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 > Constitution

Even With AOC and The Squad Endorsing Bernie, His Campaign Is Over.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-4-300x182 Even With AOC and The Squad Endorsing Bernie, His Campaign Is Over. white house washington D.C. socialism republicans progressives President Trump political correctness Morning Briefing Mainstream Media Hillary Clinton Green New Deal Government Gender Issues Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment Endorsements elections donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Constitution Conservatives Congress Capitalism Campaigns Bipartisanship biden Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2019

Time for some honest analysis after the Tuesday CNN Debate Debacle on the candidate who has raised more money in the 3rd quarter than anyone else, Bernie Sanders.

The Sanders campaign raised just over $25 million for the 3rd quarter barely beating out Elizabeth Warren at just under $25 million according to CBS News. That would have made an interesting race going into the 4th quarter of this year as the time runs short before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hamshire primaries for both of these candidates.

Then the first week of October hit and Sanders had a heart attack and that changed the makeup of this whole primary season.

The announcement yesterday that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and the other members of The Squad will be endorsing Bernie is just a 24-hour temporary shot in the arm that will have no effect on this campaign’s demise. Nice gesture but ultimately meaningless.

So why am I saying this?

According to the CDC, Bernie Sanders was one of 790,000 Americans who have a heart attack every year. Being this was his first, he was one of 580,000 that had that happen this year. Sanders is to be commended that he took the signs seriously and had it treated immediately. This undoubtedly saved his life.

However, with all that positive news, these facts remain.

Tuesday night, anyone who was tuning in at one point or another was watching Sanders more closely than anyone else. Because of our natural curiosity to see if a 78-year-old man who is two weeks from a heart attack looks like he is ok. Every single one of us thought about it and many media outlets talked about it before the debate.

This is not meant to be mean or cruel. This is just the reality of what people think and the health reality of what a 78-year-old man who just had a major heart event goes through.

Anyone who goes through a heart attack and is lucky enough to survive has a recuperation period that has to be taken. Naturally, the younger you are, the shorter that period is generally. Bernie is, no doubt, a vibrant guy for a 78-year-old. He is also now a vibrant 78 yr old who just suffered a heart attack and wisely has been resting at home. His first campaign event since his hospital stay will be this Saturday where he will get endorsed by AOC.

However, the campaign calendar is not going to afford Bernie the time to recover. The Iowa caucuses are in 109 days and the New Hampshire primary is one week later.

I would much rather have a vigorous Bernie Sanders out on the trail making his case for his ideas and that he be defeated in that arena than for him to be sidelined like this. Plus I love Larry Davids’s impersonation of him and I want more of that.

Sanders will still be able to influence the Democratic race for the nomination from the sidelines and yes it will be from the sidelines. I’m sure all of the candidates left will be lobbying him heavily for his endorsement as they should.

However, it is only a matter of time before the lack of campaign events scheduled and the whispers of “Where is Bernie?” become the norm and ultimately force him out of the race. Sanders has proven that he is a force to be reckoned with and he still can be for many years to come.

Just not as a candidate for President of the United States.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Even With AOC and The Squad Endorsing Bernie, His Campaign Is Over. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-4-300x182 Even With AOC and The Squad Endorsing Bernie, His Campaign Is Over. white house washington D.C. socialism republicans progressives President Trump political correctness Morning Briefing Mainstream Media Hillary Clinton Green New Deal Government Gender Issues Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Entertainment Endorsements elections donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Constitution Conservatives Congress Capitalism Campaigns Bipartisanship biden Bernie Sanders Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court

Westlake Legal Group SCOTUS-300x200 Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court white house washington D.C. the washington post Supreme Court Special Counsel Social Media Social Justice SCOTUS republicans progressives President Trump Politics Policy Morning Briefing Media Liberal Elitism law Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Criminal Justice Reform Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception Academia Abortion 2019

The Left wants a list of who POTUS candidates would put in this building. 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, even if it involves progressives copying Donald Trump.

Ripping a page right out of Donald Trump’s election playbook from 2016, the group Demand Justice has called for all the Democrats running for President declare publicly who that would nominate out of the handy dandy list they provided.

How convenient and very copy cat-ish of Trump 3 years ago.

According to The Washington Post

Democratic presidential contenders are coming under increased pressure from their base to take a page from Donald Trump’s 2016 playbook and release a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees — one part of a larger strategy from party activists to make the courts a central issue in the 2020 race.

Demand Justice, a group founded to counteract the conservative wing’s decades-long advantage over liberals in judicial fights, will release a list of 32 suggested Supreme Court nominees for any future Democratic president as they ramp up their push for the 2020 contenders to do the same.

The slate of potential high court picks includes current and former members of Congress, top litigators battling the Trump administration’s initiatives in court, professors at the nation’s top law schools and public defenders. Eight are sitting judges. They have established track records in liberal causes that Demand Justice hopes will energize the liberal base.

Seems like the progressives have FINALLY learned the lesson of paying some attention to the third branch of the government.

Now you can go ahead and take a look at that list and if you are like me, be absolutely puzzled by who all those people are. Lucky for us commoners, Carrie Severino from the Judicial Crisis Network just yesterday wrote a piece over at National Review called Demand Justice’s SCOTUS List Is Too Extreme Even for Obama that helps give us an idea of the backgrounds of these folks.

From the article…

Demand Justice’s list has 32 names on it. Only four of those are Obama-nominated judges. Shockingly, only eight have any judicial experience at all! While President Trump’s list of Supreme Court nominees currently includes 24 individuals, of whom 23 are experienced federal or state judges, the extremists at Demand Justice have clearly taken a different tack. Their list — which they are lobbying Democratic candidates to adopt — is wholly consumed by far-left activism and identity politics.

They see the courts as their ticket to implementing their radical policy agenda, which includes gutting the First and Second Amendments, establishing a right to illegal immigration and abortion on demand straight through birth, and destroying our economy by imposing burdensome regulations on everyone from Main Street to Wall Street.

When I first read this I thought, well maybe the Obama nominated judges that were confirmed don’t have enough seasoning yet. Then further on reading, I find out that 24 of them don’t have ANY JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE at all.

Did no one pay attention during the Harriet Miers fiasco under Bush 43?

So the left has put together a list of people that they want on the court that the vast majority have ZERO experience on the bench. They are straight-up activists. I actually admire Demand Justice brazen truthfulness here in trying to push this on the Dems.

Severino commented on twitter about how the candidates when finally asked ran from the subject and tried to change the subject like it was the plague.

What this tells me is that the left is organizing to do the same thing conservatives have done but the candidates are not focused on this at the stage of the game they are currently in. This might change after a nominee is picked but for now, it looks like they are more interested in impeachment than who they would put onto the court.

That works for me.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SCOTUS-300x200 Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court white house washington D.C. the washington post Supreme Court Special Counsel Social Media Social Justice SCOTUS republicans progressives President Trump Politics Policy Morning Briefing Media Liberal Elitism law Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Criminal Justice Reform Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception Academia Abortion 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry

Westlake Legal Group MikePenceAPimage-300x153 V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry white house washington D.C. Social Media progressives President Trump Patriotism Morning Briefing Mike Pence Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Internet Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Campaigns axios AOC Allow Media Exception 2019

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

You just know that when the Veep told the House committee people he would not cooperate he was really nice about it also.

Late Tuesday night, the Vice President of the United States, through counsel, informed the House committees that are scrounging around doing impeachment-like things that he would not play along.

According to Axios

The counsel for Vice President Mike Pence sent a letter to the chairmen of the House committees investigating President Trump and Ukraine on Tuesday informing them that he will not cooperate with a request for documents in their “self-proclaimed” impeachment inquiry.

This was fully expected, so no surprise.

However, the announcement that Nancy Pelosi blinked and will not hold an impeachment vote as of now means that the White House strategy of pressuring the House to hold a formal vote has worked. Pence and other White House officials will not face much pressure until the House holds a vote or they take this to the courts. The courts won’t take this up soon so this is looking like a suave move by the White House.

The Trump administration is still going to have its hands full dealing with other aspects of this Ukraine story but for now, the House vote on Impeachment is tabled and the Vice President of the United States can just hang out and do what V.P’s do.

Which I’m not sure of exactly.

Here is the letter sent on behalf of the Vice President…

Dear Chairmen:

The Office of the Vice President has received the Committees’ Letter to the Vice President, dated October 4, 2019, which requests a wide-ranging scope of documents, some of which are clearly not vice-presidential records, pursuant to a self-proclaimed “impeachment inquiry.” As noted in the October 8, 2019 letter from the White House Counsel to each of you and to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the purported “impeachment inquiry” has been designed and implemented in a manner that calls into question your commitment to fundamental fairness and due process rights.

The Office of the Vice President recognizes the oversight role of your respective committees in Congress. Please know that if the Committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the Committees have appropriate requests for information solely in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers. Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the President, the Vice President, and their advisors.

As detailed in the White House Counsel Letter, the House of Representatives has not authorized any “impeachment inquiry.” Specifically, the operative House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. Instead of being accountable to the American people and casting a vote to authorize what all agree is a substantial constitutional step, you have instead attempted to avoid this fundamental requirement by invoking the Speaker’s announcement of an “official impeachment inquiry” at a press conference? Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an “impeachment inquiry” against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process.

The Office of the Vice President encourages the Committees to forgo their request to the Office of the Vice President, or hold it in abeyance, pending your discussion with the White House Counsel’s Office concerning compliance with constitutionally mandated procedures. Similarly, the Office of the Vice President encourages the Committees to first seek information from primary sources that may be responsive to your broad requests.

Sincerely,
Matthew E. Morgan

Counsel to the Vice President

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group MikePenceAPimage-300x153 V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry white house washington D.C. Social Media progressives President Trump Patriotism Morning Briefing Mike Pence Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Internet Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Campaigns axios AOC Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WHERE’S HUNTER? He Just Quit His Sweet Gig On The Board Of a Chinese Company

Westlake Legal Group 17329344-1af8-4a1f-8631-ab65d20076a0-1-300x153 WHERE’S HUNTER? He Just Quit His Sweet Gig On The Board Of a Chinese Company white house washington D.C. Ukraine Social Media progressives President Trump Patriotism News Morning Briefing Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Joe Biden International Affairs hunter biden Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story fake news Energy donald trump democrats corruption Constitution Conservatives collusion China Campaigns bloomberg Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019

(AP Photo/Nick Wass, File)

President Trump asked “Where Is Hunter?” and now we know. He just stepped down from his cool board job with a Chinese equity firm.

According to Bloomberg

Hunter Biden is stepping down from the board of a Chinese-backed private equity company and promising to forego all foreign work if his father, former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, is elected president in 2020.

After months of keeping a relatively low-profile as President Donald Trump leveled a barrage of unsubstantiated accusations of corruption at him, the younger Biden is publicly vowing to avoid any conflict of interest.

According to a statement released on his behalf by his lawyer George Mesires, Biden said he’ll resign at the end of the month from the management company of a private equity fund that’s backed by Chinese state-owned entities. He also pledged that he wouldn’t work for any foreign-owned companies or serve on their boards during a potential Biden administration. He reiterated that he never discussed his business activities with his father.

Trump has been teeing off on Hunter and his business dealings with great success. If you have noticed the rivals for the Democratic nomination have been whimpering support for Biden while snickering in the background as Trump does their work for them.

Even for those that want to look at the bright side of things. Hunter Biden has absolutely been able to capitalize on his father’s political position. He was not the first but also not the last. Just the appearance of him having no experience and getting gigs on both Ukraine and Chinese companies scream of impropriety.

Is it fair? Probably not.

Has it been fair when the Trump kids have had the same done to them? Probably not.

Here is where my friends that are #NeverTrump seem to skip or be appalled at.

The Democrats have done this stuff for years. Stern editorials were written at the Weekly Standard and National Review on the practice of Democrats doing these things, yet it continued on. Candidates for all sorts of office on the left could virtually say that Republicans are trying to kill grandma and make sure you starve to death in old age. Talking heads would go on news shows and say how outrageous it was and the practice continued.

Trump has broken all the old rules and this is the clearest example of that.

He went DIRECTLY at Joe Bidens son.

He accused the Bidens of some shady dealings ( While there is no proof you sure as hell can make the case it looks shady) and he made it stick. While others in politics would have had their surrogates go out and do the dirty work, Trump says hold my non-alcoholic beer and goes and does it himself.

That is why his most ardent supporters love him.

Trump has probably wounded Biden so badly with this that even if Joe survives the primary he will be badly damaged for the general election. So if Biden does not make it Trump faces a weaker candidate nationally. If Joe does make it he gets to tee off on him 3 times on national stages for Presidential debates.

Either way with the rule book being re-written by Trump since he came down those escalators in 2015, the way that national politics is done has been forever changed.

Get used to it.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post WHERE’S HUNTER? He Just Quit His Sweet Gig On The Board Of a Chinese Company appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 17329344-1af8-4a1f-8631-ab65d20076a0-1-300x153 WHERE’S HUNTER? He Just Quit His Sweet Gig On The Board Of a Chinese Company white house washington D.C. Ukraine Social Media progressives President Trump Patriotism News Morning Briefing Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Joe Biden International Affairs hunter biden Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story fake news Energy donald trump democrats corruption Constitution Conservatives collusion China Campaigns bloomberg Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

News Summary from the Week that Was (6 – 12 October)

As usual, these stories don’t fit the media’s “Republicans bad, Democrats good” narrative. I am doing longer quotes of fewer articles this week, as I am overseas for most of this month. Let’s get started.

1. Well, lookie here! Despite the endlessly-repeated Democrat/media narrative to the contrary, I guess Ukraine just isn’t only about the Bidens after all.

Given all the focus on nefarious Russia, you could be forgiven for missing the fact that Ukraine was always at the center of the Trump-Russia affair. Viewed in this light, the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo bribery narrative must compete with another explanation: Trump’s determination to get to the bottom of an underhanded years-long campaign arrayed against him. One of the first things he did after the Mueller report debunked the collusion narrative was to call the Ukranian president and ask him to help do just that.

The impeachment battle is not just about congressional probes and alleged presidential strong-arming, but about the Russiagate narrative. Anti-Trump forces in the government and media are working to vindicate their previous efforts and discredit a forthcoming Justice Department inquiry into the origins of Russiagate by again connecting Trump and a foreign power to a U.S. election. Although the details are different – no mention this time of hookers and golden showers – the whistleblower’s central claim closely resembles the thesis laid out in the anti-Trump dossier compiled by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, which the FBI used as its roadmap to collusion: That Trump took or solicited dirt on his Democratic opponent from a foreign power in exchange for favors to that country’s government.

 Once again, much of the media seem to be treating every allegation against Trump as probable fact, while dismissing any questions and concerns as conspiracy theories. The Ukraine story starts no later than March 2016, when Democratic Party operative and Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa approached the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington for information on the Trump campaign. Ukraine’s ambassador to Washington told [John] Solomon that Chalupa wanted to approach a member of Congress to initiate hearings on Manafort or arrange
Westlake Legal Group TruthImage2-620x333 News Summary from the Week that Was (6 – 12 October) whistleblower Ukrainian collusion in 2016 election Ukraine President Trump News Middle East Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story environmental extremism donald trump democrats Culture Corrupt Democrats Constitution Climate bill barr biden American culture Abuse of Power
for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort’s alleged Kremlin ties. Keep that in mind when Democrats and their media allies routinely suggest it is treasonous to seek foreign aid during an election. In a three-day period at the end of April 2016, for instance, Slate, the Washington Post and Guardian all published articles alleging that Manafort’s work for Yanukovych showed the Trump team was close to Russia.

This is another reminder of the double-standard that has driven so much media coverage: the eagerness to buy Clinton’s spin on Manafort and then connect Trump to it all while dismissing Biden’s clear conflicts. In driving the whistleblower chapter of the Russiagate operation, Schiff reprised the part he played in its earlier chapters. For nearly two years the California congressman filled the media with claims there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion that would bring down the president.

 [T]he subject matter, Trump’s “promise” to a foreign official, was leaked for a Sept. 18 Washington Post story including the bylines of Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima, two of the reporters who in February 2017 received a seminal leak in the Trump-Russia case, regarding a conversation between Trump’s erstwhile national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The same political operatives and journalists appear throughout the anti-Trump operation, as do the same themes and even the same language.

It was logical that Trump, and millions of other Americans, wanted to know the origins of the Russia probe and that the investigative work would be taken up by the Department of Justice. Since DoJ and FBI officials at the highest levels were implicated, it was natural that the attorney general himself would have a hand in the investigation. Thus, the panicked clamor coursing through the press at present is not about Joe Biden or his son or Trump’s alleged commerce with foreign powers. Rather, it is the fear that the Russiagate bubble is likely to burst. And the fear that none of the reporters, intelligence officials, and political operatives responsible for pushing the largest and most destructive conspiracy theory in American history will escape the ruin.

Read the rest of this great article here. It’s about protecting the seditious conspiracy, folks, and the Democrats will do anything to prevent that coming to light.

2. Let’s look at the decision to get out of Syria. It’s not the way the globalists are spinning it. Here’s some far better analysis to consider:

So which is it: is the President endangering the United States and our allies by pulling out of Syria? Betraying our allies, the Kurds? Or is he defending America’s national interest?  I have spent a lot of time with the Kurds on the ground, especially in northern Iraq, along the Iranian border. I have also met with Kurdish peshmerga generals in Iraq, as well as the overall Iraqi commander, in charge of the fight against ISIS in Mosul. That battle is over. And contrary to how MSNBC has been misquoting Sen. Lindsay Graham all day, the United States has indeed utterly defeated the ISIS caliphate.

[Trump] looks at the administration of George W. Bush and the war with Iraq, and sees the hand of deep state agents there as well. And guess what? He’s right. I wrote a book about that in 2007.  It’s called Shadow Warriors, [detailing] how a cabal of Bush-hating, pro-Democrat State Department weenies and intelligence community weasels conspired to feed false intelligence on Iraqi WMD to the Bush White House, and then blasted Bush 43 for waging a “war for oil.”

The President also argues that the Middle East wars the deep state wants us to fight are primarily tribal in nature. He’s right there as well, up to a point. Turkey will continue to whack the Kurds for as long as one Kurd remains breathing who demands his freedom and ethnic identity. The Iranians will continue to wage war against the Saudis until they have toppled the Saudi monarchy, a prospect that is becoming increasingly likely.

[I]n the World According to Trump, America wins when we have a powerful military, sitting at home, rested and well-armed, ready to fight if we ever face a serious national security challenge. Think of this: today, the U.S. Navy is defending our interests overseas with just two aircraft carrier groups: the USS Abraham Lincoln, which is prowling the seas off Oman and Iran, and the USS Ronald Reagan, patrolling the South China Sea. The five other active-duty carriers are currently sitting in their home ports so their crews can prepare for future operations. Another four are in dry dock getting refurbished, and two more are under construction. I don’t know of any other period in recent history when our military has done so much to defend our national interests with so few forces deployed around the world. And that is the world according to Trump.

Read the rest here. Bottom line: it makes perfect sense to pull out of Syria, and President Trump’s instincts in that regard are correct.

3. Our cultural institutions are kowtowing to China.

America’s elite institutions are catering to communist China. The NBA provided the latest example Sunday night, when league commissioner Adam Silver apologized for Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey’s tweet in support of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong. Rockets star James Harden followed suit and apologized to China for Morey’s tweets. China Daily, the communist government’s propaganda arm, used the NBA’s conciliatory reaction to warn other companies to learn “a lesson: The big Chinese market is open to the world, but those who challenge China’s core interests and hurt Chinese people’s feelings cannot make any profit from it.”

The NBA isn’t alone in bowing to communist China. American universities have allowed the Chinese government to fund centers called Confucius Institutes that provide the communist regime with avenues to infuse pro-China propaganda into American academia. Eighty-nine Confucius Institutes were operating in the U.S. as of September 2019, according to the National Association of Scholars. Hollywood has self-censored for years in order to ensure access to the Chinese market.  The U.S. government published a report in 2015 detailing how filmmakers tailor their messaging to appease Chinese audiences and—more importantly—Chinese government censors.

Read the rest here. Follow the money, folks, follow the money; it explains EVERYTHING with respect to China. The sad part about it is that the US trade deficit with China is a large source of the money that our cultural institutions are chasing – and for which they’re selling their souls.

4, The Left are evil, and this article proves it:

“Save the Planet, Eat the Children,” reads a T-shirt at a congresswoman’s townhall. Meanwhile, a teenager skipping school and in obvious emotional distress makes the Nobel Peace Prize shortlist for berating world leaders about a supposedly looming mass extinction. The most privileged generation in human history — enjoying the longest, healthiest, wealthiest, and most comfortable lives men and women have ever lived — thinks the world is collapsing around us.

By nearly every measurement, from child mortality and life expectancy to poverty and education, quality of life around the globe is better than it’s ever been. In much of the world, subsistence living is a thing of the past and humanity is flourishing — especially those with ready access to electricity. The Industrial Revolution, when an unprecedented boom of technological innovation transformed agrarian America into the nation we know today, wasn’t just a time of economic change and scientific progress. It propelled humanity to the most prosperous time in our history.

For all the environmentalist movement’s hand-wringing, you’d think our extinction was scheduled to commence tomorrow. But despite the wildly popular and equally wildly misinterpreted trope that all scientists agree the world is ending, there is no concrete evidence right now to suggest climate change will be anything but mild and manageable, or that we won’t be able to handle it. Humans are becoming more resilient to mild changes in average temperature. Migration trends show Americans are readily moving to warmer states. Even more crucially, deaths due to climate-related natural disasters have declined by a providential 98.9%. That is thanks to our modern-day technology, which allows meteorologists to more accurately predict storm patterns and near-instant communication keeping the public better informed and prepared. It’s the reason the Great Galveston Storm of 1900 claimed more 8,000 lives, but a recent storm of similar magnitude on the Texas coast — Hurricane Harvey — killed just 68. We can and should work to improve disaster readiness, but we should do so without the fear-mongering.

Yet climate change hysteria is plaguing an entire generation with a crippling fear of the future. Not only is foisting this burden on today’s children and young adults unhealthy— it’s simply unfair to limit the younger generation’s potential to contribute to the innovations that will drive the future. Young leaders should be empowered to pursue their passions and encouraged to experiment with new solutions, just as the greatest innovators of the past have done.

Read the rest here. The Left’s use of children to advance their political agenda here is simply child abuse. What does that say about their parents?

5. This article is absolutely correct that it’s scary! There are SO many active and retired military with whom this resonates completely.

Donald Trump came into office promising to not start any new wars and to get us out of the old ones our feckless elite had dragged us into, and now that he’s doing it in Syria the usual suspects are outraged. How dare he actually deliver on his promise not to have any more of our precious warriors shipped home in boxes after getting killed on battlefields we can’t even pronounce, while refereeing conflicts that began long before America was a thing, in campaigns without any kind of coherent objective?

Conservatives like me still think of ourselves as hawks, but after hard experience we have learned to be hawkish only where America’s interests are directly at stake. We’re not doves. We’re just not going to spill our troops’ blood when we do not absolutely have to. The elite may not like our attitude, but then it’s generally not the elite that ends up having to bury its sons, daughters, husbands and wives. We do. We have our own national interests to protect. The threat to America is not Turks imposing a security zone a few miles inside Syria. It’s China pumping out a couple warships a month and deploying new carrier-killing missiles using tech they steal from us under the noses of our politically preoccupied FBI and CIA.

If the president’s critics in Congress really want to be tough guys, let them pass a declaration of war and let them sign their names to the butcher’s bill instead of trying to get Trump to walk out to the end of the branch so they can saw it off. Let’s be clear – and I need to be crystal clear because the gung ho gang’s MO is to mischaracterize its opponents’ views to distract from the strategic bankruptcy of its own – that fighting for the Kurds would not be immoral. It’s a good cause, but we can’t intervene every time there’s a good cause. Iraq was a good cause, and a disaster. I’d come back on active duty, if the Army was that desperate, and serve there proudly. Our troops will do everything we ask of them and more. They will lay down their lives for this cause if we send them.

And that’s the point. How many dead Americans is it worth to stop the Turks and Kurds from brawling? I, and our president, say, “Exactly none.” Those who disagree owe us all an exact number of their own.

Read the rest here. The bottom line? President Trump is right yet again; he ALWAYS has Americans’ best interests in mind and is continuing to clean up the messes of prior administrations (especially Obama’s!). And he really brought home the human impact of foreign wars on an individual level during his Minneapolis rally, didn’t he?

6. Here’s how we got into the current IC “whistleblower” predicament – yet another offense to be laid directly at the foot of Obama, as it turns out! This is a phenomenal must-read article:

A whistleblower exposes structural waste, mismanagement and abuse within the civil service, among government contractors and in varied ways within the private sector. This is meant to protect employees who blow the whistle on misbehavior, not to serve as cover for assorted political agendas. In the Trump era, whistleblowing and partisan leaks to the media have been conflated by the media. Partisan government workers, some openly aligning with the “resistance” and participating in partisan groups within government agencies, have sought to undermine administration policies through leaks. These leaks were in turn meant to generate congressional investigations of cabinet officials. The impeachment effort against President Trump takes that ongoing tactic to the ultimate extreme.

The politicization of the civil service is a deeply troubling phenomenon. Efforts by members of the civil service to undermine elected officials is a threat to our entire system of representative government. This problem goes beyond the ‘Deep State’ and has shown up in a wide variety of government agencies. But its appearance in national security agencies is deeply troubling because these agencies have the infrastructure to act as a police state. The existence of national security agencies in a free country is contingent on their subservience to elected officials. Anything else isn’t whistleblowing, it’s a coup.

Obama’s Presidential Policy Directive 19 opened the door by expanding whistleblowing protection to members of the “intelligence community” and other personnel handling classified information. But PPD19 was never really meant to help the likes of Manning and Snowden. Instead it was part of a larger pattern of politicizing national security organizations that led directly to the current crisis. Both the Russians and the Democrats understood that whistleblowers were a strategic vulnerability. Whistleblowers were seen as sympathetic underdogs who were trying to do the right thing. That was the perfect camouflage for an enemy agent or the agent of a police state. Astroturfing, the practice of manufacturing grass roots efforts and building causes around individual protesters, like Greta Thunberg or David Hogg, had moved into the national security infrastructure before going off like a bomb.

The real purpose of PPD19 was to aid Obama loyalists is undermining a Romney administration. The Obama administration would not have been too worried about Romney reversing its social policies. But Romney had run sharply against Obama on national security.  And Obama’s cronies knew that there would be significant foreign policy differences there. PPD19 may have been their answer. Romney lost. PPD19 remained obscure.

By the time Trump won, the weaponization of the national security infrastructure in national politics was complete with national security organs spying on Trump associates, investigating his campaign, entrapping his associates, leaking his phone calls, and now setting the stage for impeachment. Whistleblowing protections are meant to protect government employees in the civil service from retaliation by their supervisors in the civil service when they report waste or abuse. They are not meant to allow an anonymous government employee to assist in a partisan campaign to remove the President of the United States as part of a ploy orchestrated by the opposition party. That is a breathtaking abuse that will damage whistleblower protections indefinitely. The Obama administration and its allies have tried to turn government agencies into bear traps, seeking to retain control of policymaking a network of lefty loyalists in agencies and activist judges in the courts, and, beyond that, to force out Trump appointees and to even force out President Trump.

At the heart of this crisis is the conflict between representative government and the infrastructure of government, between the will of the voters and the will of D.C., between the taxpayers and officials, that is the breaking point of any free country. Some countries lose their freedom through violent revolutions. Others ossify into an oligarchy of government officials and elites who call all the shots.

Read the rest here. More of the time bombs left by the miserable Obama to defuse at what cost to the country! His goal was always to destroy the US in all ways, and this whistleblower business undermines the people’s faith in their government just as he planned. That people still think highly of him and his administration is appalling.

7. This one is great! US Attorney John Durham’s investigation has been expanded due to the evidence collected so far.

John Durham, the U.S. attorney reviewing the origins of the 2016 counterintelligence investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign, is probing a wider timeline than previously known, according to multiple senior administration officials. [B]ased on what he has been finding, Durham has expanded his investigation adding agents and resources, the senior administration officials said. The timeline has grown from the beginning of the probe through the election and now has included a post-election timeline through the spring of 2017, up to when Robert Mueller was named special counsel.

Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham traveled to Italy recently to talk to law enforcement officials there about the probe and have also had conversations with officials in the U.K. and Australia about the investigation, according to multiple sources familiar with the meetings. Democrats increasingly have targeted Barr. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said … that Barr has “gone rogue,” alleging an attempted “cover-up” of the whistleblower complaint that has led to a formal impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

Read the rest here. This is excellent! You know that US Attorney Durham is “over the target” when Democrats like San Fran Nan concoct excuses to go after AG Barr and are trying to spin the investigation into something that is entirely politically motivated. Weren’t they the ones supposedly the most concerned about “foreign influence in US elections”?

8. And we’ll finish up this week’s summary with this item that continues the unraveling of the Democrats’ Ukraine hit-job against POTUS:

The intel community inspector general testified Friday to congressional investigators that the so-called “whistleblower” who mischaracterized President Trump’s call with the leader of Ukraine had a previous “professional relationship” with a 2020 Democrat candidate. “The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates,” one person with knowledge of inspector general Michael Atkinson’s testimony told the Examiner’s Byron York.

In another conversation with York, a second source revealed: “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.”

Read the rest here. Every day there’s something new that chips away at the Democrats’ Ukraine narrative. There are a bunch of them who have some really tight sphincters now, especially those complicit in Crowdstrike and Burisma Holdings shenanigans.

Honorable mentions for this week include:

Here is the short summary of this week’s news items:

  • Ukraine isn’t about the Bidens’ corruption per se; it’s about corruption in general, as well as Democrat collusion with a foreign power during the 2016 election cycle.
  • POTUS made a deal with Turkey to pull the US out of northern Syria, and the usual suspects are unhinged about it.
  • American institutions continue to kowtow to the ChiComs. It’s all about the money!
  • The Left’s use of children to further their climate alarmist hoax(es) is criminal.
  • Kurt Schlichter provides the perfect rationale for getting out of northern Syria.
  • How we got into the current whistleblower kerfuffle is explained by Daniel Greenfield – yet another disaster laid at the feet of the Obama regime.
  • US Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the counter-intel investigation of the Trump campaign has been expanded into the spring of 2017 timeframe due to evidence collected to date.
  • Lastly, we learned that the Ukraine “whistleblower” (better known as a leaker) had a “professional relationship” (i.e., was in a paid position) with a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate!

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting the impression that we’re really close to the dam breaking on investigations and indictments of major cabal figures. The legacy media and Democrats are making insane comments, and their violent arm (Antifa) were acting up again – this time in Minneapolis. The Barr/Durham investigation into the origins of the 2016 counter-intel investigation is flushing out the rats. Blowing the lid off Crowdstrike and Ukraine will destroy the Democrats (and some Uniparty Republicans, as well). Also note the apoplectic response of Uniparty figures to POTUS’s decision to withdraw from Turkey. No more gravy train of “nation-building” and arms-trading corruption for them! And how about Shifty’s unforced error in which he claimed the Ukraine “whistleblower” was receiving death threats (pretty difficult for an anonymous guy to get a death threat!). And it now appears that the Ukraine leaker/”whistleblower” was linked to Joe Biden.

There’s a lot more coming in the weeks ahead, especially the Barr/Durham investigation report and the DoJ OIG report on FISA abuse. And DECLAS is the trump card (pun intended). Stay tuned….

The end.

The post News Summary from the Week that Was (6 – 12 October) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group TruthImage2-300x161 News Summary from the Week that Was (6 – 12 October) whistleblower Ukrainian collusion in 2016 election Ukraine President Trump News Middle East Hillary Clinton Front Page Stories Featured Story environmental extremism donald trump democrats Culture Corrupt Democrats Constitution Climate bill barr biden American culture Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Beto vs Booker, Who Will Drop Out First After Religious Bigotry Statements?

Westlake Legal Group Freedom-of-religion-stand-up-300x164 Beto vs Booker, Who Will Drop Out First After Religious Bigotry Statements? white house washington D.C. Supreme Court Social Media religion progressives polls Politics Media journalism Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post entitlements Entertainment donald trump democrats Courts Cory Booker Constitution Conservatives collusion CNN catholic news agency Campaigns anti-semitism Allow Media Exception Academia Abuse of Power 2019

What a week in truly finding out where some of the Democrats running for President feel about the separation of Church and State.

The topic of the Beto Bomb that was dropped in a CNN forum has been covered extensively all over the interwebs by others and right here at Red State by Bonchie and Joe Cunningham.

However, something that did not garner much attention was that Sen. Corey Booker from New Jersey essentially said the same thing. He just didn’t go all SPARTACUS about it.

The Catholic News Agency picks it up…

On Thursday night, during and Equality Townhall hosted and broadcast on CNN, Robert Francis O’Rourke, a former congressman, was asked by CNN anchor Don Lemon if he thought that “religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same sex marriage?”

O’Rourke answered “yes,” and after applause and cheers from the crowd, added, “there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so, as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

That’s the part we already know. Here is the part most people have not seen.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), another presidential candidate, was asked earlier in the night if he would strip the tax-exempt status of churches who were opposed to same-sex marriage. Booker said that such a move would entail a “long legal battle,” but signaled his sympathy with the idea.

“I’m saying I believe fundamentally that discrimination is discrimination,” he said. “And if you are using your position to try to discriminate others, there must be consequences to that. And I will make sure to hold them accountable using the DOJ or whatever investigatory [body].”

So here we have in the year 2019, two major candidates for President of the United States saying that they want the United States government to FORCE religious institutions to abide by the modern-day #WOKENESS that has gripped the Feelings over Facts crowd.

That should scare you.

Now it is no coincidence that both Beto and Booker are both circling the drain at just around 2% in the latest polling I have read. This is obviously a desperate attempt to shoot up to over 4% and steal the nomination from Biden.

Will it work? No, not for this cycle.

The way these things work though is those two candidates floated an idea and now the top tier candidates will do polling to see if it works with the base. My guess is those churches in the deep south and the mosques in Minnesota will be equally opposed to being singled out for being called bigots and losing any sort of tax-exempt status they have.

The idea though, now having been introduced will be debated among the progressive left and will gain steam. Bernie Sander candidacy in 2016 and this time around has shown that the actual ideas do not matter. Just the feelings that surround those ideas. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy than roll with it.

We should all be about the discussion of ideas and have vigorous national debates on it. These things usually turn into a discussion on your feelings though and that is just irrelevant and that is just a damn shame.

The only thing left to do for Beto and Booker after agreeing that this horrible idea is worth exploring is to guess which one of these “serious” candidates will be the first to call it quits in their futile race.

My money is on Beto. Anyone who is scared to use their real name that DOESNT work in Hollywood is too timid to be President.

Place your bets.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Beto vs Booker, Who Will Drop Out First After Religious Bigotry Statements? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Freedom-of-religion-stand-up-300x164 Beto vs Booker, Who Will Drop Out First After Religious Bigotry Statements? white house washington D.C. Supreme Court Social Media religion progressives polls Politics Media journalism Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post entitlements Entertainment donald trump democrats Courts Cory Booker Constitution Conservatives collusion CNN catholic news agency Campaigns anti-semitism Allow Media Exception Academia Abuse of Power 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden calls for impeachment: “He’s shooting holes in the Constitution”

Westlake Legal Group 894be475-4a0d-496f-9b9e-8a6d5804c00a Biden calls for impeachment: “He’s shooting holes in the Constitution” The Blog President Trump Joe Biden impeachment Constitution 2020 election 2020 Democrat candidates

Remember when Joe Biden was marketing himself as the strong, steady Democrat in the presidential primary? He resisted calling for President Trump’s impeachment even when most of the other candidates did. That changed Wednesday.

Biden joined the chorus of Democrats demanding President Trump’s impeachment – not simply to investigate and hold impeachment inquiries. He jumped all the way to impeachment. He slowly got to this point after starting in April to call for hearings.

Biden had been more cautious than his Democratic competitors to call for impeachment. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is neck-and-neck with Biden in recent polls, called for an impeachment inquiry into Trump in April after former special counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

In late September, Biden made his call for an impeachment inquiry conditional and said if Trump did not cooperate with Congress, he would leave lawmakers with “no choice” but to start impeachment proceedings. Later that same day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump. Pelosi’s call came after Trump admitted to discussing Biden and his son, Hunter, in his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and after dozens of House Democrats — many from moderate or Trump-won districts — announced their support for an inquiry.

The tone and much of the speech reminded me of Mitt Romney’s diatribe against Trump in March 2016 when Mitt called him all sorts of names in a last-ditch effort to derail Trump’s nomination. Biden called Trump a coward and a bully. “He’s shooting holes in the Constitution and we cannot let him get away with it.”

And all I hear is blah, blah, blah.

With his call for impeachment, Biden now makes himself indistinguishable from the others. The candidate who is supposed to be the comfortable old shoe who is reasoned and a safe alternative to the socialists running for the Democrat nomination now sounds like the far-left ideologues who toss due process out the window while claiming that it is Trump who is going against the Constitution.

Biden did what many Trump critics do – he claims Trump is doing what “no president in history” has done. That’s ironic because many conservatives, including myself, distinctly remember having the same thoughts during the Obama administration.

“Trump will do anything to get re-elected, including violating the most basic forms of democracy. It’s stunning, and it’s dangerous,” Biden said. He added, “No president in history has dared to engage in such unimaginable behavior.”

Good old Joe was just fine with Obama and Pelosi ramming through Obamacare on a party-line vote and hijacking 1/6 of the American economy, politicizing every government agency and department you can think of, and Obama’s public berating of Republicans at every opportunity. Remember when Obama said, “Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight”? Doesn’t that kind of language fall into “do anything to get re-elected” territory? That was then and this is now.

I keep waiting for someone to tell me specifically exactly what it is that Trump has done to require that he be impeached. Biden’s jumping on the impeachment bandwagon now shows that he is worried about three things.

First, Biden is sinking in the polls and he’s no longer the frontrunner. He is now bouncing back and forth with Elizabeth Warren for the top spot in the RCP average. Yesterday she was 0.2 ahead of him and this morning as I write this, Biden is 0.2 ahead of Warren. She still leads him by 2.7 in Iowa while Biden is ahead of Warren in New Hampshire by 1.4. He delivered his impeachment speech in New Hampshire yesterday, by the way.

Second, Biden is old. He is older than Trump and Warren but younger than Bernie Sanders. Biden has his own health concerns to worry about. The latest physical sign of his frailty was the bloody eye incident during the debate. While Biden loves to boast about how macho he is by saying things like he’ll beat Trump “like a drum” or saying how he’d take a bully like Trump behind the gym and beat the hell out of him, he appears frail. He stammers when he speaks and often sounds confused.

Third, the investigation into Trump’s handling of the phone call with Zelensky opens up a can of worms for Biden and his family. The family’s corruption is now in the spotlight. There is an interesting article at The Intercept that lays out some of Biden’s problems due to his son Hunter and brother James using the family name to enrich themselves. The online publication is liberal – you just have to skip over the obvious conservative-bashing language as the author tells the story.

But that doesn’t mean the Bidens’ behavior isn’t a legitimate problem for Democrats. Indeed, Biden has been taking political hits over of the intersection of his family’s financial dealings and his own political career for some four decades. Yet he has done nothing publicly to inoculate himself from the charge that his career is corruptly enriching his family, and now that is a serious liability. By contrast, one of his opponents in the presidential primary, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., went so far as to refuse to endorse his son Levi Sanders when he ran for Congress, saying that he does not believe in political dynasties. In defending the Biden’s nepotistic relationship, Democrats would be forced to argue that, to be fair, such soft corruption is common among the families of senior-level politicians. But that’s a risky general-election argument in a political moment when voters are no longer willing to accept business-as-usual. For now, Biden’s opponents in the presidential campaign appear to all hope that somebody else will make the argument, while congressional Democrats don’t want to do anything to undermine their impeachment probe. And so Biden skates.

I wrote about Sanders refusing to endorse his son, Levi, back in June 2018.

It all boils down to this – Joe is nervous and his campaign isn’t going well. The people around him seem to be unable to jumpstart excitement about his candidacy and Elizabeth Warren has the enthusiasm of primary voters and crowds to move her ahead. The contrast between Warren and Biden is noticeable. At age 70, she is the Energizer Bunny compared to Biden. At this point, the lead spot is hers to lose.

The post Biden calls for impeachment: “He’s shooting holes in the Constitution” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group 894be475-4a0d-496f-9b9e-8a6d5804c00a-300x153 Biden calls for impeachment: “He’s shooting holes in the Constitution” The Blog President Trump Joe Biden impeachment Constitution 2020 election 2020 Democrat candidates   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Politifact Gets Wrecked After Attempting to “Fact-Check” Claims About an Obama Quote

Westlake Legal Group media.townhall-1-620x317 Politifact Gets Wrecked After Attempting to “Fact-Check” Claims About an Obama Quote WRONG Wrecked Politifact Politics No Power media bias lie immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Fact Checker democrats daca Constitution Barack Obama Allow Media Exception

Fact-checkers gonna fact-check and Politifact is no different. The industry of pretending to be unbiased while operating as total hacks is apparently good for the bottom line.

The most recent example comes courtesy of a claim about DACA and Barack Obama, namely whether he ever admitted he didn’t have the authority to enact such an order. This all came in a snarky reply to, who else, Donald Trump. The President had tweeted out this.

Anyone that’s been around for more than five minutes knows that’s objectively true. Barack Obama said multiple times, publicly, that he did not have the authority to enact DACA and that Congress had to be the ones to act.

Despite these obvious facts, Politifact road in to try to rescue the former president from criticism of his own words.

So much fact checking.

Ironically, a reporter from The Washington Post that stepped in to set them straight.

I now can’t find that post from Seung Min Kim on her timeline, so perhaps she deleted it? Either way, she was right the first time. Obama absolutely said that it’s “just not the case” that he can suspend deportations and he did with DACA.

And just to cap all this off, Politifact’s own site had found the claim that Obama did say that “mostly true” previously.

These fact-checking sites are just absolute dumpster fires.

The post Politifact Gets Wrecked After Attempting to “Fact-Check” Claims About an Obama Quote appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-obama-clinton-dnc-300x208 Politifact Gets Wrecked After Attempting to “Fact-Check” Claims About an Obama Quote WRONG Wrecked Politifact Politics No Power media bias lie immigration Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Fact Checker democrats daca Constitution Barack Obama Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part II

Westlake Legal Group AP_17174023673327 The Court Is in Session – Part II transgender Title VII Supreme Court SCOTUS LGBT law Judicial Guns gun control Gender Issues gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page employment discrimination Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019

FILE – This Jan. 25, 2012, file photo, shows the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington. The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Earlier, we highlighted the cases heard by the Supreme Court on Monday of this week (as well as the many delights of October!) Three more cases were heard by the Court yesterday, all on very “hot button” issues.  (READ: The Court Is in Session – Part I.)

First up was Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. This case examines the applicability of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to claims of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.  The pertinent portion of the Act prohibits discrimination in the employment context “because of [an] individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”  The law was first passed in 1964 and has not, to date, been construed (by SCOTUS) to encompass sexual orientation or transgenderism. Plaintiff Gerald Bostock was a coordinator for child welfare services in Clayton County, Georgia, for a number of years.  In 2013, he joined a gay recreational softball league and, according to Bostock, “from that point on, my life changed, ” he says. “Within months, I was fired for being gay. I lost my livelihood. I lost my medical insurance and at the time I was fighting prostate cancer. It was devastating.” Bostock filed suit in federal court in Georgia, alleging that his termination violated Title VII, in that his termination (ostensibly for being gay) was prohibited by the “because of sex” provision.

Bostock’s case was consolidated for oral argument with Altitude Express v. Zarda, a case filed in federal court in New York by Donald Zarda following his 2010 termination by his skydiving company employer.  Zarda had informed a customer that he was gay in order to allay her concerns about being strapped together with him during the jump.  The customer complained and Zarda was terminated. He asserted this was due to the customer’s homophobia (though the customer also contended that he had touched her inappropriately during the jump.) Zarda died in a base jumping accident in Switzerland in 2014 and his family continued the litigation in his name.  Similar to BostockZarda involves the question of whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is encompassed within the language of Title VII.

The consolidated cases were then followed by the case of Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. This was another employment discrimination case, only Harris involves the question of whether the provisions of Title VII also prohibit discrimination based on an individual being transgender. In that case, Aimee Stephens, a Michigan funeral director, was terminated following her declaration in 2013 that she intended to live and dress as a woman. (Prior to 2013, Stephens was known as “Anthony” and dressed and lived as a man.) Stephens made a claim for discrimination with the EEOC, which then sued the funeral home, asserting that firing Stephens for being transgender violated Title VII.

ACLU attorney David Cole presented an interesting argument on behalf of Stephens:

Cole described the case in simple terms. Stephens is being treated differently because of the sex she was assigned at birth. If she had been assigned a female sex at birth, he argued, she would not have been fired for wanting to come to work dressed as a woman. But instead she was assigned a male sex, Cole continued, and so she was fired because she failed to conform to the sex stereotypes of her employer. It can’t be the case, Cole asserted, that Ann Hopkins – the plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s original case on sex stereotyping – couldn’t be fired or denied a promotion for being insufficiently feminine, but Stephens could be fired for being insufficiently masculine.

Once again, SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe provides an excellent analysis of Tuesday’s arguments.  The transcripts of the arguments can be found here and here.

We’ll provide additional overviews as to upcoming arguments, as well as some in-depth analysis, in the coming days. However, I also want to point out that the Court granted certiorari this past Friday on several more cases of interest: June Medical Serv., et al. v. Gee, Sec., LA Dept. of Health (consolidated with) Gee, Sec., LA Dept. of Healthv. June Medical Serv., et al. – cases involving a challenge to the Louisiana law which requires admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions; United States v. Sineneng-Smith (reviewing a 9th Circuit decision which found a federal law making it a felony to encourage or induce illegal immigration for financial gain unconstitutionally broad).  Look for these cases to be heard early in 2020. Additionally, on Monday, the Court opted to move forward with oral argument in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a case involving New York City’s since-repealed ban on transporting guns outside the city limits, despite the fact that the ban was subsequently changed.  This one is now scheduled to be heard in December.

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

The post The Court Is in Session – Part II appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 2019-supreme-court-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part II transgender Title VII Supreme Court SCOTUS LGBT law Judicial Guns gun control Gender Issues gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page employment discrimination Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016?

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-300x221 Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? washington state washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics News Morning Briefing Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post faithless electors elections donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress Colorado Campaigns Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia 2019

The year 2016 was a doozy of an election on the national level. Donald Trump surprised a lot of people ( including myself) when he won the Presidency and made Hillary a two-time loser in POTUS runs. The reason why Trump was able to pull off this feat was because of two simple words.

Electoral College.

I have written here at Red State before about this…READ  Yuck: Colorado Decides To Bypass The Electoral College With National Popular Vote and the reason why it needs to be preserved.

Now a new challenge is possibly facing a showdown in the United States Supreme Court and it could radically alter how we have done elections in this country for over 240 years.

According to…CNN

Three presidential electors in Washington state who voted for Colin Powell in 2016 rather than Hillary Clinton and were fined under state law, are asking the US Supreme Court to take up their appeal and decide whether a state can bind an elector to vote for the state’s popular vote winner.

“The original text of the Constitution,” their lawyers argued in court papers filed Monday afternoon, “secures to electors the freedom to vote as they choose.”

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the appeal of the so-called “faithless electors,” it could thrust the justices into yet another high-passion political fight in the heat of the 2020 presidential election. It comes as some predict that the volatile political atmosphere and disputes over redistricting could further emphasize the role of the Electoral College in the upcoming election.

The states have always run federal elections. However, with this new wrinkle, the states would pick people who then do not have to abide by the state’s very own rules if the faithless electors are ruled constitutional on a federal level.

The 10th amendment to the United States Consitution declares that…

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

Even though people have argued that the 12th amendment was passed to deal with some complications in the process of federal elections it does not specifically say how states were to deal with the rules for selecting electors. That, at least in my mind would mean that the states get to pick the process.

However, can you imagine a scenario where 10 or 12 states have a different processes to pick and allow electors to do what they want? That would be an epic mess.

I am fascinated about this whole process and will keep an eye on what SCOTUS decides to do. I don’t think they have much choice to take it up and we will see soon enough.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group electoral-college-300x221 Will The Supreme Court Get Involved in an Electoral College Issue From 2016? washington state washington D.C. Supreme Court SCOTUS Politics News Morning Briefing Impeachment of President Trump impeachment Government Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post faithless electors elections donald trump democrats Constitution Conservatives Congress Colorado Campaigns Bill Clinton Allow Media Exception Academia 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com