesn’t amount to “high crime or misdemeanor” — or even a crime of any kind. If there are people in the White House itself who know what was said and who disagree with that judgment, that’s hugely helpful to Democrats. “Trump did commit a crime,” they’ll say. “Just ask his own advisors who were there.”

This also helps show, though, why it doesn’t matter *that* much who the whistleblower is. No one’s removing Trump from office based on something some guy heard secondhand from someone else. The point of the Democratic investigation is to find out who this “frightened” White House official is and convince that person to testify. Senate Republicans aren’t ousting the president over hearsay but there’s at least a hypothetical chance they’d oust him if they heard from a primary witness who said, “I was there, I heard the whole thing, and it was worse than you can imagine.”

The post Report: Ukraine whistleblower had a professional tie to a Democratic presidential candidate appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group as-2-300x153 Report: Ukraine whistleblower had a professional tie to a Democratic presidential candidate whistleblower The Blog republicans democratic byron york bias atkinson   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Media Got Almost Everything Wrong Leading Up to The Release of the Trump-Ukraine Transcript

Westlake Legal Group fake-news-1024x578-620x350 The Media Got Almost Everything Wrong Leading Up to The Release of the Trump-Ukraine Transcript Ukraine Call transcript the washington post quid pro quo Nicole Wallace MSNBC media lies katy tur Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Debunked CNN bias

Being a mainstream “journalist” means never having to say you’re sorry.

In the lead up to the release of the transcript of the call between Trump and the Ukrainian President, we were told all kinds of things via anonymously sourced reports. Trump had made promises. Trump had offered a quid pro quo. Trump had threatened to withhold aid.

Here’s a sampling of some of the stuff that ended up not being true.

Ryan says “Democrats claimed here,” and that’s true, but it was the media who were putting out the reports Democrats were citing.

Here’s another one.

In short, nearly every single damning thing that was claimed prior to the transcript being released turned out to be not true. The only thing that was actually confirmed in the call was that 1) it took place and 2) that Biden was discussed, which Trump had never denied.

There was no “promise” made. Trump did not mention Biden eight separate times in order to apply immense pressure on Ukraine’s president. It’s simply not there in the transcript.

Hilariously, even after we’ve seen the call, The Wall Street Journal “stands by” it’s reporting on the eight mentions of Biden.

Just unbelievable. It’s literally not there in the call but they stand by it. Does that make sense to anyone?

As much as I’d love to chalk all this up to honest mistakes, it’s not. These reporters are mining sources they know are partisan and are more than willing to run to print with whatever ludicrous supposition some anonymous individual tells them. If it’s wrong, what do they care? There’s never any consequences. They can just move on to the next story and do the same thing again.

Case in point, this latest claim.

And look, I like Guy. He works for Townhall, one of our sister sites, and also does Fox News stuff. I’m not trying to pick on him. But at what point do you just wait before running with this stuff? What part of that story is even worth considering right now given how badly these same outlets failed us just a day earlier?

BTW, the “adviser” in that story? It’s this guy.

A hack who’s been feeding info to Fusion GPS going back to the 2016 election is not someone to be taking seriously when it comes to claims against Donald Trump. Especially when the Ukrainian president himself says there was no pressure applied and no such condition.

Heck, look at how the press is spinning the transcript itself, omitting entire pages in order to connect two disconnected points to claim a quid pro quo that’s not actually there.

Keep in mind, Alex Griswold is not a Trump guy. Not at all. Quite the contrary. But he sees through this nonsense.

MSNBC also did the above falsifying edit twice. None of this was by accident.

The bottom line question is why does anyone continue to take these outlets seriously? Is there no end to the line of credibility that will be extended to them? We keep pretending they have standards. They don’t have standards. They have narratives, nothing more.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post The Media Got Almost Everything Wrong Leading Up to The Release of the Trump-Ukraine Transcript appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group clown-shutterstock-300x199 The Media Got Almost Everything Wrong Leading Up to The Release of the Trump-Ukraine Transcript Ukraine Call transcript the washington post quid pro quo Nicole Wallace MSNBC media lies katy tur Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story elections donald trump democrats Debunked CNN bias   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Trump-Ukraine Story Turns On Its Head As the Intel IG Finds the “Whistle-Blower” Had “Political Bias” In Favor of a Trump Opponent

Westlake Legal Group DonaldTrumpAPphotoJune2019-620x317 The Trump-Ukraine Story Turns On Its Head As the Intel IG Finds the “Whistle-Blower” Had “Political Bias” In Favor of a Trump Opponent whistle-blower Ukraine Politics political bias media bias Intel IG inspector general Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats bias Backfire

President Donald Trump walks across the South Lawn as he arrives at the White House, Sunday, June 30, 2019, in Washington. Trump returns from a visit with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea as well as the G-20 summit in Osaka, Japan. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Has a story ever blown up this much in such a short period of time?

We are less than a week removed from accusations of Trump committing “treason” and panel discussions on him being executed. Things have turned in a massive way though. We found out there was no quid pro quo or threat of withholding aid in the call to Ukraine. While that originally was a marker laid down by House Democrats, they decided to move ahead with impeachment even in its absence.

Then, like he had planned it or something, Trump says “sure, I’ll release the transcript,” essentially calling their bluff. Was this all an elaborate trap? Or at the very least, did Trump take advantage of a situation that presented itself? It sure is starting to seem that way.

It’s getting worse for Democrats though. After Trump promised to release the transcript, the goalposts suddenly moved to needing the entire complaint even though it is likely nothing but third hand conjecture. What does Trump do? Instead of fighting them, he green-lights its release as well, signaling there’s nothing really there.

This feels like the Mueller report all over again, where Democrats and the media were sure it contained evidence of collusion. Then, unexpectedly, Trump didn’t end up claiming executive privilege over any of it. It turned out to be a total dud, made only worse by Mueller’s public testimony on the matter.

Now, a new report says that the Intel Inspector General who took the complaint found the whistle-blower had significant political bias in favor of a “rival candidate” of Trump. That will be included in his report.

“A senior Trump administration official told Fox News late Tuesday that the administration will release a document showing the intelligence community inspector general found the whistleblower who leveled an explosive accusation against President Trump concerning his talks with Ukraine had ‘political bias’ in favor of ‘a rival candidate’ of the president,” Fox News reported. “The official did not identify the name of the rival candidate. Separately, a senior administration official told Fox News the White House has been working as quickly as it can to release to Congress the whistleblower complaint involving President Trump’s conversations with the leader of Ukraine, as long as it’s legally possible.”

Westlake Legal Group giphy The Trump-Ukraine Story Turns On Its Head As the Intel IG Finds the “Whistle-Blower” Had “Political Bias” In Favor of a Trump Opponent whistle-blower Ukraine Politics political bias media bias Intel IG inspector general Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats bias Backfire

I’m not normally a believer in Trump being anything other than a bull in a china shop when it comes to his political moves, and in many ways, that’s served him well. But this sure feels like he’s playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers.

The moment Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry, they had campaign videos ready to go and Trump was on Twitter saying he’s releasing everything. He’s either about to incriminate himself or he’s just called their bluff in epic fashion. Right now, according to current reports about what’s actually in the complaint, the latter seems the most probable.

We may be witnessing the most savage troll in political history.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post The Trump-Ukraine Story Turns On Its Head As the Intel IG Finds the “Whistle-Blower” Had “Political Bias” In Favor of a Trump Opponent appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group a8636803-f428-4e76-ab5b-b516cf1d9e5e-300x153 The Trump-Ukraine Story Turns On Its Head As the Intel IG Finds the “Whistle-Blower” Had “Political Bias” In Favor of a Trump Opponent whistle-blower Ukraine Politics political bias media bias Intel IG inspector general Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats bias Backfire   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dave Chappelle and Big Tech Rotten Tomatoes: Everyone Is Biased About Everything

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-620x371 Dave Chappelle and Big Tech Rotten Tomatoes: Everyone Is Biased About Everything wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet Government Google Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy China California Business & Economy bias

My last actual gig prior to venturing out and founding Less Government – was at the Media Research Center (MRC).

I described MRCs toil as: “We work to expose and catalogue Leftist media bias.”  And then always added “We’re understaffed.”

But I have always held what I know was a minority perspective at the MRC.  On the media – and perhaps all humans everywhere.

MRC’s Mission Statement:

“To create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish.”

The MRC at least used to want to get back to the alleged halcyon days of unbiased journalism.

Except there was never any such thing as “unbiased journalism.”  Because human nature.  Humans – are biased.

CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite – was “The Most Trusted Man in America.”  And, we know now, a pronounced Leftist liar.

Because media culture is human culture – truth and liberty will never, ever flourish.  Personal perspectives on things – always will.

The Leftist perspective – has nigh always dominated the news media.

Right now, the Leftist perspective dominates the entertainment media and Hollywood.  But ’twas not always so – at least amongst the actors.

Before there was the heinousness of Rob Reiner and the beautiful ignorance of Alyssa Milano – there was the Golden Era of Tinsel Town.  When Ronald Reagan and John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart and Bob Hope – and many, many others – were huge stars…and conservative as the day is long.

But in all of this: One word you would never, ever use to describe any of these people – is “unbiased.”

Because humans – are biased.  Because human nature.

Humans do media – so media has been, is, and always will be biased.

When robots start doing journalism – they will reflect the biases of their programmers.

Speaking of media, Hollywood, Big Tech and pronounced bias….

Rotten Tomatoes Gives Dave Chappelle Special Zero Percent Rating

Dave Chappelle – is absolutely one of the funniest people alive.  Even if he simply came on stage and Bill Burr-style extruded a profanity-laced insult-fest of the city in which he was appearing – it would get something higher than…zero.

But you see – Chappelle’s “Sticks and Stones” special – is an actually funny thing.  (I know – I’ve watched it.)

Which means it draws humor from and pokes fun at – everyone.  And everyone – includes Leftists.

Rotten Tomatoes couldn’t let that go unchecked.  So Rotten Tomatoes – rigged their Chappelle rating:

“Chappelle’s latest hour-long stand-up set for Netflix received an extremely rare 0 percent Rotten Tomatoes rating from five professional critics….”

Wait – only “five professional critics?”  Rotten Tomatoes’ business model is – per their website:

“(T)he leading online aggregator of movie and TV show reviews from critics, we provide fans with a comprehensive guide to what’s Fresh – and what’s Rotten – in theaters and at home….

“The Tomatometer score – based on the opinions of hundreds of film and television critics – is a trusted measurement of critical recommendation for millions of fans.”

“Hundreds of…critics….”  So why was the entirety of the Chappelle review – limited to five obviously Leftist, pre-selected-by-Rotten-Tomatoes reviewers?

Because Rotten Tomatoes – is biased.  Because Rotten Tomatoes – is made up of humans.  In modern Hollywood and Big Tech – that means Leftist humans.

An important part of Rotten Tomatoes and its success – is serving as a place where We the Viewing Public can also rate what the “experts” rate.

When Rotten Tomatoes finally published the ratings of We the Viewing Public….:

“Rotten Tomatoes unveiled Chappelle’s special has received an equally rare 99 percent audience score.

“The high audience rating was the cumulative score from at least 3,753 casual reviewers who praised the comedian for daring to broach controversial topics that most comic stars have avoided in the era of ‘cancel culture.’

“Such a stark contrast among critics and regular viewers is almost unheard of and illustrates the wide cultural divide among the general public and media elites.”

This is…oh, I don’t know…about the nine millionth instance of Leftist Big Tech abusing their nigh-monopoly online platforms to screw anyone not in lockstep with their hard Leftism.

Of course, anecdotes of Big Tech Leftist bias – no matter if they number in the infinities – do not add up to data.

So one particular Leftist – delivered us the data on one particularly influential Leftist Big Tech function: Web Search.  How you get answers – when you ask the Internet questions.

Rotten Tomatoes rigging entertainment ratings is…bad.  But not fundamentally transformational of our politics – and thus our nation.

Leftist Big Tech rigging Web searches…is exceedingly awful.  In a great many ways – including politically.

And in 2018, 87.3% of all Web searches in the United States – took place via uber-Left, uber-huge Google (Market Cap: $851 billion).

So when you want to search the Web – you “Google” something.  Both rhetorically – and literally.

So when Google rigs things – they’re rigging nigh everything Americans see on the Web.

We all by our onesies have documented dozens and dozens of instances of Google (and other Big Tech joints) screwing conservatives.

But again, let’s get scientific.  Meet Dr. Robert Epstein – a self-avowed man of the Left.  I would not call him a Leftist – because he’s actually honest.

He’s been studying Big Tech’s political bias – for quite a while:

“Regarding elections, Dr. Epstein has found in multiple studies that search rankings that favor a political candidate drive the votes of undecided voters toward that candidate, an effect he calls SEME (“seem”), the Search Engine Manipulation Effect….

“(B)iased search rankings exercise undue influence over voter’s opinions – influence that cannot be counteracted by individual candidates but that can easily determine who will win a close election.”

Before Dr. Epstein did an in-depth study of Google manipulating voters and potential voters in the lead-up to the 2016 election – he called his shot:

How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election – August 19, 2015

Shocker – Google did.

In fact, Dr. Epstein’s study reveals – the election doesn’t even have to be close…to be transformationally affected by Google’s Leftist bias.

“In 2016, I set up the first-ever monitoring system that allowed me to look over the shoulders of a diverse group of American voters — there were 95 people in 24 states,” (Epstein) said….

“The study looked into ‘politically oriented searches’ from a ‘diverse group of American voters,’….

“‘I looked at politically oriented searches that these people were conducting on Google, Bing and Yahoo. I was able to preserve more than 13,000 searches and 98,000 web pages, and I found very dramatic bias in Google’s search results… favoring Hillary Clinton — whom I supported strongly.”

Again: The election doesn’t have to be close – to be won by Google:

“‘That level of bias was sufficient, I calculated, to have shifted over time somewhere between 2.6 and 10.4 million votes to Hillary without anyone knowing that this had occurred….’”

We have heard INCESSANTLY since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton – that she won the popular vote by about three million votes.  That popular-vote-Clinton-victory – has re-ginned-up the Left’s push to end the electoral college.

And it turns out that if 90%-of-US-Search Google hadn’t uber-rigged their results for Clinton – Trump most likely would have also won the popular vote.  Maybe by a lot.

And how did Google get so uber-huge?  So as to wield such huge, Leftist, stealth political power?

Government cronyism.

Platform, or Publisher?:

“Section 230 of the (1996) Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate ‘forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.’

“This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.”

Get that?  Google and the rest of Big Tech get this massive cronyism – so long as they do not act as “curators of acceptable opinion.”

But Google – and the rest of Big Tech – have done exactly that.  Trillions and trillions of times.

The accumulated tonnage of anecdotes – proves it.

Dr. Epstein’s in-depth study – documents it.

Big Tech is biased – because they’re human.  And human nature…trumps…all.

Thus legislation dependent upon humans not behaving like humans – is folly.

Thus Section 230 – has gots to go.

The post Dave Chappelle and Big Tech Rotten Tomatoes: Everyone Is Biased About Everything appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-300x180 Dave Chappelle and Big Tech Rotten Tomatoes: Everyone Is Biased About Everything wireless Wired Web Search washington D.C. Technology technolgy Section 230 satellite progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet Government Google Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy China California Business & Economy bias   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Poll: Over 70 Percent of Republican Students Stay Silent About Their Views Out of Fear for Their Grades

Westlake Legal Group AP_83464665887_resize-620x413 Poll: Over 70 Percent of Republican Students Stay Silent About Their Views Out of Fear for Their Grades university republicans professors Politics leftist Front Page Stories Featured Story fail college bias Allow Media Exception Academia

We know that academia is filthy with hard-left leaning professors and students, and it seems like college-aged Republicans are few and far between in academia. As it turns out, they’re not uncommon, they’re just incredibly quiet due to fears that if they’ll speak out, their professors will harm their grades.

According to The College Fix, an online poll from last month showed that Republican students kept their mouths shut about their beliefs by a whopping 73 percent:

The online poll was conducted in late August exclusively for The College Fix by College Pulse, an online survey and analytics company focused on college students. Only students who self-identify as Republican or Republican-leaning were polled.

The question asked: “Have you ever withheld your political views in class for fear that your grades would suffer?” Seventy-three percent of students who identity as “strong Republican” reported that they had, while 71 percent of students who identify as “weak Republican” said yes.

Even students who identify as Republican-leaning independents indicated they’ve kept quiet: 70 percent reported they have withheld their political views to protect their grades.

This is a sad ordeal. Higher education is supposed to be where your beliefs and understanding of things are tested, that is true, but not being able to express any beliefs out of fear is horrible.

Students were asked to make comments, and some of them are stories of being singled out by their professors who acted angrily toward them or witnessed a professor fail a student for having a right-leaning paper.

“I wrote a 19 page research paper on a Christian pro-life movement. I was the only one in the class that, when presenting my paper, had a “surprise visitor” (who was the teacher’s very liberal friend) argue [with] me about their views,” wrote a student from Western Kentucky University.

“I actually got yelled at by a professor for my views on gun control. It wasn’t an argument or anything, just plain one-sided insulting,” wrote another student from Notre Dame.

“When writing papers for gen ed classes? Absolutely. I know a guy who chose to write a pro-border wall argumentative essay for our super liberal professor and the prof just wrote “this whole paper is one big fallacy” and bombed him. Me? I wrote about the evils of horse racing. Perfectly safe topic,” wrote a student from Clemson.

“In my sociology class, my professor asked us if we would give our child hormone blockers if they believed they were transgender (that was the day’s lesson). One guy said he would rather teach his daughter to love her body the way it is than change it. She [sat] straight up said “so you would be a bad parent then? What was your name again?” Then she went to type something on her computer. Not a good day for him, I’m sure,” said a student from Arizona State.

College Republican groups are catching on and becoming more popular, but would likely be much larger in size if it weren’t for the fact that many students feel it better to keep their heads down and get the necessary grades to graduate.

Students pay a lot of money to attend Universities and would rather not sacrifice the time, funds, and their future by vocalizing their “wrong-think” in front of their professors. While it’s easy to say that these students should be braver and stand up for themselves, the real attention should be focused on the professors.

Something needs to be done about this infection, and stripping government grants and funding if even one student is failed due to his or her political opinion should be just the start.

The post Poll: Over 70 Percent of Republican Students Stay Silent About Their Views Out of Fear for Their Grades appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group College-graduates-300x225 Poll: Over 70 Percent of Republican Students Stay Silent About Their Views Out of Fear for Their Grades university republicans professors Politics leftist Front Page Stories Featured Story fail college bias Allow Media Exception Academia   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants

Westlake Legal Group ap-illegal-minors-at-border-620x358 Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants USC 1324 Politics ninth circuit law La Raza judge Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Conflicts of Interest border bias

A group of immigrants from Honduras and El Salvador who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally are loaded on to a van, Wednesday, June 25, 2014, in Granjeno, Texas. At least six local, state and federal law enforcement agencies patrol the five mile zone which is illegal immigration’s busiest corridor. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

The judiciary is out of control.

A judge in Kansas ruled 8 U.S.C. 1324 is unconstitutional because it supposedly infringes on the first amendment. This ruling is bonkers for a variety of reasons, namely because of what the statute actually says vs. why the judge claims to be invalidating it. It also means a single, lower court judge is once again dictating their whims on the entire country, something that was never imagined to be possible at our founding. With the stroke of a pen, 130 years of duly passed law and precedent is gone. As you’ll see, the conflicts of interests present with this judge leave real questions of whether this is purely political.

Here’s the details per Conservative Review.

KCUR-FM reports that on Wednesday, Judge Carlos Murguia of the U.S. District Court of Kansas ruled, based on a Ninth Circuit opinion, that 8 U.S.C. §1324, the law prohibiting someone from “encouraging” or “inducing” illegal immigration, is an unconstitutional infringement upon the First Amendment. In doing so, Murguia vacated the convictions of two illegal aliens, Jose Felipe Hernandez-Calvillo and Mauro Papalotzi, who were convicted in August 2018 by a jury for conspiring to encourage illegal aliens to remain here through employment at a drywall company in Lawrence, Kansas. Four others were originally indicted by a grand jury in 2015.

Let’s talk about the legal aspects first.

By this judge’s logic, you can go encourage and induce anyone to commit any crime and it’s not illegal. Want your husband killed? Just ask someone else to do it and you aren’t liable because it’s just free speech, right? I’m being overly broad though. In this case, this wasn’t just about free speech. The convictions that were vacated centered around two other illegal aliens who were encouraging illegal aliens to come work for their drywall company. The judge, based on no logic or legal standing whatsoever, decided that such direct actions to harbor and assist lawbreaking are the same as simply protesting ICE or railing against high taxes.

The truth is, 8 U.S.C. 1324 in noway stops activism and this judge projected his own ridiculous interpretation onto a law that clearly says otherwise.

Rather than rule based on the law, he decided to adopt the ruling of the Ninth Circuit (which doesn’t have jurisdiction in Kansas), which ruled last December that §1324 is “unconstitutionally overbroad” because it “criminalizes a substantial amount of protected expression.” “The court adopts (the 9th Circuit’s) analysis in full and agrees that (the law) on its face is overbroad under the First Amendment,” said Murguia in a brief bench ruling first reported by KCUR-FM.

This assertion is ridiculous, because the law clearly refers to engaging in subversive and fraudulent activities to encourage or enable actual individual aliens to remain in the country, not mere political advocacy for liberal immigration policies in the abstract. It’s like saying that someone who hates high taxes or gun control laws and advocates against them is the same as a person who actively assists tax cheats and gun felons in achieving the end goal of the criminalized behavior.

If I sell a gun to a felon who can’t own a gun, that’s not free speech. If I harbor an illegal immigrant by giving them a job knowing they are an illegal immigrant, that’s not free speech. It’s helping someone else perpetuate criminal behavior. In every other aspect of our criminal justice system, that’s a crime. This judge decided it’s not for the very specific case of illegal immigration. Why?

Well, we have a pretty good idea of why.

Yet one judge, who worked for an open-borders group named El Centro Inc. and whose sister Janet Murguia is president of La Raza (now called UnidosUS), suddenly thinks conspiring to harbor and encourage illegal immigration violates the First Amendment. Carlos’ sister Mary (who is an identical twin to Janet) is a federal judge on the very Ninth Circuit Court from which he drew this opinion. Judge Mary Murguia once recused herself from a trial involving pro-enforcement Sheriff Joe Arpaio because of her sister’s leadership of La Raza. Carlos should have done the same thing this week in this case, which involves a law that directly conflicts with the work with the open-borders groups his family is associated with.

It just so happens that this judge’s sister is the president of La Raza, a radical pro-illegal immigration outfit that pushes Hispanic supremacy in a variety of ways. They’ve since changed their name because being called “The Race” didn’t help them avoid criticism. This judge himself also worked for a pro-illegal immigration outfit in his past. All of this adds up to an easy decision for the judge to recuse himself, but he didn’t. Instead, he tortured the law and invented a new constitutional right to harbor and encourage illegal immigration.

No doubt, this case isn’t just about the two convictions being overturned either. This is a green light to sanctuary cities to keep doing what they are doing.

The DOJ needs to come down hard on this.

————————————————-

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group MigrantFamilyBorder-300x153 Congrats, You Now Have a Constitutional Right to Harbor Illegal Immigrants USC 1324 Politics ninth circuit law La Raza judge Illegal Immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story democrats Conflicts of Interest border bias   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Miss Nevada Disqualified from Miss America Pageant and Shamed Over Trump Support

Westlake Legal Group Capture-4 Miss Nevada Disqualified from Miss America Pageant and Shamed Over Trump Support republicans Politics miss nevada Miss America Katie Williams Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Conservatives conservative bias Allow Media Exception

Everyone has political leanings, and while they may play a role in your decision making, especially in the voting booth, it shouldn’t solely define who you are as a person. In this day and age, many seem to make this the only thing relevant about a person.

Combat veteran and pro-American Katie Williams, 2019’s Miss Nevada winner, is suffering from that very thing as we speak. Apparently, her support for President Donald Trump has just disqualified her from the upcoming Miss America pageant.

Posting a video to Instagram telling the entire story in an eight-minute video, Williams starts off by telling the viewer that she’s been effectively kicked out of the pageant thanks to a director who, at first, seemed to agree with her politics but soon came to seem resentful of Williams’ stances.

At some point, the director wanted her to delete a picture of her with her Trump 2020 hat on and to have a conversation over the phone with her. Williams said she’d rather have conversations over email for both of their legal protection, and refused to take down the picture. Instead, she took the director’s advice of creating a separate non-political page for her pageant work.

This wasn’t enough either.

The director continued to chide her for her political posts and eventually told her that she wouldn’t be a good fit for the pageant. In emails, Williams told the director that the things she posted shouldn’t even be controversial, such as her disdain for Antifa. Williams also notes that some of her fellow pageant contestants post overtly leftist things on their accounts are and aren’t receiving the same amount of pushback.

To cap it all off, Williams had already sent in all the fees and made travel arrangements. The pageant said she could get it all back…if she agrees to certain terms including her relinquishment of the title of Miss Nevada and any mention of her banishment from the Miss America pageant. She would also be forced to keep her family or friends from speaking about it.

Williams chose instead to leave the pageant altogether instead of giving in to these demands.

It’s a sad conclusion to her efforts as a pageant winner, but the story doesn’t have to end there. The treatment of Williams needs to be spread far and wide. There is clearly political bias at work here punishing conservative and/or pro-Trump thought, keeping it from the mainstream, and it needs to exposed.

The post Miss Nevada Disqualified from Miss America Pageant and Shamed Over Trump Support appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-4-300x217 Miss Nevada Disqualified from Miss America Pageant and Shamed Over Trump Support republicans Politics miss nevada Miss America Katie Williams Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Conservatives conservative bias Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com