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
Westlake Legal Group > California

Bill Maher Reminds Rashida Tlaib: If You Want to Boycott Me Over BDS, You’ll Need to Boycott Your Party, Too

Westlake Legal Group tlaib2-620x317 Bill Maher Reminds Rashida Tlaib: If You Want to Boycott Me Over BDS, You’ll Need to Boycott Your Party, Too Television Real Time rashida tlaib Politics North Carolina Michigan Israel Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Congress California Bill Maher bds anti-semitism Allow Media Exception

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., questions Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former lawyer, as he testifies before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, on Capitol Hill, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

Because we must ban/boycott/punish all the things associated with upsetting Democratic Squad members like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (MI), it wasn’t a big shocker that over the weekend she called for people to boycott liberal comedian/cable TV talk show host Bill Maher after he went on an epic anti-BDS rant Friday night.

To recap, Empress Tlaib was none too pleased that Maher called the BDS movement for what it was on his “Real Time” HBO program in the aftermath of the “outrage” over Israel’s Thursday decision to bar both Omar and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) from entry on security grounds:

“It’s a bulls— purity test, BDS is a bulls— purity test by people who want to appear ‘woke’ but actually slept through history class,” Maher said, drawing loud cheers from the audience. “It’s predicated on this notion … I think it’s very shallow thinking that the Jews in Israel are mostly white and Palestinians are mostly brown, so they must be innocent and correct and the Jews must be wrong. As if the occupation came right out of the blue, that this ‘completely peaceful people’ found themselves occupied. Forget about the intifadas and the suicide bombings and the rockets and how many wars.”

The HBO star quoted BDS movement founder Omar Barghouti, who said, “No Palestinian — rational Palestinian, not a sellout Palestinian — will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine.”

“So that’s where that comes from, this movement. Someone who doesn’t even want a Jewish state at all,” Maher told the panel. “Somehow this side never gets represented in the American media. It’s very odd.”

[…]

“I see why [Omar and Tlaib] don’t get a hero’s welcome,” he added.

“Maybe folks should boycott his show,” Tlaib tweeted Saturday about Maher. “This is exactly how they tried to discredit & stop the boycott to stand up against the apartheid in S. Africa.”

Maher responded on Twitter today, and included video of the Friday night segment to reiterate his point and show he was not going to back down:

Correction: The House vote to condemn the BDS movement was 398-17. That includes 209 Democrats, which only further amplifies Maher’s point.

As I’ve written previously, I frequently disagree with Maher. He’s wrong probably 95% of the time. But on the BDS movement, he was spot on. Tlaib can continue to try and shame people on the left and right who dare to expose the poisonous anti-Semitic rhetoric she and Omar use, but that will only make those same people louder. Maher proved that today.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Bill Maher Reminds Rashida Tlaib: If You Want to Boycott Me Over BDS, You’ll Need to Boycott Your Party, Too appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group tlaib2-300x153 Bill Maher Reminds Rashida Tlaib: If You Want to Boycott Me Over BDS, You’ll Need to Boycott Your Party, Too Television Real Time rashida tlaib Politics North Carolina Michigan Israel Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post democrats Culture Congress California Bill Maher bds anti-semitism Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

California passes watered down limits on police in deadly encounters

Westlake Legal Group newsom California passes watered down limits on police in deadly encounters The Blog police shootings limits Gavin Newsom California

The California legislature has been batting around Assembly Bill 392 for most of the year without getting across the finish line. The legislation was crafted in response to “deadly shootings of unarmed black men” in the state and it had originally been billed as one of the toughest use of force laws regulating police activity in the country. But negotiations with law enforcement officials resulted in some changes being made to the language (without which it wouldn’t have passed) and activists are saying it’s too watered down to be effective. (Including some complaints from a very curious choice of people to represent the families of suspects who were killed by the police, but we’ll get back to that in a moment.) That didn’t stop the Governor from signing it anyway. (CBS San Francisco)

On Monday Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill that was once described as one of the toughest police use-of-force standard in the country, but some believe the law is watered down from its original version.

“The bill they have today, what they signed today, wouldn’t have prevented our loved ones from being killed,” said Rosie Chavez…

Surrounded by relatives of people killed in police shootings, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB392 at a ceremony in Sacramento on August 19, 2019. (CBS)”It was very important that a reasonable standard remained for us, that’s what’s in this bill, it supports what’s already in law,” said San Jose Police Officer Association Vice President Sean Pritchard.

The original bill was of great concern because it changed the definition of when an officer could employ potentially deadly force during an encounter with a suspect. The bill’s authors wanted to have it say that deadly force can only be used when “necessary” rather than “reasonable.” It had also included language saying that the officer would have to be able to show that they had “exhausted all other measures” before resorting to deadly force.

That would have hamstrung the police even further. Cops don’t put on their uniforms in the morning hoping to go out and shoot somebody. That’s a course of last resort. But when things get out of hand and it looks like their own lives or the lives of nearby civilians are at risk, split-second decisions have to be made. The more of these rules we put on the books, the less inclined police will be to get out of their squad cars and investigate crimes. Fortunately, all of that language was scrapped and this bill turned out to be little more than word salad, changing almost nothing while allowing the Governor and the legislature to look like they were doing something.

I want to return for a moment to the original announcement of the new law. You’ll notice that the press sought out Rosie Chavez for a quote. She complained that the new law “wouldn’t have prevented our loved ones from being killed.”

While I’m sure we can all sympathize with anyone who has lost a family member, the death that brought Chavez to this fight really shouldn’t be invoked. She was the aunt of Jacob Dominguez, who was shot and killed by police in September of 2017. That might lead you to believe that excessive use of force by the police was in play. Allow me to assure you that it was not.

You can read about the circumstances of Dominguez’ death here. This wasn’t somebody who randomly encountered some “killer cops” or who had been pulled over in an instance of “driving while black.” The cops had been on a manhunt for Dominguez for the better part of a week following what they described as a ten-day crime spree. He was driving a stolen Mercedes-Benz. He’d been caught on camera robbing a gas station with a .357 handgun. He’d been identified pulling off a drive-by shooting. This guy was a menace and the cops were desperately trying to find him and put an end to the violence.

When they finally pulled him over, he was instructed to keep his hands visible and exit the vehicle. How did he respond? By shouting, “(Expletive) you, bitch! Shoot me!” He then lunged toward the floorboards of the car with his hands. At that point, the police accommodated his request.

The fact is, there comes a point where you’re simply begging the cops to kill you (in this case, literally) and giving them every excuse in the world for doing so. The cops still hadn’t recovered his handgun when they caught up to him and for all they knew he was reaching down to grab it. Is this really the poster child you want to hold up as the face of the need to reform police use of lethal force? Not for nothing, but I think there were better candidates out there.

The post California passes watered down limits on police in deadly encounters appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group newsom-300x173 California passes watered down limits on police in deadly encounters The Blog police shootings limits Gavin Newsom California   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Actress reported Epstein to police for sexual battery in 1997 but nothing came of it

Westlake Legal Group Alicia-Arden Actress reported Epstein to police for sexual battery in 1997 but nothing came of it The Blog Jeffrey Epstein California

Alicia Arden is an actress and model who was one of the first women to formally accuse Jeffrey Epstein of sexual misconduct. Twenty-two years ago, Arden, who had appeared in Baywatch, was told by someone she knew that Jeffrey Epstein could help her land a gig as a Victoria Secret model. She sent a modeling portfolio to Epstein in New York and he called her and asked to meet her at a beachfront hotel in Santa Monica, California. What happened next won’t surprise anyone:

When she showed up, she found Epstein barefoot and clad in sweat pants and a T-shirt with USA on the front. He started criticizing her figure and asked her to come close to him so he could evaluate it, according to accounts Arden gave in interviews with the AP and in her police report.

Epstein then asked her to undress and assisted in pulling her top off and skirt up, saying, “Let me manhandle you for a second” as he began groping her buttocks.

Arden said she pushed his hands away and left.

Arden says Epstein followed her outside and offered her a $100 bill. She rejected it at first but then accepted it because she said she needed gas for her car. However, the day after leaving the hotel, Arden decided to go to the police. But her initial attempt to file a report didn’t go well:

A male detective noted that she had willingly gone to Epstein’s room — though she emphasized the purpose was business, she said. She remembered the detective suggesting she think about whether she really wanted to file a report.

She left, crying on the phone to a friend that she wished she could talk to a female police officer.

“I felt like I was being blamed,” she said.

That might have been the end of it but a week later Arden returned to the police station, met with the same detective, and filed a report about the incident. The 1997 police report spells out what Arden says happened in the hotel. And that’s where the story gets a bit squirrely. Because according to Arden she never heard back from the police.

The Associated Press asked the Santa Monica police department to provide a summary of the investigator’s notes on the case from back in 1997. According to those notes, police did interview Epstein about the incident at the hotel. However, they claim the case was closed because Arden told them she didn’t want to press charges:

The notes showed that Epstein was questioned soon after Arden’s complaint and gave a conflicting statement. Most notably, the detective wrote that Arden did not want to press charges against Epstein but wanted him warned about his behavior, an assertion that she strongly denies…

Contacted this past week, Arden was adamant that she did not, in any way, communicate to the police that she did not want to press charges. She was outraged to hear that the police say otherwise.

“The fact that they didn’t do anything, and they discredited me, is just a stab to my heart,” Arden said.

So there you have it. The police claim Arden didn’t want to press charges. Arden denies that and claims she never heard back from police. What’s clear is that Epstein’s 1997 brush with the law once again seems to have miraculously worked out in his favor.

I don’t think a predator like Epstein would have stopped abusing young girls even if he’d been charged in Santa Monica in 1997. He simply would have hired attorneys and managed to wriggle out of it or plead it down to nothing. However, I do wonder if Epstein would have had a harder time squirming out of serious prison time in the Florida case if he’d had a prior case against him in California. It’s a missed opportunity.

The post Actress reported Epstein to police for sexual battery in 1997 but nothing came of it appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Alicia-Arden-300x159 Actress reported Epstein to police for sexual battery in 1997 but nothing came of it The Blog Jeffrey Epstein California   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘America Is Awful’: The Left Wants More Government – Because It’s What’s Worst for US

Westlake Legal Group chicom-us-flags-620x397 ‘America Is Awful’: The Left Wants More Government – Because It’s What’s Worst for US washington D.C. Technology Section 230 progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet Government Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy China California Business & Economy 1996 Communications Decency Act

The average American understandably thinks political and policy debates are conducted – in the interest of America’s best interest.

“Surely everyone involved in government wants what’s best for the country.  They just disagree on what policies will get us there.”

Most unfortunately, this isn’t the case – for the Left.

Leftists – do not like America very much.  At all.  So they seek to tear it down and destroy it – in the name of “fixing” it.  We must burn down the village – in order to save it.

The Left’s last president, Barack Obama, spent two decades attending the services of Reverand Jeremiah Wright.  Obama referred to Wright as his “spiritual advisor” and “mentor.” Obama had Wright marry him and Michelle.  Obama had Wright baptize his two daughters.  Obama’s second autobiography’s title – The Audacity of Hope – is taken from a Wright sermon.

Wright?  Not a fan of America.

Jeremiah Wright: ‘God D**n America’

In reference to the terrorist attacks on US on September 11th, 2001, Wright “preached”:

America’s Chickens Are Coming Home To Roost

Again, Obama was intrinsically involved with Wright – for more than twenty years.  It’s not a titanic leap to think Obama thinks similarly about America.

Why else would Obama want to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution?”  You know, that document he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” when he took his oaths of office.

Why else would Obama want to “fundamentally transform” America?

Is Obama an outlier.  Not even a little bit.

Beto O’Rourke is currently unemployed – and (barely) a Democrat presidential candidate.  Beto – not a fan of America.

O’Rourke: America Is A Country ‘Founded On Racism,’ ‘Is Still Racist Today’

Vermont Senator and Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders – is at least slightly honest.  He cops to his Socialism.  He and his wife honeymooned in the Soviet Union.  Bernie – not a fan of America.

Bernie Sanders: U.S. Founded on ‘Racist Principles’

Leftists aplenty loathe America.

Elizabeth Warren: Our Justice System Is ‘Racist, All the Way, Front to Back.’

Julian Castro: ‘No Question’ America’s Criminal Justice System Is Racist

Seth Moulton: America Is Racist

You don’t have to run for President to hate America.

Erica Thomas Is Every Democrat Who’s Addicted to Playing the Race Card

Democratic Fundraiser Says America Is Racist and Sexist

In fact….

To Democrats, America is a Sinkhole of Racism

Democrats Declare Anyone That Loves America Is Racist

Leftists everywhere – enthusiastically burn the US flag.  While waving some highly problematic flags from other nations and movements.

Here’s Antifa taking a break from thumping the skulls of old people and children and waving Communist flagsburning a US flag.

In fact:

Antifa Brags About Being Anti-America, Burning US Flag

Here’s Antifa precursor Occupy Wall Street – burning a US flag.

Here are anti-President Donald Trump protestors waving Communist flags time and again – and burning a US flag.

Here are more anti-Trump protestors waving a Communist flag – and burning a US flag.

Here are anti-Republican protestors – burning a US flag.

Here are anti-borders protestors waving a Mexican flag – and burning a US flag.

Leftists burn the US flag in protest – and sometimes in celebration.

Protesters Burn US Flags as Obama Delivers Speech at DNC

This Leftist anti-America insanity – goes back decades and decades.

So when the Left insists on policy prescriptions for the US – one is more than reasonable to be dubious of their intentions.

Because: Why would any assemblage of people so opposed to the US – promote policies that would better the US?

One would very reasonably think the Left’s policy prescriptions – would in fact do damage to a country they do not very much like.

To wit: Obamacare.  Massive new government impositions – so as to make matters worse.  Which will then “justify” even more government impositions – which will make matters even worse.  Lather, rinse, repeat….

Obamacare killed health insurance for millions of Americans.  Obamacare, on average, doubled insurance premiums.  Obamacare, on average, tripled insurance deductibles.

Obamacare was an unmitigated disaster for America.

So of course Leftists defend it to the death.  And, in fact, look to EXPAND it.

Democrats Begin Their Defense of Obamacare

Joe Biden: We Must Protect And Build On Obamacare

Does Bernie Sanders Support Obamacare? Yes, But He Wants to Go One Step Further

Elizabeth Warren: Obamacare ‘Wasn’t Bold Enough

Pete Buttigieg: Obamacare Is Too Conservative

The Left’s rabid promotion of awful policy – is everywhere.

To wit: Network Neutrality.  Which is Obamacare for the Internet.  Massive new government impositions – so as to make matters worse.  Which will then “justify” even more government impositions – which will make matters even worse.  Lather, rinse, repeat….

Thankfully, we weren’t subjected to the awfulness of Net Neutrality for nearly as long as we were subjected to the awfulness of Obamacare.

(After almost a decade in place, Obamacare was mostly gutted when in 2019 the mandate to purchase a policy went away.)

Net Neutrality – and its crippling imposition of antiquated regulations – was only in place for about a year.

There was of course some damage done.  Investment in the Internet’s infrastructure was down precipitously during Net Neutrality.  As is nigh always the case in any private sector – when government massively imposes additional regulations.

But the Trump Administration un-imposed Net Neutrality – and things reverted to the quarter-century status quo of Net Neutrality-free Internet uber-success.

The parade of horribles Leftists promised without Net Neutrality – never, ever happened in twenty-plus years of the Net Neutrality-free Internet.

And the parade of horribles Leftists promised with Net Neutrality’s un-imposition – never, ever happened once it rightly, righteously went away.

Net Neutrality is a solution – running around desperately in search of a problem.

Net Neutrality is breasts on a bull.  It is sneakers for snakes.  It is totally and completely unnecessary.

Every alleged problem about which the Left shrieks that Net Neutrality would allegedly solve – is self-solved by the free market.

To wit: Leftists claim that without Net Neutrality, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will block you from places on the Web.

Except no ISP is going to block you – because they want you to keep hiring them to connect you to the Internet.  Because duh.

Since Net Neutrality’s repeal – the Left has been obsessed.  Just this past week:

FCC Forgets About, Then Dismisses, Complaint Detailing Verizon’s Long History Of Net Neutrality Violations:

“Verizon’s long history on this front is fairly indisputable, and the company has never been held seriously accountable for any of it.”

Actually, Verizon is held accountable each and every day – by 250+ million US customers and prospective customers.  How’s Verizon doing with them?:

“Verizon is the largest cell phone carrier in the U.S.”

It would appear Verizon’s customers – do not care about Net Neutrality.  In fact:

Voters Care Not About Net Neutrality

The only people that care at all about Net Neutrality – are Leftists.

The Left is STILL obsessed.  Leftist college professors JUST released a “study” on it.  And the Leftist media – are VERY worked up about it.

Study Shows Extent of Wireless Carriers Throttling Online Video

Study: Wireless Carriers Throttling Netflix, YouTube ‘All the Time’

Wireless Carrier Throttling of Online Video Is Pervasive

Carriers Throttle Online Video Regardless of Network Congestion

US Carriers Are Throttling Netflix ‘All the Time’

Net Neutrality: ISPs Are Throttling Netflix Traffic

What do these very many agitated Leftists not tell you?

Net Neutrality used to allow ISPs to engage in “reasonable network management.”

Meaning ISPs need to manage the traffic on their networks – so as to maintain maximum speed and quality for the maximum number of users.  Which is eminently reasonable.

Leftists have effectively ended the “reasonable network management” exemption – because they’re radical and crazy.

What else do these very many agitated Leftists not tell you?

Netflix, YouTube Gobble Up Half of Internet Traffic

NOTHING consumes Internet bandwidth like video.  Netflix and YouTube – consume half of America’s bandwidth.  So quite obviously – some reasonable network management is required.

These many articles point out that ISPs do nothing to Amazon Prime Video’s streaming service.  Why?  Because Amazon Prime Video’s streaming service isn’t nearly the massive imposition on the US network that Netflix and YouTube are.  Because duh.

The Internet has become a free speech-free market Xanadu – completely from any Net Neutrality regulations.

So…why the Leftist rabid, rigid insistence we be subjected to it?  Because the Internet has become a free speech-free market Xanadu without it.

Meet avowed Marxist, Media Marxist godfather and virulent Net Neutrality proponent Robert McChesney.

McChesney is the co-founder of the Left’s leading group on all things Internet and media – the uber-ironically mis-named Free Press.

Like any Leftist, McChesney is…not a huge fan of the US:

The United States is, I think, by any honest account, the leading terrorist institution in the world today.

How pleasant.

Like any Leftist, McChesney is…not a huge fan of the US’ capitalist economic system:

There is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.

McChesney sees his Internet and media revolution – as a fundamental part of his Socialist revolution:

Any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself.

And McChesney sees Net Neutrality – as a fundamental part of his Internet and media revolution.

At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

Leftist McChesney wants Net Neutrality – precisely because wants to destroy the US.

And Leftist McChesney knows Net Neutrality – is a fundamental component of destroying the US.

Net Neutrality is designed to destroy the US.

Just as every Leftist policy is designed to destroy the US.

You don’t have to take my word for it.

Take theirs.

The post ‘America Is Awful’: The Left Wants More Government – Because It’s What’s Worst for US appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group chicom-us-flags-300x192 ‘America Is Awful’: The Left Wants More Government – Because It’s What’s Worst for US washington D.C. Technology Section 230 progressives Privacy Politics Policy News network neutrality Net Neutrality law Internet Government Front Page Stories Front Page Foreign Policy Economy China California Business & Economy 1996 Communications Decency Act   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Frustrated California Woman Has Scathing Message For Gavin Newsom After Homeless Chaos Destroys Her Small Business

Westlake Legal Group Ca-woman Frustrated California Woman Has Scathing Message For Gavin Newsom After Homeless Chaos Destroys Her Small Business Small Business homeless Gavin Newsom frustration Front Page Stories Featured Story crime California

A frustrated California woman took to Twitter on Friday to blast governor Gavin Newsom’s disastrous policies that have created a desperate homeless problem. The woman – who goes by @Jesus_porvida on Twitter – was clearly upset as she posted a video detailing why she may be forced to close the doors of her business.

I have had a business in downtown Sacramento for 15 yrs, a successful business. I now have to leave my place of business. I have to close my shop.

Later tweets show pictures of the woman’s shop after the most recent in a series of  break-ins, a break-in that apparently was the last straw for the Sacramento are hair stylist.

I have to clean up the poop and pee off my doorstep. I have to clean up the syringes. I have to politely ask ppl who I care for – I care about the homeless – to move their tents out of the way of the door to my business. I have to fight off people who push their way into my shop that are homeless and on drugs because you won[t arrest them for drug offenses.  I have to apologize to my clients as to why they can’t get into my door because there’s somebody asleep there bc they’re not getting the help they need.

I talk to police offers. They told me to contact you. They want to do something and they can’t because you changed the laws. So I wanna know what you’re gonna do for us, the ones that are unhappy. You wanna make us a sanctuary state. You wanna make it comfortable for everybody except for the ppl that work hard and have tried their hardest to get along in life and now we have to change that because of your laws.

She shredded Newsom’s “liberal ideology” as the cause for the current chaos that forced her to close the doors of her business.

While you sit in your million dollar home you don’t have to look at what we have to look at; there’s hard working people who have to deal with this on a daily basis. What are you going to do for us?

The rant sparked a flood of responses from people sharing similar experiences.

Crime and pestilence have been skyrocketing in the state of California as a spate of policies decriminalizing petty theft, open drug use and vagrancy violations have tied the hands of police and left citizens and business owners vulnerable and frightened. California politicians have been deliberately vague about the problems caused by homelessness.

 

The post Frustrated California Woman Has Scathing Message For Gavin Newsom After Homeless Chaos Destroys Her Small Business appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Ca-woman-211x300 Frustrated California Woman Has Scathing Message For Gavin Newsom After Homeless Chaos Destroys Her Small Business Small Business homeless Gavin Newsom frustration Front Page Stories Featured Story crime California   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pants on Fire: Not Even Politifact Is Buying What Gavin Newsom Is Selling on San Francisco’s Homeless Problem

Westlake Legal Group 02f7c7e0-4bf6-401e-9693-e92c39291877-620x317 Pants on Fire: Not Even Politifact Is Buying What Gavin Newsom Is Selling on San Francisco’s Homeless Problem Social Media San Francisco progressives Politifact Politics North Carolina Media homelessness Gavin Newsom Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Fact Check democrats Culture California Allow Media Exception

Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at his gubernatorial campaign’s primary night watch party in San Francisco, Tuesday, June 5, 2018. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)

When it comes to addressing serious problems in their own backyards, Democrats typically default to blaming Republicans in an effort to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their own disastrous polices.

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) is a prime example of this, especially when it comes to issues he has no one to blame for but himself and his fellow left coast Democrats.

Back in June, Newsom told Axios‘s Jim VandeHei in a wide-ranging interview that the dire homeless problem in San Francisco was primarily due to an influx of homeless people coming to the city from … Texas:

Facing what feels like the first real crisis of his new administration — and in the midst of stalled efforts in Sacramento to do something about it — Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken aim at something new when asked about California’s homelessness problem: Texas.

Specifically, Newsom accused the Republican-led state of sending people to San Francisco.

“The vast majority also come in from — and we know this — from Texas. Just interesting fact,” Newsom said in an interview broadcast on Sunday with “Axios on HBO.”

The comment came after interviewer Jim VandeHei asked Newsom why the net size of San Francisco’s homeless population hadn’t changed much during his tenure as the city’s mayor (although a number of people did find shelter during his administration).

The L.A. Times, not exactly a friend to Republicans and Texans, wrote about Newsom’s claims at the time and easily debunked them, noting that it was actually the reverse that was true:

A spokesman first pointed to a 2016 newspaper story that counted the number of homeless people San Francisco officials put on buses to other communities and states. But the article doesn’t cite any inbound deliveries of people. In fact, it reported that Texas was the top out-of-state destination for San Francisco to send away homeless people. As of late Sunday night, there was no additional information provided to back up the governor’s claim.

Newsom conceded in the broadcast that California has an enormous poverty problem. “We’ve got to get our act together,” he said. Nonetheless, he went on to criticize states led by Republicans that he said have an “intentional” policy to ignore those in need.

Nearly two months later, the geniuses at Politifact finally decided to weigh in. And in a genuine shocker of shockers, they rated Newsom’s claims as “Pants on Fire”:

Politifact isn’t exactly the type of fact checking organization that rushes to defend Republicans or to take Democrats to task, so that they decided to take Newsom to the woodshed is worth mentioning.

They did a detailed analysis of Newsom’s claims, and found them to be sorely lacking. Here’s what they concluded in their ruling:

San Francisco’s own homeless surveys contradict this. They show a large majority reported living in the city before becoming homeless, and just a fraction coming in from out-of-state.

Newsom’s office pointed to data from San Francisco’s bus ticket program for homeless people. But that defense doesn’t hold up. It shows just a small fraction, less than 7 percent, left for Texas, and doesn’t demonstrate that they originally came to San Francisco from that state.

In the end, we found Newsom made a ridiculous claim.

We rated it Pants on Fire.

Just to put an even finer point on how duplicitous, self-serving, and shameless Newsom is on this issue, when asked about comments made by President Trump in early July that the federal government may need to “intercede” in cities with large homeless problems, here’s how Newsom responded:

“If interceding means cutting budgets to support services to get people off the street, (Trump has) been very successful in advancing those provisions,” the governor said. Instead, he argued, the president has been “decreasing the social safety net to address the reasons people are on streets and sidewalks in the first place.”

It’s similar to what he told Axios in June. In other words, Republicans are to blame for this crisis.

It’s baloney. The homeless issues the state of California (and not just in San Francisco but in other big cities like Los Angeles, too) can in large part be laid at the feet of Democrats who have absolutely run the state into the ground, including Newsom.

Newsom was a member of the SF Board of Supervisors from January 8, 1997 to January 8, 2004. He was the Mayor of San Francisco from January 8, 2004 to January 10, 2011. He was the Lt. Gov. from January 10, 2011 to January 7, 2019.

That’s 22 years he alone has had to commit to helping solve the homeless problem that exists in cities like San Francisco and L.A. Him trying to pin the homeless crisis there on Republicans is absurd, and just shows he’d rather conveniently pass the buck rather than take responsibility for his own leadership failures.

(Hat tip: Hot Air’s John Sexton)

————-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Pants on Fire: Not Even Politifact Is Buying What Gavin Newsom Is Selling on San Francisco’s Homeless Problem appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 02f7c7e0-4bf6-401e-9693-e92c39291877-300x153 Pants on Fire: Not Even Politifact Is Buying What Gavin Newsom Is Selling on San Francisco’s Homeless Problem Social Media San Francisco progressives Politifact Politics North Carolina Media homelessness Gavin Newsom Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Fact Check democrats Culture California Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Pro-2nd Amendment Group Sues California Over Its Ban of So-Called Assault Weapons

Westlake Legal Group gun-726344_1280-620x413 A Pro-2nd Amendment Group Sues California Over Its Ban of So-Called Assault Weapons Uncategorized SAN DIEGO ryan peterson Politics patrick russ john dillon james miller Guns gunfighter tactical gun control george m. lee Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats California assault weapons Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment

 

 

On Thursday, three San Diego residents teamed up with a pro-2nd Amendment organization to sock it California’s assault weapons ban.

The left-wing state had previously 86’d high-capacity magazines as well, but that move was ruled unconstitutional in June.

John Dillon — an attorney involved in the new filing — believes the assault weapons kibosh will follow suit.

He said as much, according to the Times of San Diego:

“This is a straightforward case to protect our clients’ constitutional rights and property. The state of California’s ban on these firearms will fail constitutional scrutiny for the same reasons that its ban on firearm magazines did.”

Lawyer George M. Lee thinks the embargo’s crazy:

“We look forward to proving that the state’s statutes, policies, and practices at issue in this case are both unconstitutional and irrational.”

The plaintiffs’ underlying claim is that the state violates constitutional rights via a wrongheaded definition of “assault weapons” — “a politically-concocted perjorative term” affecting the ownership of “normal” firearms. They assert the term suggests there’s “an inherently unlawful or illegitimate basis for owning otherwise common firearms protected by the Second Amendment.”

The suit sees James Miller, Patrick Russ, and Gunfighter Tactical owner Ryan Peterson join PAC San Diego County Gun Owners.

Their claim certainly has merit — there’s no fixed legal definition of “assault weapon.”

Will a U.S. District Court strike down another one of Cali’s gun laws?

Perhaps.

From Herald-Mail Media:

The assault weapon lawsuit on Thursday was assigned to U.S. District Judge John Houston, a President George W. Bush nominee, same as [the judge who ruled against the high-capacity magazine ban].

-ALEX

 

See 3 more pieces from me:

Viral Video Provides A Lesson In Justice & Heroism – When Bullying Turns To Deep, Deep Regret

Beto’s Latest Presidential Move – By Way Of Video – Is Absolutely Hilarious & Enormously Pitiful

Burger King Employees Get What’s Comin’ To ‘Em After Drawing A Pig On A Cop’s Sandwich Wrapper

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post A Pro-2nd Amendment Group Sues California Over Its Ban of So-Called Assault Weapons appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group gun-726344_1280-300x200 A Pro-2nd Amendment Group Sues California Over Its Ban of So-Called Assault Weapons Uncategorized SAN DIEGO ryan peterson Politics patrick russ john dillon james miller Guns gunfighter tactical gun control george m. lee Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats California assault weapons Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

US can reject asylum claims in some areas says… the Ninth Circuit?

Westlake Legal Group Border-Patrol US can reject asylum claims in some areas says… the Ninth Circuit? The Blog Texas ruling ninth circuit New Mexico Mexico Honduras Guatemala California asylum claim Arizona

I had to read this story a couple of times to make sure I hadn’t inadvertently followed a link to The Onion, but it’s apparently legitimate news. The report deals with the Trump administration’s order to deny some asylum claims from Central American migrants who illegally cross into the United States from Mexico without asking for asylum there first. That order was immediately challenged in court and placed under a temporary injunction by District Court Judge Jon Tigar last month.

Now, however, the government has appealed and won at least a partial (if temporary) victory. And the shocking part of this tale is that they achieved this via a three-person panel of the Ninth Circuit. (Associated Press)

A federal appeals court’s ruling Friday will allow the Trump administration to begin rejecting asylum at some parts of the U.S.-Mexico border for migrants who arrive after passing through a third country.

The ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows President Donald Trump to enforce the policy in New Mexico and Texas, rejecting asylum seekers who cross from Mexico into either state. Under Friday’s ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar’s July 24 order stopping the policy would only apply in California and Arizona, which are covered by the 9th Circuit.

The two busiest areas for unauthorized border crossings are in South Texas’ Rio Grande Valley and the region around El Paso, Texas, which includes New Mexico. Nearly 50,000 people in July crossed the U.S. border without permission in those two regions, according to the U.S. Border Patrol.

The two big questions to understand regarding this ruling involve the questions of how and who. As far as how this works, the decision wasn’t a complete reversal of Judge Tigar’s injunction. What the appeals panel actually said was that Tigar hadn’t met the burden of showing why the injunction should be applied nationally rather than only in his own district. So the injunction will remain in place for California and Arizona, both of which fall in Tigar’s district. The judge has been ordered to “further develop the record in support of a preliminary nationwide injunction,” so he could still prevail.

The injunction will not apply in New Mexico and Texas, where some of the busiest illegal crossing areas are found. (At least for now.)

Then comes the question of who the judges are who handed down this ruling. And this is where we may be seeing some of the early effects of President Trump and Cocaine Mitch advancing so many of Trump’s court nominees. This panel was composed of Judge A. Wallace Tashima, a Clinton nominee, Judge Milan Smith, nominated by George W. Bush, and Judge Mark J. Bennett. The latter was a Trump appointee.

And for the benefit of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who recently said we “don’t have any” Obama nominees or Clinton nominees, the Clinton nominee voted in favor of the injunction while the two appointees of GOP presidents voted the other way. Of course, all of these immigration rules are immediately challenged before the ink on Trump’s signature is even dry and most will likely have to go all the way to the Supreme Court sooner or later. (Where the President has fared better than in the lower courts.)

The post US can reject asylum claims in some areas says… the Ninth Circuit? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Border-Patrol-300x153 US can reject asylum claims in some areas says… the Ninth Circuit? The Blog Texas ruling ninth circuit New Mexico Mexico Honduras Guatemala California asylum claim Arizona   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s claim about the homeless was so absurd even Politifact couldn’t spin it

Westlake Legal Group Gavin-Newsom Gov. Gavin Newsom’s claim about the homeless was so absurd even Politifact couldn’t spin it The Blog Politifact homeless Gavin Newsom California

Back in June, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made an incredible claim about homeless people in his state. Asked why the homeless population hadn’t declined when he was Mayor of San Francisco, Newsom said, “The vast majority (of San Francisco’s homeless people) also come in from — and we know this — from Texas. Just (an) interesting fact.”

Newsom’s claim was discounted by the LA Times last month but Politifact decided to investigate independently. This week the least reliable fact-checker in the business agreed that Newsom’s statement was absurd, giving it a “Pants on Fire” rating.

Newsom’s statement is contradicted by San Francisco’s own point in time homeless counts. Those reports are conducted every two years…

The 2019 report found 70 percent had lived in the city; 22 percent in another California county and 8 percent out-of-state. Of that 70 percent, more than half, or 55 percent, reported living in San Francisco for a decade or more before losing their home. Just 6 percent said they had lived in the city for less than a year.

Going back a dozen years, the city’s 2007 point-in-time count shows 62 percent reported being from San Francisco; about 16 percent were from outside the state and 15 percent were from another county in the state.

Asked to defend his claim about the homeless pouring in from Texas, Newsom’s spokesman pointed to a program called Homeward Bound which offers bus tickets to homeless people who agree to go live with someone who has agreed to take them in. But data from that program doesn’t support the Governor’s claim either:

The data includes travel destinations for the program from 2004 through 2018. It shows approximately 20 percent of Homeward Bound’s trips, or about 2,400, took place inside California during that period. About 80 percent took place out of state.

Texas was the most popular destination outside of California, with 827 trips or 6.7 percent of the program’s 12,268 trips since it started. The next most popular were Washington state, at 5.8 percent, and Florida, at 5.4 percent.

At 6.7 percent, Texas in no way can be described as accounting for “the vast majority” of San Francisco’s homeless population.

And despite the name, the Homeward Bound program doesn’t require that people return to their home state. They just have to have someone who agrees to take them in living in that state, an extended relative or friend. Since Texas is the second most populous US state, it makes sense that people moving to live with someone else would find a lot of those folks are living in Texas.

Maybe Gov. Newsom was hoping for some of the special treatment Politifact recently gave to Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, i.e. refusing to fault them for falsely claiming Michael Brown was “murdered.” But it appears this claim about California’s homeless population was so absurd that even Politifact couldn’t spin it.

The post Gov. Gavin Newsom’s claim about the homeless was so absurd even Politifact couldn’t spin it appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Gavin-Newsom-300x153 Gov. Gavin Newsom’s claim about the homeless was so absurd even Politifact couldn’t spin it The Blog Politifact homeless Gavin Newsom California   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

U.S. Can Block Migrants Seeking Asylum, but Only in Some States, Appeals Court Rules

Westlake Legal Group 16dc-asylum-facebookJumbo U.S. Can Block Migrants Seeking Asylum, but Only in Some States, Appeals Court Rules United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Texas New Mexico Immigration and Emigration California Asylum, Right of Arizona

A federal appeals court said Friday that President Trump can begin blocking some Central American migrants from applying for asylum in the United States, but only along parts of the border with Mexico.

Migrants who seek asylum in New Mexico and Texas can be subjected to the administration’s new rules, which effectively prohibit them from requesting protection if they traveled through another country on their way to the United States unless they already tried and failed to receive asylum in that other country or countries, the court said.

But the ruling by the three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco is only a partial victory for Mr. Trump, whose immigration agenda has repeatedly been delayed by judges.

In July, a lower court had blocked the president’s new asylum rules after finding that the administration had probably violated the procedures required to put those regulations in place. The judge suspended the asylum rules nationwide while the court challenge continued.

The appeals court agreed with the lower court, but said that the judge had not provided enough evidence that the rules should be blocked across the country. The appeals panel narrowed the judge’s ruling, deciding that the tough asylum rules could not go into effect in the Ninth Circuit, which covers California and Arizona.

The ruling means that the administration can begin blocking the Central American migrants in two border states: New Mexico, which is covered by the 10th Circuit, and Texas, which is covered by the Fifth Circuit. Immigrants from Honduras, for example, who enter the United States through those states will be eligible for asylum protections only if they had been denied asylum in Guatemala or Mexico first.

Lee Gelernt, the lead lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the legal challenge to the asylum rules, said his organization plans to provide the judge in the case with more information about why the president’s rules should be blocked nationwide.

“We will put in additional evidence about the need for a nationwide injunction,” Mr. Gelernt said. “We are hopeful and optimistic that the nationwide injunction will be reinstated.”

But Mr. Gelernt also expressed optimism that the court would eventually conclude that the president’s policy violates federal law and should be permanently blocked from going into effect. He said the court rejected the Trump administration’s argument that the policy should be allowed to go into effect nationwide.

“The overriding takeaway was that the court did not feel this was clearly legal,” Mr. Gelernt said.

It was not clear whether the Trump administration would immediately begin implementing the new rules in Texas and New Mexico. A spokesman for the Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment about the ruling by the appeals court.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com